Features

The questionable wisdom for pursuing LNG

Published

5 months ago

2025/01/26

by Eng Parakrama Jayasinghe

I have been advocating the need for a rational evaluation of the need if any, and the wisdom of adopting LNG as an option for our energy needs, since 2019. The following have been published in the national papers.

The LNG Saga

–http://epaper.island.lk/paper/2021/10/04

The LNG Option –Need for a deeper re-think urgently – Dec 4, 2019

http://island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=215420#

What do we need? LNG or NG or neither? – Nov 8, 2019

I am led to wonder if I have been just wasting my time and efforts, judging from the recent events, as we hear the same inadequately analyzed and ill conceived and outdated proposals being aggressively pursued in total disregard to the significant changes which have been happening throughout the world in the interim. Now a cabinet paper has been submitted citing massive savings, which a commentator has claimed to be overstated by 100% using the data in the same expert report, based on which the Cabinet Paper has been drafted.

LNG switch: Cabinet paper contains flawed projected savings | Print Edition – The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka

If this is true, it would only continue the familiar trend ever since the idea was first put forward many years ago, cherry picking of data to fit the notion including patently erroneous or unsubstantiated assumptions.

It will be recalled that the use of LNG as a source of fuel for power generation was proposed as a transitional fuel about ten years ago. Since no one wanted to openly object to the growing and successful development of renewable energy, LNG was proposed to be the intermediate solution until the solar and wind energy became financially viable and technically reliable. That was over ten years ago.

However, the fact that much has changed even in Sri Lanka, in the adoption of both these technologies and it is now universally accepted that Renewable Energy is more economical than any fossil fuel based power in addition to being environmentally benign. There are dozens of references, including the International Energy Agency ( https://www.iea.org/ ) confirming this status.

But unfortunately, the same old outdated arguments are being trotted forward in total disregard to the much changed ground realities. The primary culprit is the Ceylon Electricity Board planners who find it impossible to get rid of their bias for continued dependence on imported fossil fuels and the prejudice against the indigenous renewable energy (RE) resources contrary to the often repeated assurance of their support for the development of RE. Perhaps due to the fear of losing their strangle hold on the electricity sector as the state monopoly or some other agendas which I will leave the readers to judge.

Fig 1- LNG- Price variation 2017 -2021 . Price $ 5.0 /MMBTU and US $ = Rs 210

A few years ago the attraction of LNG was understandable, both due to the fact that the world LNG prices were at a historical low, and there was hope of our own Natural Gas in the Mannar basin being developed, so that any local investments to adopt the LNG option both in way of the infrastructure and generation facilities appeared justifiable.

The circumstances have changed so much that such justification can no longer be done with the much increased price of LNG and the highly depreciated Rupee, proving once more the danger of dependence on imported fossil fuels, on supply of which we have no control on one side and the continued enhanced drain of FOREX on the other. The long petrol and gas queues and hours long power cuts not long ago were the direct result of such dependence. Replacing oil with LNG is certainly not the solution now, when the alternatives have proven commercially viable even in Sri Lanka and in the rest of the world .

But does the CEB or their consultants or their masters in the Ministry of Power and the government , give any consideration to these altered circumstances, let alone the undeniable and encouraging progress made in the adoption of RE resources which do not require any imported fuels and are cheaper and environmentally benign? It is a great national tragedy that this is hardly the case.

The present government of the NPP, appears to have been sold the same recipe of the now mythical essential need and the value of LNG, as even their policy documents have listed LNG as the option for the future.

The CEB with the support of the newly appointed Minister and the Secretary has pounced upon this as an imperative in total disregard for the other established policies of

· Reaching 70% RE contribution by 2030 and Carbon neutrality by 2050

· Adopting least economic cost mode of generation

· None dependence on imported energy sources for future energy security and thereby the National Security

· Cease building of new coal-fired power plants. A new policy is added

· New addition of firm capacity will be from clean energy sources such as re-gasified liquefied natural gas (R-LNG).

This last statement is highly contestable as LNG is not clean in consideration of the entire supply chain and is reported to be 33% higher emitter of Carbon Dioxide than coal.

The falsity and Lack of Coherence of CEB Arguments in support

And CEB continues to pursue their lopsided arguments and have proposed addition of over 3,500 MW of LNG based power in their Long Term Generation Plan from 2025 to 2044. Now the Chairman has advocated to the government, that the stalled tender for the development of a Floating Storage and Re-Gasification Unit ( FSRU) be reactivated. But no mention has been made of any arrangement to source LNG and the reliability of such supplies in the long term, which one would have thought is the primary requirement before any steps are taken in building user end facilities.

Fig 2 – Current Price trends of LNG –

Sri Lanka certainly cannot claim to be out of bankruptcy, although some measure of stability has been attained only by postponing the repayment of massive amount of foreign loans, which will come to haunt us in the near future as close as 2028. Thus, understandably the government is very keen to increase the FOREX earnings to reduce the continuing gap between cost of imports and the export earnings. Therefore, without a much broader and deeper analysis of the claimed advantages and savings and as the panaceas for resolving the technical issues faced by the CEB, a hasty decision to opt for addition of LNG could hardly be considered wise.

This is a matter of great national concern and such a decision which will only exacerbate the Balance of Payments cannot be left to the CEB or even the Ministry of Energy without intense in-depth analysis . This should cover all aspects of costs , reliability in the long term of supplies and costs and other economic considerations approved after a much wider stakeholder consultation. Hitherto there has never been such a comprehensive study or consultation. The present promise of lower cost of generation yet to be proven and in total disregard to the above issues is certainly not acceptable.

The issues which a has come to light both during the earlier instances when such hasty decisions were mooted and also in the analysis of the Draft Long Term Generation Expansion Plan 2025-2044 are discussed below.

· The cost of LNG based power generation.

This must include not only the cost of the LNG itself but also all other costs involved in the deployment of the FSRU and regassification process and the piping of the re-gassified LNG to the coast as well as the added pipe network required to reach the power plant. While some numbers can be quoted on the world prices of LNG and the historical trends, there are no established costs of the other aspects. The reality in respect of the world prices then and now are shown below .

The change in world market price of LG and its impact on Sri Lanka can be compared as below

As such how can anyone even contemplate a flat trajectory for future prices as childishly shown in the above chart used in the LTEGP? Even a simple private businessman would not plan any future venture based on such impossible projections. But then the CEB is not held responsible for any disasters they have been causing over the years and plans to plunge the entire country to anther disaster.

Fig 3 – CEB prediction of LNG prices The change in world market price of LG and its impact on Sri Lanka can be compared as below

The LTGEP reveals that that the annual natural gas consumption will remain at a very low level (below 0.6 MTPA) till 2035. This will add a substantial cost to the capacity charge of the FSRU which has to be accounted for when the total LNG fuel costs are calculated and thus further increase the cost of generation.

The demand will remain low at about 0.6 MTPA which is well below the capacity of a FSRU that would interest any investor. There is an attempt to blow this up by planning totally unacceptable plans to increase demand by converting the aging plants at Kelanitissa and even to use if for transport.

It is quite unlikely that any investors would be interested in catering to such low volumes unless there is provision for substantial premiums on the sale price. This added to the current East Asia price of $ 15.04 plus the other charges have already made this option none viable. Using even the declared price of $ 11.90 the cost of generation would be over Rs 55.00 /kWh. https://view.argusmedia.com

For Sri Lanka , the governing factor is the cost of generation which must include the entire supply chain and infra structure costs development and operation, including any take or pay provisions or premiums for lower scope of supplies. These considerations have been swept under the carpet by erroneous data and plainly misleading numbers such as assuming that the price of LNG will be none variable in the future. This was done in case of coal and is still being practiced.

Fig 5 – LNG demand prediction in LTEGP 2024-2044

Promise of a Clean Fuel

It is futile to try and paint LNG as clean and low in carbon emission. The carbon emission has to be gauged across the entire supply chain. There are studies to say that LNG is has 33% higher carbon emission than coal.

Green washed: LNG emits 33% more carbon than coal, new report finds

As such the promise of LNG already fails on both counts based on which it has been promoted. That of economical cost of generation and the green house emissions. This is without any consideration of the totally avoidable additional drain of foreign exchange.

What does the CEB expects to gain by this addition of LNG?

The only reason for the CEB to pursue this goal is only to perpetuate the dependence on imported fossil fuels, now that their former goal of adding more coal power has been soundly rejected even by the previous government. There is no way that this can be considered a progressive move on one hand because of the continued drain on foreign exchange for the import of LNG and the impact on the long term energy security of the country with dependence on a source completely outside the control of Sri Lanka.

They hide these dangers by citing issues of a need for Base Load power and spinning reserves and the none firm nature of the two renewable energy sourced of solar and wind.

All these problems have been well resolved by other countries and the CEB chooses to turn a blind eye to promote this nationally disastrous move even going to the extent of citing patently false data.

The Ministry and the Government must take urgent action to understand the truth and prevent this disaster being perpetuated.

Conclusion

The Government has several promises to keep.

· Build up the FOREX reserves to face the debt repayment challenge in 2028

· Reduce the consumer tariff by 35%.

Both these will be highly doubt full if the CEB is continued these unviable proposals. Their claim of inability to reduce the consumer tariff was soundly debunked by highly researched presentations made during the recent public consultations. It was also pointed out that the consumer tariff can be reduced significantly reduced by eliminating the use of oil for power generation as early as possible. The CEB now proposes to replace such positive trend by committing the country to perhaps even more damaging introduction of LNG.

The CEB is driven only by their inability and unwillingness to change their Frog in The Well attitude and assimilate the more progressive developments in the RE sector in the best interests of Sri Lanka and its citizens. The question has to be asked, is the CEB or even the Ministry of Energy can be trusted to make such decisions which affects the entire country without a wide ranging public consultation?

The Ministry and the Govt should at least now officially assign the responsibility and accountability of achieving the national objectives, of much reduced consumer tariff and goal of reaching the 70% RE target by year 2030.

This is the right of the People of Sri Lanka , who are the true owners of the Energy Sector and Resources and are the major Stake Holder and not the CEB

All News Advertisement

Features

UN’s challenge of selective accountability without international equity

Published

23 hours ago

2025/06/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Volker Türk

The visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, later this month may possibly be overshadowed by the eruption of hostilities in the Middle East following Israel’s attack on Iran. The High Commissioner’s visit to Sri Lanka relates to the series of resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council over the past sixteen years since the end of the war. It will highlight the contradiction in the rules-based international order when geopolitical interests override legal commitments. These resolutions highlight the importance of protecting human rights during times of conflict and ensuring accountability for war crimes. They are part of the enduring legacy of international human rights and humanitarian law, as exemplified by the Geneva Conventions and the global post-war consensus that atrocity crimes should not go unpunished.

The High Commissioner’s visit is likely to provoke criticism that the United Nations is pursuing Sri Lanka’s adherence to international norms with greater zeal than it shows toward violations by more powerful countries. There appears to be acquiescence, indeed even tacit approval, by influential states in response to Israel’s military actions in both Iran and Gaza on the grounds of existential threats to Israel. Similar military actions were taken in 2003 by the US and the UK governments, among other international powers, to destroy weapons of mass destruction alleged to be in Iraq. One of the central arguments made by critics of the UN’s engagement in Sri Lanka is that double standards are at play. These critics contend that the United Nations disproportionately targets weaker countries, thereby reinforcing an international system that turns a blind eye to powerful countries and, in doing so, undermines the credibility and coherence of global human rights standards.

The arrival of the High Commissioner is also likely to reignite internal debate in Sri Lanka about the purpose and legitimacy of UN involvement in the country. The question is whether international standards effectively contribute to national transformation, or do they risk being reduced to symbolic gestures that satisfy external scrutiny without generating substantive change. There will be those who regard international engagement as a necessary corrective to domestic failings, and others who see it as an infringement on national sovereignty. The question of accountability for war crimes committed during the three-decade-long civil war remains a deeply divisive and sensitive issue. Sri Lanka, with its own complex and painful history, has the opportunity to lead by example by reckoning with the past unlike many other countries who justify their atrocities under the veil of national security.

International Breakdown

The modern international system emerged in the wake of two catastrophic world wars and the recognised failure of early twentieth-century diplomacy to prevent mass violence. At its core was a collective pledge to establish a rules-based international order that could maintain peace through law, institutional cooperation, and multilateral governance. The development of international human rights and humanitarian law was most pronounced in the aftermath of the mass atrocities and immense human suffering of World War II. The powerful nations of the time resolved to lead a new global order in which such horrors would never be repeated.

This vision of a rules-based international order as a safeguard against a return to the law of the jungle, where power alone determined justice was institutionalised through the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and the establishment of international courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. However, this international system has come under increasing strain in recent decades. Recent events show that it no longer functions as originally envisioned. In practice, the consistent application of international law, regardless of the status or power of a state, is frequently compromised. The selective enforcement of legal norms, particularly by powerful countries, has eroded the legitimacy of the system and calls into question the universalism at the heart of international law.

At present, at least three major international conflicts taking place in Ukraine, Gaza, and now the confrontation between Israel and Iran, illustrate a sustained breakdown in the enforcement of international legal norms. These conflicts involve powerful states that openly defy legal obligations, with the international community, especially its more influential members, often remaining conspicuously silent. Only a handful of countries, such as South Africa, have chosen to raise issues of international law violations in these conflicts. The broader silence or selective rationalisation by powerful countries has only reinforced the perception that international law is subject to political convenience, and that its authority can be subordinated to geopolitical calculation. Earlier examples would include the ruination of prosperous countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Uphold Consistency

The Sri Lankan situation illustrates the importance of preserving an international legal system with mechanisms for credible and impartial accountability. Sri Lanka, so far, has been unable to address the issues of accountability for serious war-time human rights violations through internal mechanisms. However, the broader lesson from Sri Lanka’s experience is that international norms ought not to be applied selectively. If global institutions aspire to uphold justice by holding smaller or less powerful countries accountable, they must apply the same standards to powerful states, including Israel, Russia, and the United States. Failing to do so risks creating the perception that the international legal system is an instrument of coercion and selective punishment rather than a foundation for equitable global justice.

Despite the prevalence of double standards in international practice, it remains in Sri Lanka’s national interest to support the principles and implementation of international law. The existence of international law, however weak, offers some level of protection that smaller countries have when faced with the predatory behaviour of more powerful states. For this reason, the Sri Lankan government must do all it can to uphold its prior commitments to the UN Human Rights Council and implement the promises it has made to the fullest extent possible. In multilateral forums, including the UN, Sri Lanka must reassert these commitments as strategic assets that help to defend its sovereignty and legitimacy. At the same time, Sri Lanka needs to take up the challenge of using these international platforms to highlight the problem of selective enforcement. Sri Lanka can contribute to the broader call for a more principled and consistent application of international law by demonstrating its seriousness in protecting vulnerable populations and position itself as a responsible and principled actor in the international community.

Engaging with the past in accordance with international standards is also essential for Sri Lanka’s internal reconciliation and social cohesion. The principles of transitional justice—truth, accountability, reparations, and institutional reform—are not only universally applicable but also critical to the long-term development of any post-conflict society. These principles apply across all contexts and periods. If Sri Lanka is to evolve into a united, stable, and prosperous country, it must undertake this process, regardless of what other countries do or fail to do. Only by acknowledging and addressing its own past can Sri Lanka build a future in which its multi-ethnic and multi-religious character becomes a source of strength rather than weakness.

by Jehan Perera

Features

A model for reconciliation

Published

23 hours ago

2025/06/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Volker Türk

Conciliation between parties to a conflict involves two basic processes. The common factor to both is identifying the perpetrators associated with the conflict and holding them accountable for their actions, because of the belief that atonement for the violations committed help the aggrieved survivors to ease their pain without which reconciliation is not possible. One process involves Voluntary Admission of the TRUTH to the point of admitting guilt on the part of the perpetrators for the violations committed and Forgiveness on the part of the victims. Another process is to establish the TRUTH through mechanisms set up to investigate the scope and extent of the violations committed and identification of the perpetrators responsible, so that they could be punished to the extent of the law, thus assuaging the pain of the aggrieved. This is Retributive Justice.

The features common to both processes are that violations committed are in the PAST, which, in the case of Sri Lanka span, over a period of 16 to 30 years. Under such circumstances, ONLY Voluntary Admission would identify the perpetrators, while in the case of Retributive Justice, the credibility of the investigations to establish the TRUTH, based on which perpetrators are identified, would vary from questionable to inadmissible after the lapse of 16 to 30 years.

The first process cited above, namely Voluntary Admission followed by Forgiveness, was adopted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. This attempt failed to meet expectations because one of the parties, who was to participate and make Reconciliation meaningful, refused to participate in the exercise. Furthermore, others see such processes as too idealistic because outcomes of the Reconciliation process require the full participation and genuine commitment of the parties to the conflict. Consequently, most countries opt for the second process, which is Reconciliation through Retributive Justice despite the fact that it is dependent on the credibility of the evidence gathered over decades and, therefore, has the potential to be flawed.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

TO RECONCILIATION

If admission of Guilt and Forgiveness is realistically not an option, or the limitations of mechanisms to establish credible evidence is also not a dependable option, the only alternative most countries adopt is for time to heal the grievances between parties to the conflict in a manner that best suits their respective social and civilisational values Since such an alternative leaves grievances that initiated the conflict to resolve itself on its own accord, the inevitable outcome is for societies to stay divided and frustrated thus making them fertile grounds for conflicts to recur.

The primary reason for the failure of the options hitherto pursued is that it limits the process of Reconciliation ONLY to violations associated with the Conflict. It does not factor in the grievances that initiated the conflict. This aspect is completely overlooked in the processes that involve admission of guilt followed by forgiveness or in Retributive Justice. Consequently, accountability based on Retributive Justice, advocated by the UNHRC and recommended by some in Sri Lanka, remains far from what is needed for meaningful Reconciliation.

It is, therefore, imperative that Sri Lanka presents a viable alternative that is NOT rooted in PAST actions but in the PRESENT because it is in the PRESENT that the livelihoods of those affected by the conflict have to be restored and their sense of hopelessness healed. Furthermore, Reconciliation, based on the PRESENT is recognized as the principal pillar in meditation as being the most rewarding to contribute to overall human wellbeing.

THE ALTERNATIVE

The approaches pursued by Sri Lanka were to appoint Presidential Commissions of Inquiry, Presidential Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, Task Forces to investigate and gather evidence with Foreign participation and the ongoing Evidence Gathering Mechanisms of the UNHRC, to name a few. In the midst of these attempts, Sri Lanka also set up the “Office for Reparations” (OR) under Act, No. 34 of 2018 and the Office on Missing Persons (OMP).

The stated Objective of OR was the recognition given by the Act to “a comprehensive reparations scheme anchored in the rights of all Sri Lankans to an effective remedy will contribute to the promotion of reconciliation for the wellbeing and security of all Lankans, including future generations”. Whether these Offices were set up with the conscious intention of focusing on the PRESENT while continuing to engage with Retributive Justice mechanisms that focus on the PAST, is not known.

The title of the 2018 Act states:

“AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE FOR

REPARATIONS; TO IDENTIFY AGGRIEVED PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR

REPARATIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROVISION OF INDIVIDUAL

AND COLLECTIVE REPARATIONS TO SUCH PERSONS…”;

Its Vision is: “To create Reconciliation among Nationalities and ensure Human Rights through Economic and Social Prosperity”.

Its Objectives are:

1. To formulate and recommend to the Cabinet of Ministers, policies on reparations to grant individual and collective reparations to aggrieved persons.

2. To facilitate and implement such policies on reparations as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, by the office for Reparations, including specialised policies on public education, memorialisation and on children, youths, women and victims of sexual violence and persons with disabilities.

3. To establish links to ensure the compatibility of the office for reparations with other mechanisms aimed at reconciliation.

4. To monitor and evaluate the progress of delivery of reparations to eligible aggrieved persons

GRANTS TO FAMILIES OF MISSING PERSONS

“The (OR) makes monetary grants to victims of conflict as a form of reparations. The focus of the OR is to assist aggrieved persons (victims) in ways that will provide meaningful assistance that is sustainable. Hence, the grant is not intended to serve as compensation but is given as a form of monetary relief. Families of missing persons are included in Livelihood development programmes, with particular focus on women who are heads of households”.

“Families of missing persons are among those to whom monetary grants are made by the OR on receipt of confirmation from the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) that the person is in fact missing. In terms of section 11(a) of the OR Act No. 34 of 2018, the OR is empowered to “receive recommendations with regard to reparations to be made to aggrieved persons, from the Office on Missing Persons.”

“Since the year 2022, the OR has received recommendations from the OMP to make payments to claimants in respect of a family member who they confirm are missing, after the conduct of an inquiry by the OMP into complaints made to the OMP by the family member (a claimant). The sum granted is Rs. 200,000/= per missing person, and is the same as the sum granted to applicants who make direct requests to the OR for monetary relief on the basis of the death of a family member”.

The three-step procedure followed by the OR on receiving the recommendation from the OMP is as follows-

STEP 1- OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM FAMILY:

“The letter received from the OMP confirms that the person named therein is reported missing, based on documents produced to the OMP, and recommends that a payment be made to the complainant named therein.

The information in the letter is sometimes inadequate to affirm the identity of the missing person and ascertain whether any previous grants have already been made to the family of that person on a direct application made to the OR. Hence the OR proceeds to obtain necessary information from the OMP and/or the complainant regarding – (1) the identity of the claimant and the missing person (Name, address, NIC number if available), to check from the OR information system whether a payment has been made previously and (2) the Bank Account to which the grant money should be remitted.

Where appropriate, the OR requests an affidavit from the claimant to state that no member of the family has previously received any payment on account of the death of that family member. A template of the Affidavit is provided by the OR”.

STEP 2 –

Processing the claim on receiving information.

STEP 3 –

Remittance of grant money to claimant.

CONCLUSION

With the conclusion of the Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka in May 2009, the approach to Reconciliation recommended Internationally, by the UNHRC, and by some Sri Lankans, was to address accountability for violations committed during and after the conflict through mechanisms of Retributive Justice that involve investigations, evidence gathering followed by prosecution. Over the years, Sri Lanka has laboured under these pressures without any meaningful outcomes as far as Reconciliation is concerned. This has been the experience with other countries as well.

The primary reason for this being the inability to gather credible evidence associated with violations committed over the PAST 16 to 30 years for Reconciliation to be meaningful. Furthermore, since the process is time consuming, the impression created is that no Government is serious about Reconciliation. This has left the survivors of all communities frustrated and disappointed in respect of their emotional and physical aspects of living in the PRESENT.

In the meantime, Sri Lanka set up the Office for Reparations (OR) and Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in 2018. Over the last seven years, these Offices have been working in the shadows, focusing on the physical needs and priorities of the survivors with a focus on the PRESENT and not on the PAST. This enables visible and tangible benefits to the survivors which is far more meaningful to their daily physical living with feedbacks to their emotional wellbeing, as well, than attempting to uncover the TRUTH of what took place decades ago. However, the need to expand the mandate of the OR to cover the development of Policies that address the causes that initiated the conflict is imperative.

Hence, the present Government should make the expanded Objectives of the OR the theme of their model for Reconciliation because the relevance of the PRESENT has its roots in meditation that promotes living in the PRESENT as being the most rewarding for human wellbeing. This model should first be discussed with a representative group of communities in Sri Lanka followed by first presenting it to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, during his visit to Sri Lanka, and then to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as a Resolution for acceptance.

by Neville Ladduwahetty

Features

Unique mashup cover…

Published

23 hours ago

2025/06/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Mayuka Aparnatha may not be seen and heard in all parts of the country, performing live on stage, but he is certainly a star on social media, and has done modelling, as well – both ramp and photographic.

His preference, at the moment, he says, is to work on cover songs, adding that he does his covers with a touch of his own.

His latest song is titled ‘Asai Mannam’ and it has just been released. It is his fourth cover and also marks his first-ever mashup.

According to Mayuka, ‘Asai Mannam’ is a unique Sinhalese interpretation of the South Indian hit ‘Asa Kooda’ by Sai Abhyankkar and Sai Smriti.

“I consider this cover special because it’s a mashup with the song ‘Ma Diha’ by Dilu Beats. To my knowledge, this is the first-ever Sinhala cover of ‘Asa Kooda.’”

Mayuka’s musical journey began when he was very young.

Mayuka in action in the ‘Asai Mannam’ video

“Coming from a musical family, where my grandparents were involved in stage and drama, I naturally gravitated toward singing. I took part in inter-school competitions, as a child, and was fortunate to win a few. It has always been my dream to become a singer.”

Mayuka says he received formal training at KK Music, adding that he began making his music by starting with cover songs on YouTube.

Prior to ‘Asai Mannam,’ he has released three other covers, which are also available on his YouTube channel – MAYUKA.

Of course, one would say that the turning point in his musical career was when he participated in The Voice Sri Lanka, aired on Sirasa TV, and competed under Coach Raini’s team. He progressed until the battle rounds.

“Being a part of that show was a dream come true and something I can proudly tick off my bucket list.”

Mayuka went on to say that creating this official cover and music video of ‘Asai Mannam’ has been a rewarding experience.

“Music has always helped me through emotional and mental challenges, and I sincerely hope my songs can do the same for others, whether by healing, comforting, or simply bringing joy.”

Says Mayuka: “I’m deeply grateful to everyone who has supported me so far. I hope those who resonate with my style will continue to listen, and I look forward to sharing more music with you in the future.

“I’m also incredibly grateful to be featured in The Island newspaper. Thank you so much for the support.”