Features
Framework for a new Sri Lanka: A Union of Regions
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. – Albert Einstein
By Raj Gonsalkorale
Sri Lanka is in dire economic strife, its politicians are a discredited lot, and are produced by a system that perpetuates corruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Inter community harmony is as facile as the cloak of ritualism that passes as Buddhism. A new governance model is needed that meets the inherent psyche of its people, and which lessens the power of politicians and enhances the real power of people.
It is strongly suggested that the concept of a Union of Regions authored by late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam is given serious consideration. Dr Tiruchelvam was murdered by the LTTE for bringing forth this proposal, but mercifully the murderous LTTE is no more. The climate is right to revisit this proposal and build on it to introduce a governance model that can take the country towards the future and not to its dark past. People are sick and tired of the current system and what it produces as politicians. The system has to change if it is to produce the undoubted talent that the country has, and which remains and will remain silent on account of the flaws in the current system.
Tamil ethnic conflict
At the outset, readers could perhaps consider the possibility, some might say the reality, that the ethnic issue involving the Tamil and Sinhala communities in Sri Lanka was created by the leaders of these two communities, and not by the Sinhala & Tamil communities in the country. True, they had grievances but at the time of the creation of the contemporary issue, which one could identify with the British colonial period, they were not unmanageable and compared to what it became over time, miniscule in extent and intensity. It could be argued that a molehill became a mountain over time, and a volcanic mountain at that. It erupted in 1983 in the hands of the then government. The rest, as they say, is history.
To the best of the writer’s knowledge, Sinhala and Tamil people have not engaged in any major conflict between them even during the times of Kings and Queens of the country. The island is replete with a history of invasions from India from time to time to gain control of local Kingdoms, conquer territory and battles fought by the country’s Kings to defeat invaders.
The population of the country comprises of migrants mainly from India who arrived at different times throughout history with the indigenous people of the country being the “Aadi Vasi people or the Veddah’s. In this context, the rest are all occupiers who have made the island their home.
But, has it been the home for Tamils in recent times? Their ethnicity has rendered them targets for violence. State sponsored goons demonstrated in 1983 in no uncertain terms that Tamils were not safe in the country, except in areas where they were the majority. It also sent rightful signals to the Tamil community that the State could repeat such inhuman acts whenever and wherever they chose.
In looking for a solution to the conflict, what perhaps is paramount is how Tamils could be safe in their homes and workplaces wherever they live in the country. This has to be the aspiration of all Sri Lankans.
Tamils of Sri Lanka
In contemporary Sri Lanka, it needs to be mentioned that in any discussion concerning the Tamil ethnic issue in Sri Lanka, there are different aspirational dimensions amongst the Tamils that needs to be considered depending on the Tamil group concerned, that is, whether it is the group referred to as Sri Lankan Tamils who are the Tamils from India with a very long history in the island, in particular the Northern part of the island, or the more recent arrivals from India who are domiciled mostly in the central part of the country, who are also referred to as plantation Tamils.
All are Sri Lankan Tamils now but the ethnic issue that has drained the country for decades concerns the former category, although the latter category too has their grievances and aspirations.
The Tamil community in Sri Lanka is not a homogenous community, although both groups have faced issues in common, primarily with regard to their safety and security in the country.
The writer wishes to suggest a discussion on a way forward for all Tamils, and the country as a whole, having regarded some of the reasons that were responsible for creating the problem, and as Einstein said, to explore a way forward with a mindset that the problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that were used to create the problem.
No doubt many people and groups contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to creating the problem beginning with the British Colonialists. Tamil politicians as well Sinhala politicians too contributed to creating the problem, and some, still continue to do so. One can add sections of the Maha Sangha too for adding fuel to the fire and from a contemporary perspective, that they still influence the perpetuation of the problem. Then, there is the powerful Tamil diaspora, or at least a section of it, which continues to perpetuate the problem. The first point for discussion could be that the factors that contributed, and, used to create the problem, are still being used to as the basis to find a solution to the contemporary situation, and whether this is what the country should be doing.
Governance models that have failed
One can argue that the context to the problem creation had some differences during the colonial and post-colonial period, when, during the colonial period, the Sri Lankan Tamil and Sinhalese politicians were more concerned about a common enemy, the British colonialists, rather than each other, although seeds were being sown towards the creation of the problem.
Much has been written, still being written, discussed and debated about a solution that the Sri Lankan Tamils in the North and East are seeking, based primarily on self-determination for Tamils living in the North and the East, within a merged province.
The goal of self-determination for the North and East within the framework of the political governance model introduced by the British colonialists, the Westminster model, is a phenomenon that had little relevance prior to that as the governance models that preceded the Westminster model were decentralised, lose structures. On the whole, for a variety of reasons, there were varying degrees of ipso facto self-determination for Kingdoms and other forms of governance bodies that existed within the island.
In the context of this historical perspective, the British colonial masters, and the country’s Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim political elite who worked with them to introduce the Donoughmore constitution followed by the Soulbury constitution removed the inherent, historical nature of governance in the country. Sri Lankans continued on this trajectory when introducing the 1972 and 1978 constitutions.
Fissures began to appear in this model after independence, and Sinhala, and primarily Buddhist domination of governance led to widening of these fissures. Attempts were made by some political leaders to address these fissures with proposals like regional councils (Bandaranaike/Chelvanayakam Pact), District Councils (Senanayake/Chelvanayakam Pact) and the Regional Council bill (Kumaratunga/Tiruchelvam proposals) and finally the introduction of Provincial Councils at the behest of India.
Enter the LTTE
In the absence of an acceptable solution to the conflict, the problem escalated to violent means of achieving a separate State within the island as the solution. While there cannot be any justification for this violence perpetrated by the LTTE, which became the sole armed as well as the unarmed political group campaigning for “Tamil” demands, the fundamental aspirational mindset amongst Tamils in the North and East was never understood or addressed.
During the period of LTTE dominance, efforts were made by various parties to find a negotiated solution. The most noteworthy of all was the effort by Norway to mediate between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government to find such a solution. It failed, and the full scale war between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government Armed forces saw the military demise of the LTTE in 2009.
In a very interesting and revealing article titled Let Us Be Clear On What We Buried In Nandikadal Lagoon by Sanjeewa Ranaweera published in the Colombo Telegraph on the 26th of July 2021 (https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/let-us-be-clear-that-what-we-buried-in-nandikadal-lagoon/), the Norwegian led peace process is comprehensively summarised. The role played by Eric Solheim is also examined and an interview with him also included as part of the article.
The article as well as the Solheim interview portrays the dynamics and thinking of the LTTE leader Prabakaran, and the political ideologue and Prabakaran’s adviser and confidante Anton Balasingham, and the highlights strategies adopted by Ranil Wickremesinghe, then Prime Minister, to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
One is not sure whether these strategies were aimed at finding a solution to the conflict with the LTTE, or whether they were directed towards finding a solution to the conflict with the Tamils and their aspirations. The reason for saying this is because if the objective of the strategy was the latter, then, there would have been an acceptance that the LTTE was the sole representative of the Tamils as no other Tamil political entity from Sri Lanka was associated with the effort made by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. Such an acceptance would have meant an acceptance of the LTTE political philosophy as well as their violent tactics. This is mentioned not as a critique of the effort, but to highlight it as one of the many problems that were created in the perpetuation of the ethnic conflict. It is also revealing that Anton Balasingham had been consistently taking the position that a solution had to be found through negotiation and not through violent means.
The future direction?
Given this backdrop, and moving forward to the future rather than looking backwards to the past to look for a solution, and with the benefit of hindsight, a solution has to be found which stands the test of time in a future that will be so different to the past when the problem was created in the first place.
The future will be one of currently unimaginable technology, innovation and lifestyles. Governance models will change and those governing will have to change. Most of the types currently in political governance will become Dinosaurs when looking at the future. Some may say they already are!
Religious traditions, cultural traditions of course will continue as they have for centuries, albeit perhaps with less conviction as it is already happening.
In respect of political governance models in Sri Lanka so far, they have fundamentally failed to chart a peaceful, contented path towards the future. There is mistrust and degrees of animosity amongst communities and a decline in values.
The primary community conflict is with the Tamil community and this can only be addressed through a governance mechanism that provides a degree of self-determination, not just for its sake, but because the models that does not provide it, but which have been tried and tested, have failed to ensure the safety and security of the Tamil community and even the Muslim community, and affected the country as a whole.
In this context, it is strongly suggested that the conceptual framework of the Union of Regions model authored by late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam is considered as the framework to move onto the future.
It will assist in negating the negatives of the provincial council system including ineffective, costly duplication and lessen the politicisation of administrative activity.
Regional governments within the framework of a national governance model, provided its primary function would be to engage in policy settings to maximise resources in the region both material and human, and to ensure the safety and security of people in the region, by people from the region, would address the issue of self-determination substantially, and assist in decentralising governance power far more effectively than the current model.
Personality centric, highly centralised models will not work and Sri Lanka will be saddled with all associated drawbacks in its attempt to move onto the future. Hopefully, it will dawn on the current set of politicians that the model in operation has been diminished because of them, and by them, and the model has precluded efficient, honest and credible persons from participating in the model.
A new model based on the framework of a Union of Regions should not replicate the negatives of the current system. The thinking should be directed to the future and not the baggage of the past or even the present.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
