Features
NCP and North: Water availability
by Neville Ladduwahetty
A report in The Sunday Times of 17 October, 2021 states: “US $243 million (around Rs. 48,600 million) has been earmarked for a 27-km tunnel, considered the longest in the country under the Upper Elahera Canal Project of the Mahaweli …. Under the overall project, a 98-km network of canals and tunnels are to take water from Moragahakanda to Mahakandarawa wewa….”
The report however, does not indicate what quantities of water are to be delivered. However, the report confirms that the quantities of water to be delivered are sufficient to reach Mahakandarawa wewa which is about 6 km north-east of Mihintale. If so, it must mean that parts of the North Central Province (NCP) and Northern Province (NP) beyond the vicinity of Anuradhapura would not be receiving water from Moragahakanda.
This article attempts to analyze the data in two reports by Consultants to ascertain the capacity of the Upper Elahera Canal Project to deliver water to the NCP and NP. Since the focus of the report in the Sunday Times was on “bypassing protocol”, the answers to the above questions should be the responsibility of those who designed the network of canals and tunnels to furnish the answers. In the absence of such information, an analysis of water availability under two conditions is presented herein in a form different to the one that was presented in an article titled “Policies call for coordination in power sector” (The Island, October 12, 2021). The first was water availability when the network of canals and tunnels under construction is completed, and the second is upon the completion of the infrastructure needed to transfer water from Randenigala to the Kalu Ganga and through the latter to Moragahakanda and the Upper Elahera Canal.
TRANSFER of WATER to the NCP & NP
CONDITION ONE – WHEN CONSTRUCTION of NETWORK of CANALS and TUNNELS is COMPLETED
The Report prepared for the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management, dated December 2014 by Technical Assistance Consultants on behalf of the ADB, in Paragraph 21 (p. 343) states: “The study has shown an increase in the diversion capacity at Moragahakanda to 974 MCM annually, required for the Upper Elahera Canal (UEC) and NCP canals addition to 617 MCM to the Minneriya Yoda Ela. The supplemental diversions from Kalu Ganga (772 MCM) Bowatenna (496 MCM) reservoirs and its own watershed (344 MCM) are adequate to cater the water demands under UEC.”
According to the data cited above, the ONLY sources of water available PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING the infrastructure needed to transfer water from Randenigala to Kalu Ganga and eventually to Moragahakanda, is from Bowatenne 496 MCM, and water in its own catchments amounting to 344 MCM: a total of 840 MCM. When the waters needed by the five ancient five tanks are deducted i.e., 617 MCM, the balance available to be diverted to the UEC is 223 MCM.
An independent study carried out by SMEC International (Pvt) Ltd for the World Bank titled “Updated Mahaweli Water Resources Development Plan”, dated November 2013 states in Appendix 5 Table 5.1, p.9 that the Downstream Release from Bowatenne is 651 MCM, the catchment inflow into Moragahakanda is 313 MCM, making a total inflow of 964 MCM. From this inflow, since 573 MCM has to be diverted to the ancient five tanks, the amount of water available for the UEC is 391 MCM.
Therefore, according to the data in the two reports, the quantity of water available to be transferred to the UEC when the network of canals and tunnels is completed is ONLY 223 MCM or 391 MCM, respectively. This water availability is in the range of the demands of Mannakkattiya-Eruwewa-Mahakandarawa (155 MCM) and Huruluwewa (126 MCM), making a total of 281 MCM according to paragraph 151 in the Report titled “Environment Impact Assessment Report” prepared for the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management” by the Mahaweli Consultancy Bureau (Pvt) Ltd. Since these three tanks are in the vicinity of Anuradhapura it could be concluded that under Condition One, it is realistically not possible to divert water beyond Anuradhapura. Furthermore, since the water available for transfer from Moragahakanda is in the range of 300 MCM, the network of canals and tunnels under construction would be under-utilized, on the basis that they were designed to carry 974 MCM or 964 MCM of water cited in the two reports.
This conclusion is subject to 496 MCM or 651 MCM quoted in the two reports being transferred to Moragahakanda from Bowatanne. This may not be the case if water from Bowatenne to Moragahakanda is curtailed in order to divert more water from Bowatenne to meet the demands of North Western Province. Thus, the network of canals and tunnels under construction would be further under-utilized.
Under the circumstances, where no infrastructure exists to bring more water to Moragahakanda, the conclusion objectively reached from the analysis of data in both reports is that the quantities of water available are NOT sufficient to meet the demands of the NCP and the NP beyond Anuradhapura.
CONDITION TWO – TRANSFER of WATER from RANDENIGALA
In order increase water availability beyond Anuradhapura, the proposal is to transfer water from Randenigala augmented by water from Hasalaka Oya and Heen Ganga along the way together with water in 128 sq. km of the Kalu Ganga catchment (say76 MCM). Since the water demands in these two small tanks are 75 and 56 MCM respectively, Randenigala would need to divert 772MCM less (76+75+56) which is 565 MCM annually. Diverting 565 MCM of water from Randenigala, which is equal to the active capacity of the reservoir would have a serious impact not only on power generation at Randenigala but also on the amount of water available for diversion to the right and left banks of the Mahaweli at Minipe. Therefore, diverting water to Moragahakanda from Randenigala should be reconsidered. Diverting water to the NCP and NP at the expense of power generation and water availability to the East of Sri Lanka is a clear instance of contradictory policies that have been actively pursued by successive governments.
MAHAWELI DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
According to the Mahaweli Development Authority’s Master Plan, “In 1961 the government of Ceylon requested assistance from the special fund of the united nations to survey the Mahaweli Ganga Basin and the Dry Zone areas in the North and Central Provinces…. The plan of operation was drawn up and signed on 12 October, 1964 on behalf of the government of Ceylon, the United Nations Special fund and the food and agriculture organization of the united nations acting as executing agency. The co-operating government agency was the ministry of land, irrigation and power”.
“The project was designed to achieve the following objectives:”
“• To provide basic information on the land and water resources of the Mahaweli Ganga Basin and the Dry Zone areas of the North Central Provinces;
• To provide an overall water management plan with a view to the effective use of water for irrigation and power generation;
• To provide technical plans, preliminary design of works, cost estimates, priorities, phasing and financing needed for implementation of the plan” (Master Plan).
“The project area covers 39 percent of the whole island and 55 percent of the Dry Zone. It includes the Mahaweli Ganga basin, the basin of the Maduru Oya and rivers in the north central part of the island”.
IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE OBJECTIVE of the ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN was to IRRIGATE THE DRY ZONE AREAS of the NORTH CENTRAL PROVINCE. FURTHERMORE, that the PROJECT AREA was to be MAHAWELI GANGA BASIN and the BASIN of the MADURU OYA.
IMPACT of DECISIONS
What is evident from the network of canals and tunnels under construction as part of the UEC is the assumption that someday sufficient water would be transferred from Randenigala to the NCP and beyond to the NP. Having made such an irrevocable decision, it appears that every prospect is being explored to make it work regardless of consequences to power generation, to agriculture on the left bank of the Mahaweli at Minipe and interests in the Maduru Oya Basin. The folly of transferring water from Randenigala is compounded by developing the Upper and Lower Uma Oya schemes to augment the loss of water at Randenigala and at Minipe. However, notwithstanding such augmentation, nearly 300 MCM from Randenigala would yet be needed to meet the demands on the UEC.
It is only an attitude of come what may water would be delivered beyond the NCP to the NP, that would justify the scale of over design in the construction undertaken and currently underway. This is clearly evident from the fact that although the catchment of Kalu Ganga is only 128 sq. km (76 MCM), the newly constructed reservoir with a storage capacity of 265 MCM is several times larger than its catchment.
CONCLUSION
The design of the network of canals and tunnels under construction have clearly been influenced by the comments in the Reports, e.g., “an increase in the diversion capacity at Moragahakanda to 974 MCM annually, required for the UEC and NCP canals” is available. The fact that this depends on “The supplemental diversion from Kalu Ganga of 772 MCM and 496 MCM from Bowatenne is taken for granted as an irrefutable fact, notwithstanding its inherent consequences. The approach adopted reflects an attitude that an irrevocable decision has been taken to divert Mahaweli waters, no matter the costs to power generation at Randenigala and agricultural interests on the left bank of the Mahaweli at Minipe as well as in the Maduru Oya basin.
The pertinent question that needs to be asked is: Who is accountable for such an irrevocable decision when the decision has implications that go far beyond the scope outlined in the Master Plan of the Mahaweli Authority? The project area envisaged in the Master Plan was to cover “39 percent of the whole island and 55 percent of the Dry Zone. It includes the Mahaweli Ganga basin, the basin of the Maduru Oya and rivers in the north central part of the island”. Had the scope of the UEC been limited to the recommendations in the Master Plan, the cost of the network of canals and tunnels including the Kalu Ganga Reservoir would have been considerably less. The extra cost is because what is being constructed is to transfer 974 MCM on the presumption that 565 MCM would be transferred from Randenigala.
It is a matter of urgent necessity that sanity prevails and the scope of the UEC and all issues associated with it are reviewed without delay. Furthermore, since the technical fraternity has been silent on this issue thus far, it should be their responsibility to bring matters associated with the UEC to the attention of the political establishment. It would be a shameful indictment on all concerned if corrective measures are adopted only after the farmers in the Mahaweli and Maduru Oya basins starting from Minipe raise serious objections to the transfer of water from Randenigaka to the UEC.
Neville Ladduwahetty
October 22, 2021.
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
