Sandaru cracks double century as Devapathiraja commence season on a strong footing
JXG and Ceylon Chamber launch ‘BREAKTHROUGH’ to power national entrepreneurship
De Silva-Kusal stand of 249* moves Sri Lanka into the ascendancy
Sri Lanka left with a mountain to climb in Rawalpindi
The office of the Leader of the Opposition is today regarded as one of the indispensable institutions of parliamentary democracy. As the principal critic of the Government and the head of the alternative administration, the office occupies a central place in the Westminster tradition adopted by many Commonwealth countries. Yet in Sri Lanka, this institution did not emerge with independence. For nearly three years after the first parliamentary elections of 1947, the country functioned without a recognised Leader of the Opposition. While Parliament debated citizenship, independence and nation-building, no single person officially led the Government’s opponents. This remarkable parliamentary gap, now largely forgotten, shaped the country’s early parliamentary democracy.
When the State Council was established in 1931 following the Donoughmore constitutional reforms, it lacked what we today call an Opposition. Thus, there was no Leader of the Opposition. There was no party system and candidates contested in their individual capacity. After distributing the Members – elected and appointed – into committees, a Board of Ministers, was set up, the leader of each committee being elected as a Minister. As every member belonged to a committee, there was no chance for one to officially be a member of the opposition.
In this semi-parliamentary method, among the very few who agitated against the Colonial regime and local Board of Ministers was E. W. Perera, who came to be known as the “Unofficial Leader of the Opposition.” Perera, also dubbed the “Lion of Kotte,” was effectively defeated by an unknown in the next State Council in 1936, and for the next 11 years there existed no “unofficial” or “official” opposition leader. In the meantime, D. S. Senanayake climbed the ladder and successfully negotiated a deal of Dominion Independence with Whitehall and Lord Soulbury.
Soulbury reforms and the 1947 election
The Soulbury reforms abolished the State Council and established the “House of Representatives” or what we popularly call the “Parliament (Lower House)” as well as the Senate (Upper House). Sri Lanka, like most Commonwealth countries, continued the Westminster System of Parliament. After the UNP created a coalition with a few Independents and minority parties in the first election in 1947, it became the Government and its leader D. S. Senanayake became Ceylon’s first Prime Minister. All the other parties and Independents not in the Government were identified as the “Opposition.” Everyone outside that coalition was, by definition, “the Opposition”.
The LSSP (10 seats, the largest single bloc), G. G. Ponnambalam’s All Ceylon Tamil Congress (seven), the Ceylon Indian Congress (six), Colvin R. de Silva’s Bolshevik Samasamaja Party (five), the Communist Party (three), and a scattering of independents. Accordingly, the LSSP Leader, Dr. N. M. Perera was expected to be Leader of the Opposition in 1947. However, this did not happen as expected until 1950.
In his monumental work The Constitution of Ceylon , Sir Ivor Jennings stated: “The Opposition will almost certainly be amorphous for some time, for it consists merely of those Members who, for diverse and often contradictory reasons, have no confidence in the Government. Accordingly, it is not yet true that the Opposition is ‘His Majesty’s Alternative Government’, and the tradition of the House of Commons, which assumes that one Government is ‘in’ and the other ‘out’, is not capable of application. It is nevertheless necessary for somebody to take the lead against the Government, though instead of a formal Leader of the Opposition he may be one Member on one issue and another on a separate issue.” (1949, p. 69)
However, there was no provision of the appointment and role of the Leader of the Opposition in the 1948 constitution of Ceylon drafted by Jennings himself. This absence is continued both in the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions. This omission was not accidental. Like the British constitution upon which it was modeled, the Soulbury Constitution assumed that many essential institutions of parliamentary government would evolve through convention rather than statutory enactment. The office thus emerged not because the Constitution required it, but because Parliament itself recognized its practical necessity. However, it may be worthwile for future lawmakers to consider including such provision either when the constitution is amended or when a constitution is implemented.
Unlike in Britain, where the Government and Opposition had evolved within a relatively mature two-party system, Sri Lanka’s first Parliament consisted of numerous parties and independents whose ideological differences prevented the emergence of a coherent alternative government. Consequently, the absence of an Opposition Leader was not simply a constitutional omission but a reflection of the fragmented nature of early post-independence politics.
With the delay of electing an Opposition Leader, The Ceylon Daily News wrote the following in its editorial on October 3, 1947: “Political circles are now discussing the selection of a Leader of the Opposition, an office which is seemingly as difficult to fill as an episcopal see… Now the idea of an Opposition is an integral part of parliamentary government and is reflected in the very architectural design of the British House of Commons, which has afforded the model for the House of Representatives in our Parliament. The Government and its supporters sit to the right of the Speaker, the Opposition is ranged against them on his left. A gangway divides the two, and the whole set-up imposes the necessity and encourages the emergence of what is essentially a two-party system of government; that is to say, the Government party, forming the majority of the House, on the one hand, and on the other hand a block of groups opposed to the Government for debating purposes and for the ordinary business of legislation… His [Leader of the Opposition] function is ornamental, and his very existence is the spontaneous growth of the needs of an individual legislature. But what about this first legislature in Ceylon? Has there emerged from the Opposition benches one among the Opposition members who has proved his ability and naturally emerges as the best spearhead of attack in the criticism of the Government which it is the function of the Opposition to undertake?”
The Opposition of 1947 was a very weak one partly because there were so many Leftist parties who could not agree with each other. Similarly, the left-wing parties remained divided over the office of Leader of the Opposition. AJ Wilson said in October 1969 in (“Oppositional Politics in Ceylon 1947-1968” Government and Opposition , Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 56) While the LSSP, as the largest opposition party, supported its recognition, the BSP opposed it and the Communist Party dismissed it as a “reactionary British convention.” (The Ceylon Daily News, October 13, 1947)
For three years after the parliament gathered in 1947, there was no recognised Leader of the Opposition. No one in the Opposition or the Government seemed to have been concerned over this matter. Independence was received in February 1948 and the approval of the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 occurred while there was no Opposition Leader in Sri Lanka. Sir Francis Molamure repeatedly drew attention to the absence of a recognised Leader of the Opposition. In early 1950, he warned that unless the Opposition elected one, he would appoint a leader himself to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of parliamentary business.
It was only after the LSSP and BSP merged in June 1950 that there was agreement to elect a Leader of the Opposition although the Communist Party continued to object. At the meeting on July 5, 1950, C. Suntheralingam (MP for Vavuniya) successfully moved that the office be created, with only Pieter Keuneman, the Communist Party whip, voting against the motion before walking out in protest. Suntheralingam then proposed Dr. N. M. Perera for the post and was seconded by Wilmot Perera (MP for Horana), leader of the Maha Jana Peramuna. The motion was carried unanimously by the remaining members, including Florence Senanayake and Kusuma Gunawardene, formally recognising Dr. N. M. Perera as the first Leader of the Opposition.
This was the first time that Sri Lanka had an Opposition Leader. The office of the Leader of the Opposition, though today regarded as an essential institution of parliamentary democracy, is a comparatively recent development in many countries. Even in the United Kingdom–the birthplace of the Westminster system–the office received formal statutory recognition only in 1937 through the Ministers of the Crown Act, despite having existed by convention for decades. Other Commonwealth democracies followed gradually. However, Australia recognized the office in the 1920s, New Zealand in 1936. What is less known and discussed is that Sri Lanka was the first Asian country to have a formal office of the Leader of the Opposition and that Dr. N. M. Perera was Asia’s first Opposition Leader.
Ironically, India recognised the Office of Leader of the Opposition (in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) only in 1969. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Maldives adopted the office much later. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia have never had an Opposition Leader. In this context, Sri Lanka occupies a notable position in democracy. Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia and among the earlier Commonwealth nations to provide formal recognition to the Leader of the Opposition.
An estranged Government and Opposition
However, the Communist Party continued to make statements opposing the office of Leader of the Opposition. Pieter Keuneman opposed the post stating that it was “based on the convenient theory for the ruling class that the opposition should be part and parcel of the Government, fundamentally accepting the continuance of the existing social order but only disagreeing about the best method of continuing it.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 22, 1950) .
The Communist Party’s reluctance to recognise Parliament as the supreme forum for determining the nation’s affairs prompted the UNP to adopt a firm stance towards its parliamentary representatives. This position was clearly articulated by Sir John Kotelawala, then Minister of Transport and Works, during a parliamentary speech on June 9, 1950. “Our Opposition today is an Opposition which does not believe in the democratic system. That is why the Government finds its task so difficult. We have to fight the Opposition not as an Opposition but as enemies of the State…once they got in they would not get out. There is no guarantee you would ever have a chance to go to the ballot again.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 12, 1950).
Accordingly, since the 1947 general election, a deeply strained relationship existed between the UNP Government and the left-wing opposition. Viewing the Marxist parties with suspicion, the Government was often reluctant to consult them on parliamentary affairs, while the Left frequently responded with boycotts and public protests.
At the same time, the Left sought to unite its fragmented forces in the hope of presenting a credible alternative government. The merger of the Bolshevik Samasamaja Party and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in June 1950 was a significant step, although it was soon weakened by Philip Gunawardena’s breakaway to form the Viplavakari Lanka Sama Samaja Party. Despite periodic attempts at cooperation, ideological differences prevented lasting unity among the Marxist parties. Subsequently G. G. Ponnambalam and C. Suntheralingam defected to the Government and were made Ministers in the Cabinet of D. S. Senanayake. Those of the Ceylon Tamil Congress Party who were against Ponnambalam’s move formed the Federal Party and remained in the Opposition.
A decisive shift occurred in July 1951 when S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, Minister of Health and Local Government, resigned from the UNP Government and crossed the floor. His dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to language, religion, and social policy culminated in the formation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in September 1951. Presenting itself as a moderate alternative between the UNP and the Marxist Left, the SLFP quickly attracted support from those dissatisfied with both camps. The Left, recognizing Bandaranaike’s growing appeal, signalled its willingness to cooperate electorally, while simultaneously attempting to preserve its own identity by advocating a united left front and pursuing parliamentary means to achieve political power.
The office comes of age, yet weak opposition
These developments fundamentally altered the character of the Opposition and laid the foundations for a more organised challenge to the UNP in the years ahead. None of the opposition parties were a match for new UNP leader, Dudley Senanayake, who gained public sympathy with the death of D. S. Senanayake. However, even if Senanayake had lived, none of the Left parties or the SLFP were planning to win the election. The SLFP fielded just 48 candidates for the 95 constituencies in 1952. Even had the SLFP won all 48 constituencies, it would have been a hung parliament.
Ultimately, the UNP won 54 seats and the SLFP and LSSP won nine seats each. The other parties including the CP and ACTC won under five seats. Therefore, just as 1947, the Opposition was a weak one. As the SLFP had just over 55,000 votes more than the LSSP, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was elected Opposition Leader without much delay. N. M. Perera, Pieter Keneuman, and Philip Gunawardena served in the Opposition, while Colvin R. de Silva lost his seat. With the UNP regime both under Dudley Senanayake and later Sir John Kotelawala losing public support and the creation of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, a strong opposition out of parliament was created for the first time.
In 1956, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna comprehensively defeated the UNP at an election where the MEP and the left parties had a no contest pact. The UNP regime was completely out of touch with the demands and needs of the grassroots. Bandaranaike’s MEP rose to the front with its pro-Sinhala nationalist stance and swept the polls, winning 51 seats. The UNP had fewer seats (eight) than the LSSP (14 seats) and Federal Party (10 seats). Thus, N. M. Perera was elected Opposition Leader again. On this occasion, he did not have to wait for three years!
Just as in 1947, the Opposition under N. M. Perera was a weak one. Divided with the other Leftist parties, the UNP, ACTC, Federal party, etc., it bore little challenge to the government. However, the UNP led by J. R. Jayewardene, later joined by Dudley Senanayake from 1957 onward, started campaigning to rebuild the UNP. By mid-1959, the Bandaranaike regime despite having a majority was disintegrating within. At the height of all the turmoil, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was assassinated. W. Dahanayake, who succeeded him, was perhaps aiding the opposition and not his government, when he repeatedly sacked most of his ministers and later resigned from the SLFP forming his own party with the government about to be oust,
Dahanayake dissolved the parliament in late 1959. In the March 1960 election, the UNP was both satisfied and disappointed. Despite winning 50 seats, it had no majority. Dudley Senanayake, who became Prime Minister again realized his regime was short lived. The specialty of this election was that for the first time a single Opposition Party had more than 15 seats. The SLFP led by C. P. de Silva had no fewer than 46 seats. Thus, the UNP lost the throne speech and a new election was called in July. By then, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike had emerged as the SLFP leader. A wave of sympathy plus a no contest pact with the left aided her to win 75 of 151 seats (the electorates were increased significantly in 1960).
Though the UNP won a plurality of the overall vote, it retained just 30 seats. Mrs. Bandaranaike managed to secure support of some minority parties and later the LSSP, making three of its members including N. M. Perera, Cabinet Ministers. This period, 1960-64, was the first time in Sri Lanka since independence that an opposition that could rightfully call itself an “alternative government” was formed.
Dudley Senanayake was elected Leader of the Opposition. The UNP, both in and out of parliament, played a major role in policy matters and successfully created among voters the perception of an alternative through them. By late 1964, the Government was weak with a string of manipulative and shrewd strategies led by J. R. Jayewardene, the Government lost its mandate by just one parliamentary vote. It was the first time in independent Sri Lanka that a Government was ousted by an Opposition coalition. Thereafter, each government other than the UNP regime of 1977, did have a strong Opposition within the chambers of the parliament.
By Avishka Mario Senewiratne, Editor, The Ceylon Journal
All News Advertisement Related Topics: Up Next ‘Giving up was never an option’: The fisherman who fought back after losing millions in SL
Single spark that fired the Aragalaya
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
With the Republican Party losing its clout in the US Congress in the wake of the recent midterm election setback the power balance in West Asia could very well be tilting against the US-Israel combine for the first time in decades. In all probability the Republican administration would from now on be challenged to initiate a policy reset in the region that is more amenable to Iran considering that the latter has emerged in a somewhat commanding position from the ongoing political and military turmoil in the region.
So powerful is Iran currently that it has unilaterally set out some seven conditions to the US to bring the conflict in West Asia within manageable limits. At present it is unclear whether the conditions are receiving the undivided attention of the US, given that the central Republican administration is in an effort to pull itself together and act with a degree of policy coherence in the aftermath of the recent polls debacle.
However, the Republican centre would have no choice but to concede some of the key Iranian demands in consideration of the ‘cost of living shock’ that the war in the region has administered to the average US consumer. Provided relief is quickly delivered to the consuming public, the chances are that the Trump administration would continue to witness a slide in its popularity and power. We have another reminder here that economics basically drives politics.
From the above viewpoint, conditions 2, 3 and 4, relating to the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran, the reopening of shipping lanes and the release of frozen Iranian assets could prove vital since they are decisive in not only worsening the material hardships of the Iranian and US publics but also those of the rest of the world. They exercise a direct bearing, therefore, on the political fortunes of the US centre and may need to be met before long.
However, it is to the degree to which the immediate political consequences from the midterm polls are effectively and swiftly managed that the US centre could give the conditions its concerted attention. But the urgency of granting the key demands of Iran would only be increasingly felt in Washington, thereby denying it the ability to deal with the foreign policy issues at hand with greater ease and freedom of deliberation. That is, Iran would be acting and even negotiating with the US from what could be seen as a position of strength.
It is possible that the Trump administration is biding its time at the moment until ground conditions stabilize and greater policy clarity could be achieved on what needs to be done going forward, but a revival of military strikes on Iran could prove both politically and economically most costly. The administration would be acting in some of the US’ best interests by choosing its policy courses with utmost circumspection.
Meanwhile, it should not come as a surprise if the US is compelled to seriously consider a policy reset towards Israel as well. It is not the case that the US would be substantially downgrading its alliance with Israel in the days ahead but it is possible that there would be reduced financial and material backing by the US for Israel. After all, the US ‘purse’ is beginning to ‘pinch’ and the affordability of US financial assistance could emerge as a major worry.
In fact there has reportedly been an effort to scale down US assistance to a degree. Whether this would seriously undermine the US-Israel alliance is yet to be seen but the development could point to possible future strains that could stringently test the alliance.
It does not follow from the foregoing that Israel would be seeing a steady diminishing of its military power to the degree to which the US cuts down on its assistance. This is unlikely to be because Israel has proved more or less self-sufficient in most respects in the past. But the perception could gain ground among Israel’s enemies in the Arab world in particular that she would be weakened militarily in the absence of continued and substantial US help. This again is primarily a matter for the future.
However, a development of note in Israeli politics at present is the possibility of opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot forming the next government in Israel. He has reportedly been called upon by the Israeli President to do so. If this comes to pass we would have in Israel a more centrist coalition government that could prove less militaristic and less religiously hard line than the Netanyahu regime.
One message that the foregoing development conveys is that the Eisenkot regime could prove more amenable to negotiations in sorting out the Middle East tangle. President Trump is unlikely to easily hear of negotiations but an incoming Democratic Party controlled Congress is likely to. Such an administration could bring pressure on Trump to consider negotiations and political solutions to the outstanding issues in West Asia. Hopefully this opening for progressive change would be seized by the Democrats and sustainably followed through in the days ahead.
An incoming Democratic Party-dominated Congress would need to work on several fronts if it is to prove sensitive to the US public’s aspirations. It would need to end all forms of conflict and war in the Middle East, cut down on needless defense spending and invigorate the weak domestic economy. There is no getting away from the need for a two-state solution in West Asia. The recent mid-term polls results amply prove that these are main among the US public’s needs.
However, incoming more democracy-friendly administrations would also need to call on Israel’s neighbours, including Iran, to cooperate in finding peaceful, negotiated solutions to the problems that have been bloodily tearing the region apart. It will need to be impressed on these neighbours that Israel would not be negotiating from a position of weakness. It is simply that diplomatic, equitable solutions would do everyone concerned good.
Iran’s first demand calls for an ‘end to hostilities on all fronts’; including Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. This is the way forward, but Iran needs to be asked to do more than what is seen as its part to end hostilities. It should not only down arms against Israel but prove its sincerity by recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The nuclear option, meanwhile, needs to be shelved by all concerned. It needs to be perceived by all that unending war leads to the eventual annihilation of all.
“Pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart.” Robert F. Kennedy borrowed these words from Aeschylus on the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, speaking to a stunned crowd in Indianapolis. Two months later he was murdered himself.
I thought of that line in Washington, thirty-two years after my father, Ossie Abeyagoonasekera, was assassinated in Sri Lanka on 9 November 1994. At my book launch at the National Press Club, I met Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert Kennedy’s eldest daughter. She spoke of losing her father at sixteen. I was sixteen when I lost mine. Our fathers belonged to different nations and traditions, yet violence left us the same inheritance: the knowledge that one moment can divide a life into everything before and everything after.
Some losses are not healed by time. Time only teaches us to carry them.
The assassin believes he has settled something. He kills a man to silence an argument and let fear decide the future. But the dead go on asking the questions the living would rather avoid.
My father’s question has not aged: how free is Sri Lanka to decide its own future? I believe the answer lies in two places at once, in how we deal with the world’s great powers and in how we treat our own citizens. A country cannot be sovereign abroad and fearful at home.
He led a small party in an age of executive presidents, ideological quarrels and armed insurgency. After his close friend Vijaya Kumaratunga was assassinated in 1988, he assumed leadership of the Sri Lanka Mahajana Party, which would lose 117 of its members to political violence. He stayed.
In 1986 he travelled to Jaffna with Vijaya to speak with the LTTE, when dialogue itself could be called betrayal. Years later, a former LTTE member told me my father had earned their trust. The irony is unbearable, and I will not soften it: the organisation with which he sought peace carried out the bombing that ended his life.
He did not oppose his country. He opposed the injustice that threatened it. In 1982 he challenged President J. R. Jayewardene with a symbolic rice-ration-book campaign. In Welikada prison he corresponded with Nelson Mandela, who encouraged his struggle. And he supported his opponents’ policies whenever they served ordinary citizens. Loyalty to a party, he understood, is not loyalty to a nation.
His travels took him to India, China, the Soviet Union, Libya and Europe. I lived with him in Bonn in 1988–89, as the Berlin Wall approached its fall, and learned that small nations are never alone in history. They are always being looked at by larger ones. Today the Indian Ocean is contested by India, China, the United States and others through security, infrastructure and investment. The danger begins when that competition shapes our domestic choices and the stories citizens tell about their country. A nation loses sovereignty not only when foreign soldiers cross its border, but when its leaders can no longer tell the national interest from someone else’s. Sri Lanka’s task is not to choose between New Delhi, Beijing or Washington. It is to keep the independence to decide what serves its own people.
That independence is tested at home too.
The government promised to repeal oppressive counterterrorism law. In October it tabled the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill(PSTB) to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Critics point out that it allows detention for up to a year without charge, followed by up to a year of pretrial detention, and that a magistrate cannot overturn a detention order. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has urged the government to withdraw this bill and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, citing the lessons of the old Act.
The Twenty-Second Amendment deserves the same scrutiny. It raises the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges. The government presents it as a way to strengthen judicial independence and clear the backlog of cases. But the Bar Association notes that the sitting Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit directly, and a UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite has written to the President with serious concerns.
Days ago, Gampaha Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne, who had asked the President of the Court of Appeal to begin contempt proceedings against the Inspector General of Police for failing to comply with a court order, was transferred to the Judges’ Training Institute with immediate effect.
The state has a duty to protect its people from terrorism and organised crime. But a law must be judged by what it lets a future government do, not by the intentions of the present one. A government elected on the promise of greater freedom owes the public an explanation of why its laws seem to narrow it.
I have now lived more years without my father than with him. In Washington I was returned to the sixteen-year-old who believed death was history’s last word. Time has taught me otherwise. The questions remain, patient and unanswered.
My father believed politics could be an act of love: the difficult kind that demands sacrifice and defends human dignity. As I prepare to launch the Sinhala translation of Winds of Change, I hope more Sri Lankans will read it in their own language and ask these questions for themselves.
My father died believing Sri Lanka could become a more just country. Our duty is to see that it also remains a free one.
The lead up to the festive season is now in full swing with entertainment galore!
In addition to the numerous musical concerts, dances, too, are very much in evidence, and that means we all have a choice!
What is also so special about these dances is that the old boys’ associations of some of the leading schools are in a celebration mood — and this year, De Mazenod College, Kandana, lit up the season in the grandest style!
The De Mazenod College Old Boys’ Association held its annual dinner dance, ‘Luminaria: MazenodiaNite ’26,’ on Saturday, 24 October, 2026.
The “Blue, White & Gold Gala” took place at the Grand Ballroom of Waters Edge, Battaramulla — and what a night it was!
It was a sold-out event and there was fun and excitement right throughout the night. From the moment the doors opened, the ballroom sparkled in blue, white and gold — the colours of Mazenodian pride!
Everyone present had a gala time and guests were heard to say it was a lovely night, meeting up with old friends, lots of laughter, and great memories. Old classmates hugged, teachers were remembered with love, and stories from schooldays flowed like fine wine.
It was truly a night for alumni, family and friends — generations of Mazenodians under one glittering roof.
The crowning of the queen of the night generated lots of excitement, and so did the baila competition.
Niduki Perera was crowned Mazenodian Queen 2026, while the baila competition was won by Ruwantha Cooray and Ranusha Wijesinghe.
Niduki got the nod from the judges as she was charming and strikingly lovely. She did sparkle under the lights — a true queen, graceful, radiant and unforgettable.
Ranusha Wijesinghe and Ruwantha Cooray: Baila champs
Akasha Senavirathne was the 1st Runner-up, while Ranusha Wijesinghe was placed third — a double celebration for Ranusha, who also shone on the dance floor!
According to reports, there was thrill and joy when the baila competition got under way as there was plenty of energy and action on the dance floor, with Ruwantha Cooray and Ranusha Wijesinghe emerging as baila champs. The crowd cheered, clapped and danced along — pure Sri Lankan baila magic!
Guests say it was a night of light, a night of elegance, an unforgettable night.
Musical sets by C-Plus and BLACK, kept the guests dancing until dawn, while renowned compere Faizal Bongso anchored the celebration with his trademark charm and wit.
From slow romantic numbers to foot-tapping baila, from golden oldies to modern hits — the dance floor was never empty!
Numerous alumni batches, including representatives from the 2001 batch, and others celebrating generational Mazenodian spirit, made up this memorable occasion. Fathers and sons, brothers and batchmates — all dancing together as one Mazenodian family.
As the night drew to a close, one thing was clear — ‘Luminaria: MazenodiaNite ’26’ was not just a dinner dance. It was a celebration of friendship, of brotherhood, of memories and of Mazenodian pride.
A night of Light. A night of Love. A night to Remember!
Searching for leadership: Can we bring back qualities of our golden years?
Prospect of ‘spaceport’ on Sri Lanka’s east coast
Sarojini Kadirgamar –a lady for all seasons
Why the Jaffna Man Eats So Much Murunga
Batting frailties give Sri Lanka food for thought
Sri Lankan Airlines loss amplified to Rs35Bn by monetary debasement
Iran allows ship carrying fertilizer for SL to pass Strait of Hormuz
GMOA seeks restoration of duty-free vehicle permits
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…