October 11, Colombo (LNW): The Meteorological Department has forecast a spell of unsettled weather across various parts of the island today, particularly in the afternoon and evening hours.

A combination of showers and thundershowers is anticipated in the Eastern, Uva, and Central provinces, as well as in parts of the Polonnaruwa and Hambantota districts, with rainfall activity likely to intensify after 1.00 p.m.

In particular, residents of the Uva province may experience fairly heavy rainfall, with some areas expected to receive over 50 millimetres. While the central and eastern regions are expected to bear the brunt of this weather system, isolated thundershowers may also develop in other parts of the country later in the day.

The morning hours could see showers developing along the western and southern coastal belts. In addition, misty conditions are forecast for certain locations within the Sabaragamuwa, Central, and Uva provinces during the early part of the day, potentially affecting visibility and travel.

Authorities are urging the public to remain vigilant and to take necessary safety measures, particularly during periods of thunderstorm activity. Localised gusty winds and lightning strikes are possible during these storms, posing risks to both individuals and property.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has been awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, recognized for her relentless efforts to defend democracy and human rights in Venezuela.

Announcing the award in Oslo, the Nobel Committee hailed Machado as “one of the most extraordinary examples of courage in Latin America in recent times.”

Committee chair Jørgen Watne Frydnes emphasized that democratic activism in Venezuela remains dangerous, yet Machado has stood unwaveringly for free and fair elections for more than two decades, describing her advocacy as “a choice of ballots over bullets.”

“The Nobel Peace Prize for 2025 goes to a woman who keeps the flame of democracy going, amidst a growing darkness,” Frydnes declared.

Machado, a long-standing critic of Venezuela’s authoritarian government, has become a unifying figure in the country’s opposition movement. The committee praised her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela” and her leadership in pursuing “a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

The award also comes at a time when democratic values face increasing threats globally. The committee stressed that Machado embodies the core of democracy—defending principles of popular rule even when disagreements remain.

“At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground,” the chairman added.

The announcement followed speculation surrounding other high-profile candidates. Notably, U.S. President Donald Trump had mounted a public campaign for the prize, though nominations closed at the beginning of his second term earlier this year.

With this honor, Machado joins a prestigious list of Nobel laureates and becomes a powerful symbol of resistance and hope for Venezuela’s democratic future.

By Roger Srivasan

Introduction

I was born in the Northern part of Sri Lanka, but my childhood and much of my life unfolded in the United Kingdom. For half a century I have lived in a society where the environment has steadily been pushed higher up the public agenda. I remember vividly the day the UK government, following Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, decided to charge for plastic carrier bags. What seemed like a small 5-pence nudge at the till quickly transformed public behaviour. Within a few years, plastic bags on UK beaches had fallen by 80 per cent. Now Sri Lanka is embarking on a similar journey, banning single-use carrier bags. The instinct is right.

The question is: can we replicate the British success story, or will our own economic and social realities blunt the impact?

What Britain Did Right

The UK’s approach was gradual and carefully staged. Wales led the way in October 2011 with a 5p levy.

Northern Ireland followed in 2013, Scotland in 2014, and England in 2015. By 2021, the charge doubled to 10p and was extended to all retailers. The results were dramatic: fewer plastic bags in circulation, cleaner beaches, and a shift in mindset. Why did it work so smoothly? Three factors mattered:

1. Cars and convenience – most shoppers drove, storing “bags for life” in their car boots.

2. Alternatives at scale – supermarkets offered reusable options, reminders at tills, and visible messaging.

3. Affluence and awareness– the public could absorb a small fee and embraced the environmental argument. In short, Britain harnessed small incentives to achieve a big cultural change.

Europe: Levy or Ban

The EU acted through Directive 2015/720, requiring member states to cut consumption of lightweight carrier bags. Some chose levies, others bans. Ireland pioneered the levy in 2002, slashing usage almost overnight.

France phased in bans in 2016–2017. Germany introduced a nationwide ban on lightweight bags from 2022.

The lesson? Whether by fee or outright prohibition, the direction is unmistakable: fewer disposables, more re-use.

The Anglosphere Experience

Across the English-speaking world, the pattern is varied but unmistakable. – United States: With no federal law, individual states took the lead. California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, and Rhode Island now restrict or ban bags. California goes further: from 2026 all plastic grocery bags, even thick “reusables,” will be outlawed. – Canada: The federal government introduced a ban in 2022, now under legal challenge. A court stay keeps the rules in effect while the appeal proceeds. – Australia: Every state and territory has banned lightweight plastic bags. Some, like South Australia, are widening restrictions to cover more single-use plastics.

Why Sri Lanka Is Different

Sri Lanka faces unique obstacles. The average household here does not mirror the British suburban shopper with a car boot full of sturdy bags. Many rely on buses, trains, three-wheelers, or walking. Carrying groceries in heavy reusable bags is a far greater inconvenience. Economic constraints deepen the dilemma. A reusable cloth or jute bag costs more than a flimsy polythene one. For lower-income families, even small costs bite hard. Meanwhile, our retail landscape is fragmented: modern supermarkets, wet markets, and thousands of kades. Enforcing a uniform ban across this patchwork is daunting.

The Case for Action

Yet the environmental argument is overwhelming:

– Urban flooding: Blocked drains choked with polythene make monsoon deluges more destructive.

– Health: Burning discarded plastic releases toxic fumes in residential areas.

– Tourism and coasts: Marine litter damages fisheries and our international image. We cannot afford inaction. But we must tailor solutions to our realities.

A Sri Lankan Way Forward

If Sri Lanka is to succeed, the ban cannot stand alone. It must be paired with innovation and practicality:

1.Start with a charge, then escalate – follow the UK’s path, giving people time to adapt.

2. Subsidise reusable bags – make cloth or jute carriers cheap, or free at the start, especially for low-income households.

3. Baglibraries and rentals – supermarkets and kades could lend bags for a deposit, refundable on return.

4.Foldable pocket bags – sell compact cloth bags at bus stands and railway kiosks.

5. Market-specific solutions– for wet markets, reusable crates or woven sacks rented out per trip.

6. Unified enforcement – clear, simple rules for supermarkets and kades to avoid confusion or unfair penalties.

Conclusion: Worthy, but Adapted

The ban on plastic bags is a worthy initiative. It signals responsibility, protects our environment, and reminds us that small choices carry large consequences. But Sri Lanka must adapt the model. We cannot simply import the UK approach and expect identical results. In Britain, affluence, car culture, and retail centralisation smoothed the path. Here, success will depend on education, affordability, and localised alternatives. If we design the transition wisely, Sri Lanka can reap the same environmental rewards without burdening its people. The lesson is clear: ban the bag, but bend the policy to Sri Lankan realities.

Sidebar: Key Global Milestones

Sri Lanka’s Board of Investment (BOI) has claimed that the country secured USD 787 million in foreign direct investment (FDI) during the first nine months of 2025 a figure that, on close examination, appears inflated and methodologically inconsistent with the Central Bank’s balance-of-payments (BoP) data and the nation’s economic realities.

An independent review of Central Bank BoP tables and CEIC quarterly data shows that net FDI inflows for January-September 2024 measured under internationally accepted IMF-BPM6 accounting standards were only around USD 300 to 320 million.

Given the country’s unchanged investment climate, policy uncertainty, and limited project pipeline since late 2024, a 2.5-fold increase within one year is implausible without corresponding evidence of large-scale project disbursements or foreign-funded industrial ventures. No such evidence has been publicly documented.

Discrepancies in BOI Accounting

The BOI’s headline figure lumps together foreign equity, reinvested earnings, intra-company loans, and foreign commercial borrowings of BOI-registered firms. By treating internal financing and retained profits of existing investors as “new FDI,” the BOI effectively pads its total with domestic reinvestment and inter-company debt, rather than recording fresh cross-border capital inflows.

Such inclusion distorts the real FDI picture, since these funds neither add foreign exchange reserves nor represent new foreign ownership in local enterprises. In contrast, the Central Bank’s BoP methodology isolates only genuine cross-border capital contributions and profit reinvestments consistent with global standards.

 Under that framework, Sri Lanka’s net inflows have rarely exceeded USD 1 billion annually in recent years and typically average below 1 percent of GDP one of the lowest ratios in Asia.

Lack of Transparency and Verification

The BOI’s refusal to publish a category-wise breakdown for its USD 787 million claim further undermines confidence. Without specifying how much was equity, reinvested earnings, or loans, it is impossible for analysts or Parliament to verify the claim’s validity.

 Moreover, no matching rise in project approvals, construction starts, or foreign remittances has been reflected in parallel economic indicators such as imports of investment goods or employment data.

 Independent Assessment

Given the CBSL’s BoP-based net inflow estimate of only USD 300–320 million for the comparable period in 2024, a realistic projection for 2025 factoring in modest improvement in investor sentiment but persistent structural barriers would be in the USD 400–500 million range at best. That still marks incremental progress, but falls far short of the BOI’s USD 787 million claim.

Conclusion: Numbers in Search of Credibility

On balance, available macroeconomic evidence strongly suggests that the BOI’s reported USD 787 million FDI inflow is overstated. The figure appears to reflect accounting aggregation rather than a true surge in foreign capital. Until the BOI releases audited, disaggregated data distinguishing new cross-border equity from internal re investments and loans, its FDI announcements should be treated with caution.

For policymakers and investors alike, transparency not political optics must define Sri Lanka’s investment reporting if the country is serious about restoring credibility in global capital markets.

Foreign Affairs Minister Vijitha Herath announced in Parliament yesterday that the Government plans to hold the long-delayed Provincial Council Elections within the next year.

“We will decide on the election once the ongoing delimitation process is completed. Afterwards, a decision will be made on whether the election will be held under the proportional representation system or a mixed electoral system,” the Minister stated.

He added that the final decision rests with Parliament, emphasizing that the necessary legal and administrative steps will follow the completion of the delimitation process.

Minister Herath made these remarks in response to questions raised by opposition MPs Jeevan Thondaman and S. Rasamanickam regarding the timeline for holding Provincial Council elections.

Foreign Affairs Minister Vijitha Herath told Parliament yesterday that for the past 16 years, resolutions against Sri Lanka have been passed at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) due to the failure of previous governments to resolve the national question and address human rights concerns locally.

He said successive governments had politicised national and human rights issues for short-term political gain, which ultimately led to the internationalisation of Sri Lanka’s human rights situation.

“By the time this Government took office in 2024, the human rights issue had already been internationalised and made more complex,” Minister Herath noted.

Tracing the history of UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka, the Minister explained that both the Human Rights Commission (the predecessor to the current Council) and the Human Rights Council have adopted multiple resolutions on Sri Lanka since the 1980s — including 11 resolutions since 2009 alone.

He said that calling for votes at the Council, as done by previous administrations, was “a futile exercise” that wasted public resources, knowing the outcome would not change.

“Instead of resolving these issues locally and building unity, previous governments engaged in divisive racial and religious politics, further isolating the country internationally,” he added.

Minister Herath pointed out that the 2009 Geneva resolution called for a sustainable national solution to address the grievances of all communities, but this was never implemented. Subsequent resolutions in 2012 and 2013 urged the implementation of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations, but those, too, were ignored.

“If those recommendations had been implemented through a national mechanism, there would be no Geneva resolutions today,” he observed.

He emphasised that the current Government under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, which came to power in October 2024, is committed to eradicating poverty and corruption while building a united, rights-respecting nation.

Engagement with the UNHRC

Minister Herath also briefed Parliament on his recent engagements with the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. He said that during the 60th Human Rights Session earlier this year, the Council members took note of Sri Lanka’s domestic initiatives to protect the political and economic rights of all citizens and promote reconciliation.

He highlighted that the visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk to Sri Lanka in June 2025 — the first such visit in nine years — resulted in positive observations about the country’s progress.

“The High Commissioner commended the genuine openness of the Sri Lankan Government, the progressive change in society, and the steps taken to address issues through domestic mechanisms,” the Minister said, adding that the High Commissioner’s report to the Council in September reflected these positive developments.

Domestic Reforms and Human Rights

Minister Herath reaffirmed that the Government’s goal is to strengthen national institutions and pursue truth and reconciliation through local processes, rather than international mechanisms such as the Sri Lanka Accountability Project established under Resolution 46/1 (2021).

“We have clearly stated that Sri Lanka will not accept non-domestic mechanisms,” he said. “Our aim is to resolve these issues through our own independent processes and institutions.”

He announced several upcoming reforms, including:

• The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, to be presented to Parliament soon.
• The establishment of an independent Public Prosecutor’s Office.
• The repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and introduction of a new law that balances counterterrorism and human rights.
• Amendments to the Security of Online Systems Act to better protect citizens’ rights.

Herath stressed that these initiatives are not intended to “impress Geneva” but arise from the Government’s genuine commitment to human rights and justice for all victims.

“We are not targeting military personnel or any section of the population,” he clarified. “Our responsibility is to protect human rights, ensure the rule of law, build unity, and prevent the recurrence of conflict.”

Geneva Resolution of October 2025

Referring to the resolution on Sri Lanka adopted without a vote on October 6, Herath said the Government decided not to call for a vote, in keeping with its policy against “futile demonstrations.”

He noted that the latest resolution was more balanced than previous ones, as it recognised Sri Lanka’s democratic transformation, economic recovery efforts, anti-corruption measures, and reconciliation initiatives.

However, he reiterated that the Government rejects the continuation of the Sri Lanka Accountability Project, as it remains an external mechanism.

The Minister concluded that Sri Lanka’s domestic approach has earned growing recognition from member states, with 43 countries at the September 8 UNHRC dialogue expressing appreciation for the Government’s steps toward reconciliation and human rights protection.

“Protecting the human rights of our people is not a matter for debate — it is our duty and responsibility as representatives of the people,” he said.
“Our vision is of a peaceful, prosperous, and united Sri Lanka where all citizens can live in freedom and dignity. We are committed to making this dream a reality.”