• Viral video revives long-standing grievances in popular tourist zones 
• Local travellers argue they are sidelined despite significant spending power 
• Business owners cite ‘unruly behaviour’ by some locals as justification 
• Enforcement powers restricted to SLTDA-registered hotels, restaurants 
• HRCSL says no formal complaints yet, but oversight concerns mount 

“He won’t serve us because we have brown skin.” The remark, made by a visibly angry British Sri Lankan tourist in a TikTok video that went viral weeks ago, has reignited debate over alleged discrimination against Sri Lankans at tourist establishments across the island. 

Sri Lanka’s tourism industry has long been plagued by allegations of selective treatment of local and foreign tourists. On the one hand, locals have alleged that many hospitality and recreation establishments often use ‘foreign tourists only’ policies, while tourists have often questioned why they are forced to pay more for services and access to tourism sites – often at a higher rate than locals. 

A beachside restaurant in Tangalle recently faced intense public backlash after a video circulated online alleging that the establishment had refused to serve Sri Lankan customers, claiming it catered exclusively to foreign tourists. The footage was recorded by three Sri Lankans based in the UK, who said they had been turned away solely because they were locals. 

In the video, one of them alleged that the refusal was racially motivated, stating that they had been denied service because of their skin colour and nationality. When questioned, the manager of the establishment reportedly responded: “We don’t serve locals.” 

The clip, later shared on social media by Harry Pereira, drew widespread criticism. Many users condemned what they described as discriminatory practices in tourist hotspots and called for regulatory authorities to take action. 

Although the Constitution guarantees equal treatment for all citizens, allegations of preferential treatment towards foreign tourists in certain establishments, particularly in popular coastal destinations, are not new. Domestic travellers and residents have long complained that during peak tourist seasons, some businesses restrict access to locals, only to court them aggressively with discounted offers during the off-season. 

A local tourist highlighted concerns over rapid commercialisation in Hiriketiya. “Every inch of the beach is rented out. Sunbeds are sold for Rs. 10,000 per day. Locals don’t even have a place to sit,” he said, describing the situation as a failure of town planning that harms both residents and sustainable tourism. 

“If both locals and foreigners are paying the same rate, why discriminate, provided they behave appropriately?” he asked.

Patterns across tourist zones

The Tangalle incident is not isolated. Complaints have emerged from multiple tourist hubs across the country. 

Down south, areas such as Unawatuna, Galle, Hikkaduwa, Mirissa, Weligama, and Ahangama have repeatedly featured in online discussions alleging exclusionary practices. 

In Hikkaduwa, one of the island’s oldest tourist hubs, long-standing complaints of ‘foreigners only’ establishments persist. In Mirissa and Weligama, boutique cafés and surf camps have reportedly asked patrons whether they are Sri Lankan before granting entry. Ahangama, currently experiencing rapid gentrification, has been cited as a location where certain backpacker-oriented cafés and private events are informally restricted to foreigners. 

Within Galle Fort, although most businesses operate inclusively, recent viral videos have shown isolated incidents where local groups were reportedly turned away under the pretext of ‘reservations’ or ‘foreigners only’ policies.

On the eastern coast, Arugam Bay has, during peak season from May to September, become a flashpoint for similar complaints. There have been allegations that certain establishments hosting private beach events denied entry to locals. 

In the central highlands, Ella, widely promoted as a welcoming backpacker destination, has also drawn criticism. Domestic travellers have reported being told restaurants were fully booked, despite visible empty tables, while foreign walk-ins were seated shortly after.

Forms of discrimination

Observers note that discriminatory practices take several forms. Some establishments have allegedly displayed Sinhala signage discouraging locals from entering, assuming foreign tourists would not understand the message. Others have been accused of using the ‘reservation’ excuse as a softer method of exclusion. 

Concerns have also been raised about dual-tiered access in certain tourist sites, including separate parking areas or facilities for locals and foreigners, reinforcing perceptions of segregation. 

For many domestic travellers, such experiences leave a lasting impact. One visitor recounted an incident they had faced at the Bahirawakanda Temple in Kandy. She described how a member of her group had requested access to a restroom, only to be told it was “for foreigners only”. She said that had been the last time she had visited the site. 

Another viral TikTok video featured a local tourist describing her experience at a popular beachside restaurant. She praised the venue’s aesthetics but said she was “very disappointed” with its hospitality towards Sri Lankans. According to her account, after being allowed to choose a table with a sea view, she and her group were later informed that the area was reserved exclusively for foreign tourists and were directed to a less desirable table without a view. 

Nethmi Lashena recalled an incident that allegedly took place at a small restaurant in Mirissa about a year ago. She said she had visited the establishment with her husband and relatives when they had been refused service. 

“They told us they only catered to foreigners,” she said, alleging that the person who spoke to them, believed to be the manager or owner, had made disparaging remarks. “He told me: ‘If you were white like a foreigner, we would have served you.’” 

According to Lashena, the situation escalated into a heated argument before the group decided to leave. 

In a Facebook thread following a viral video alleging discrimination, a Sri Lankan shared a recent experience at an establishment in Hikkaduwa. 

“The owner wrote a long ChatGPT reply stating that their policy was to accept only pre-bookings after I left a review. Funny enough, I wanted to pre-book for my seven friends, who are foreigners, and I am the only local. They kept arguing that Lankans are troublemakers and are not wanted inside their premises. Unfortunately, I couldn’t record anything; it was overwhelming and shocking to me,” she said.

Industry perspectives

A tour guide in Galle, speaking on condition of anonymity, offered a contrasting view on the controversy, arguing that tensions between establishments and domestic tourists were often linked to behavioural expectations rather than deliberate discrimination. 

Referring to the recent viral videos, he stressed the economic importance of tourism. “Tourism is our best path out of poverty, and our goal should be to make it our primary income source,” he said, adding that boutique hotels catered to a specific ‘lifestyle’ market with defined standards. 

According to him, friction arises when some local visitors fail to observe expected norms in high-end settings. He cited instances of excessive noise, improper parking, and disruptive behaviour, claiming that such conduct affects the experience of other paying guests. 

He argued that the issue was not necessarily financial. “If you are willing to pay Rs. 1,500 for a cup of coffee or the room rate, you will be served. You are a guest,” he said. 

“We need to educate our society from school level, not just on how to tour, but on how to behave in a hotel, how to sit in a restaurant, and how to respect the forests and the environment. Even locals who live abroad and return for holidays sometimes drop their discipline the moment they land here, behaving in ways they never would in Italy or Dubai,” he claimed. 

The guide maintained that what was often labelled as discrimination may, in certain cases, reflect efforts by businesses to maintain standards for high-paying clientele. He emphasised the need for broader social awareness, suggesting that education on hospitality etiquette and environmental respect should begin at school level to better align local tourism practices with global standards. 

The guide argued that much of the friction stemmed from behavioural conflicts rather than legal discrimination. He cited situations in which high-paying tourists were disturbed by locals on adjoining public beaches who were “drinking, eating, and playing drums”. 

According to him, when individuals are asked to leave due to such conduct, it is sometimes framed as marginalisation. “When you are asked to leave because of that behaviour and you call it ‘marginalisation,’ it isn’t actually marginalisation; it’s a different story,” he said, suggesting that businesses were attempting to preserve the environment expected by their clientele rather than exclude locals outright. 

An owner of a lodging (homestay) in Ella, whose establishment, a family-owned business primarily opened for foreign tourists, also alleged that most Sri Lankans behaved in an unruly manner and sometimes damaged the property. He said that he had decided to open the doors of the establishment only for foreign tourists because “it is less trouble and is more profitable”.

When asked whether he knew such restrictions could be a violation of Sri Lankan law, he said: “This is my private property. I think I can decide to whom I should open the doors. I don’t think it violates anyone’s rights.” 

‘We spend more than some foreigners’ 

Although tour guides and establishment owners claim that serving foreign tourists is more profitable, it should be noted that many Sri Lankans who live abroad and return to the island for vacations also spend hefty amounts during the few weeks they spend in the country. 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Subhash Gunawardhane, a quantity surveyor currently based in Saudi Arabia with his family, said that when they came to Sri Lanka on vacation, they naturally spent a few million rupees to spend time with family and friends. 

“In these countries, we don’t spend; we save our money so we can spend it in Sri Lanka with our loved ones. We go on several trips with our entire families and groups of friends during a single vacation. These are foreign currency earnings as well. But I’ve noticed a difference between the treatment towards white-skinned foreigners and brown-skinned locals like us from establishments, hotels, restaurants, and shopping malls – not at every place, but in some places. 

“When people like us – and this is a very similar situation for me and my friends who live overseas across every continent in the world – visit Sri Lanka for vacations, we don’t mind spending money to have quality time with our loved ones,” he said. 

Another Sri Lankan who has citizenship in Italy with his family members said he came to Sri Lanka for a vacation in December 2025 and spent about a month there. During that month, he spent close to Rs. 6 million. 

“I have been living abroad for a long time. Compared to the white-skinned foreigners some of these people speak about and admire, Sri Lankans like us who return home for holidays spend far more generously. 

“While they remain stuck in such foolish attitudes, most of the tourists in Sri Lanka are budget travellers. They go to large restaurants and ask whether there are hoppers or coconut roti. They have breakfast that doubles as lunch, usually just roti and plain tea. Therefore, they need to understand their business properly. The day they will need locals will come. That is when they will regret it,” another Sri Lankan asserted on a social media thread. 

Regulatory oversight and accountability

Every act of denying service to a local customer raises serious constitutional concerns. Article 12(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka explicitly provides: “No person shall, on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, or any one of such grounds, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition with regard to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment…” 

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) Commissioner Nimal G. Punchihewa told The Sunday Morning that the commission had not yet received formal complaints regarding discrimination against locals at hotels or tourist hotspots. 

He clarified that the HRCSL’s mandate did not extend to directly regulating private business owners, including hotels and restaurants. However, he noted that private establishments were bound by guidelines and regulations issued by relevant authorities such as the Ministry of Tourism and the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA). 

Punchihewa explained that while the commission could not directly intervene in private businesses, it could engage with and supervise relevant Government bodies if they failed to address such issues. “The HRCSL has the authority to engage and supervise the relevant Government bodies in their failure to acknowledge these issues,” he said. 

The Hotels Association of Sri Lanka (THASL) was contacted via email, as per its request, regarding concerns raised on social media, including questions about its position on alleged discrimination, complaint monitoring mechanisms, and the comparative spending patterns of local and foreign tourists. 

Although a detailed response was not received at the time of publication, the THASL Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the inquiry and stated that it would review the matter. 

Meanwhile, the SLTDA has reinforced its position amid a rise in allegations of so-called ‘tourist apartheid’ in coastal hubs such as Mirissa, Hikkaduwa, and Arugam Bay. In a statement issued on 25 January, the authority warned that licensed establishments found engaging in discriminatory practices would face strict enforcement action. 

Under the outlined measures, the SLTDA said that it would not hesitate to suspend or revoke the operating licences of establishments proven to be exclusionary. In addition, the authority stated that it would notify Online Travel Agencies (OTAs), including Booking.com and Agoda, to refrain from accepting bookings for properties identified as discriminatory – a move aimed at strengthening compliance through market-based consequences. 

Official communications from the SLTDA have also reminded industry stakeholders that domestic tourists had served as the ‘lifeblood’ of the sector during the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks and throughout the global pandemic. The authority has urged hoteliers and service providers to act as “brand ambassadors of inclusivity,” warning that treating citizens as second-class customers was not only ethically problematic but economically short-sighted as well. 

To support these directives, the SLTDA has operationalised its Enforcement Unit, deploying a dedicated team of investigators tasked with conducting spot checks and probing formal complaints. The authority has also called on the public to report incidents through its official complaints portal, encouraging victims and witnesses to come forward. 

When the matter was discussed in Parliament recently, Deputy Minister of Tourism Ruwan Ranasinghe acknowledged that complaints of discriminatory practices had been reported, particularly in areas like Ella. 

However, he noted that the authorities faced limitations in taking action against tourist service providers who were not registered with the SLTDA. 

“We can only take action against establishments registered with the SLTDA. In the case of complaints against unregistered hotels and restaurants, our ability to intervene is limited, even though such discrimination is unlawful. 

“Incidents involving discrimination against locals are reported more frequently during peak seasons, when foreign visitors are abundant. Some operators may consider it more profitable to prioritise foreign guests over local customers. However, it is unlawful to discriminate against locals,” he said.