Features

NPP govt., a patchwork of ideological differences, bound to suffer splits – FSP

Published

1 year ago

2025/01/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

Pubudu Jagoda

by Saman Indrajith

Education Secretary of the Frontline Socialist Party, Pubudu Jagoda, has expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to overcome the country’s pressing economic challenges.

In an interview with The Island, Jagoda highlights the inherent divisions within the JVP/NPP coalition, which, he believes, are bound to hinder its ability to provide meaningful relief to the public.

“The government is a patchwork of ideological contradictions,” Jagoda says. “It includes remnants of the old JVP cadre who advocate socialist solutions for economic problems. Alongside them are newer social democrats whose views often clash with the socialist stance. Adding to this complexity are neoliberals who align with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s policies but reject him personally, and a faction of nationalists—many of whom were part of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Viyath Maga initiative before joining the NPP.”

Jagoda says that this diversity of perspectives has resulted in an inability to present a cohesive strategy for addressing the country’s economic woes. “This collection of divergent views struggles to formulate practical solutions for the people’s problems.”

Jagoda is of the view that the government’s current approach relies heavily on rhetoric around anti-corruption initiatives and promises of reforming the political culture. While these efforts may garner short-term support, they lack the capacity to address the more immediate issues faced by the population. “There are limits to how far you can go with slogans about changing the political culture. These initiatives cannot put food on people’s tables,” he said.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: What is your assessment of the current situation in Sri Lanka?

A: The global economy has faced numerous crises over the years, from time to time. In the late 19th century, the 1920s, and 1973, significant economic downturns came into being. Historically, these crises have been characterised by fluctuating trends, often described using the shapes of English letters—V-shaped, U-shaped, and W-shaped—to denote the pattern of economic recovery and recession. For example, the 1973 crisis was V-shaped, while the 1927 crisis exhibited a W-shaped recovery. However, the global economic crisis of 2008 defied such conventional classifications. Initially described as L-shaped due to a sharp decline followed by prolonged stagnation, it later evolved into a pattern resembling a staircase cross-section. Economists now predict a further decline in 2025 and 2026, signifying a fast-collapsing global economy.

Economists argue that addressing the economic crisis requires a comprehensive strategy to manage external interventions by superpowers and to protect national interests. However, opposition parties, including the NPP and SJB, have failed to articulate clear economic policies. Their manifestos are technocratic and lack detailed strategies for addressing issues such as the debt crisis, state revenue challenges, foreign currency shortages, and a coherent development plan.

The government’s mandate, though significant in the parliamentary election, lacks a unified vision.

Sri Lanka faces three key economic policy challenges: the first one is continuation of IMF-driven policies. Will the NPP Government continue with the IMF’s structural adjustment programmes? The second is about managing superpower interventions: Can this government leverage its mandate to negotiate more favourable terms with global powers? The third is about addressing public welfare: Will the government prioritise economic relief for citizens or continue to favour corporate elites under the guise of political reform?

Sri Lanka’s economic crisis manifests starkly in rising poverty and malnutrition. Statistics reveal that 25% of families rely on financial support from neighbors and relatives, while 61% have reduced their food consumption. Child malnutrition rates have soared to 26%, levels previously associated with countries like Ethiopia and Somalia in the 1990s.

The government’s inability to articulate a clear economic vision and its reliance on neoliberal reforms risk deepening the crisis.

Q: What is the FSP going to do about it?

A: We advocate for an economic plan that provides an alternative to the IMF programme. We emphasise the importance of a foreign policy that protects Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and shields its people from the geostrategic invasions of powers like the US and India. Furthermore, we want the inequities created by a top corporate elite that benefited disproportionately from the previous regime’s economic policies addressed. Our position has consistently been that this elite should bear a fair share of the tax burden to provide relief to the people. These three pillars formed the foundation of our political campaign.

Looking ahead, we believe the most critical aspects will continue to revolve around these priorities, the first of them is opposition to the IMF programme. We challenge its long-term implications on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and economy. Then the issue of geostrategic independence. We advocate for a foreign policy that avoids subjugation to major powers. Third aspect is about equitable Taxation. We demand ensuring that economic policies benefit the majority rather than a privileged few.

As public frustration with the government grows, there is a real danger that people may revert to supporting extreme-right factions responsible for Sri Lanka’s economic turmoil. This could include figures like Ranil Wickremesinghe, members of the SJB, the Mahinda Rajapaksa camp, or even more regressive alternatives. History teaches us that severe economic crises often lead to two potential outcomes: revolutions/military coups or the rise of far-right fascist governments. Sri Lanka is no exception to this historical pattern.

If the current trajectory continues, new leaders could emerge from outside the existing political framework, replacing figures such as Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa, or Namal Rajapaksa. Alternatively, the country could face a revolution or even a military coup. Superpowers are unlikely to oppose such outcomes, as these scenarios could align with their strategic interests and facilitate their agendas.

Recognising these risks, we are focused on preventing a sudden collapse of the government. While criticising the IMF programme and the restructuring of International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs), we have taken proactive steps to offer alternatives. For instance, we submitted a detailed 13-page document outlining the dangers of the IMF programme and proposing alternative solutions. Recently, we provided 22 proposals for the national budget, reaffirming our commitment to constructive engagement rather than mere criticism.

Despite our efforts, the government has ignored these suggestions, offering no response or acknowledgment. Nevertheless, we see it as our responsibility to propose solutions and advocate for change. If the government continues on its current path, failure seems inevitable, leading to heightened public frustration.

In such a context, our primary focus is to create a political space that prevents the public from being pushed toward far-right factions or fascist military-style governance. To achieve this, we are engaging with leftist and progressive elements within the democratic framework. In the meantime, we are utilising platforms like the People’s Struggle to unite individuals and organisations against the potential rise of far-right authoritarianism.

This initiative seeks to build a broad coalition capable of resisting such a shift while advocating for a just and equitable alternative. We understand that this cannot be achieved by our party alone, so we are collaborating with other progressive forces to strengthen this movement.

Our efforts are directed toward preventing a political and economic regression in Sri Lanka. By uniting progressive forces and presenting clear alternatives, we aim to address the root causes of the crisis while protecting the nation from the threats of authoritarianism and economic subjugation.

Q: How would you interpret the Joint Statement issued by India and Sri Lanka following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s visit?

A: We must acknowledge the geopolitical reality that India is both Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour and the regional superpower. It is inevitable that Sri Lanka must work with India while being mindful of her strategic and economic interests. However, this does not mean that we must relinquish our sovereignty, independence, or national dignity. A balance is both possible and necessary.

For instance, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s assurance that Sri Lanka would not allow its territory to be used against India’s security interests was, while prudent in principle, perhaps an over-commitment in execution. Safeguarding India’s security concerns is one thing but providing explicit commitments risks undermining our flexibility and sovereignty. It is a self-imposed limitation that could have been avoided.

Similarly, the joint statement’s commitments to land connectivity, an integrated oil pipeline, and a shared electricity grid raise serious concerns. These projects are not without precedent in the region, and the experiences of other nations connected to India offer cautionary lessons. Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all face significant challenges arising from their direct land links with India. Sri Lanka’s geographical separation by sea has so far shielded it from similar vulnerabilities, and it would be unwise to jeopardise this advantage without thorough deliberation.

The proposed electricity grid integration is another contentious issue. Nations like Bangladesh, which are already connected to India’s electricity grid, are formulating exit strategies due to reliability and sovereignty concerns. For instance, Bangladesh faced prolonged power cuts when it failed to settle bills with India. Similarly, Nepal has been unable to fully exploit its hydropower potential because of obligations under agreements with India. Sri Lanka, with over a century of independent electricity production and potential for future self-sufficiency, has no engineering necessity to integrate its grid with India. Such a move appears driven more by political than practical considerations.

The oil pipeline and refinery agreements also warrant scrutiny. Historically, Sri Lanka has imported crude oil for domestic refining, with plans to upgrade facilities like the Sapugaskanda refinery to produce and export diesel and petrol, emulating Singapore. However, recent agreements have seen the handover of strategic assets, including Trincomalee’s oil tanks and the operation of local petrol stations, to Indian entities. Furthermore, the proposed monopoly on LNG supply by an Indian company undermines Sri Lanka’s ability to procure competitively priced LNG from global markets.

These agreements are reportedly still at the “in-principle” stage, but the government’s failure to consult parliament or public forums before committing to such significant undertakings raises serious concerns. Instead of deferring to agreements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, whose policies were widely rejected in elections, the current administration should assert its mandate and demand reconsideration of these commitments.

The issue of awarding the digital national ID project to an Indian company further highlights the erosion of sovereignty. In an era where data is as critical as military assets, granting access to the biometric and personal data of 22 million Sri Lankans to a foreign entity is a grave risk. The tender process itself has been controversial, with conditions favoring only Indian companies and the tender notice published exclusively in Indian newspapers. This lack of transparency and favoritism raises alarms about national security and accountability.

Examples from other nations further underline the dangers of such agreements. In Kenya, the same Indian company involved in Sri Lanka’s digital ID project was banned after allegations of data fraud. Despite this, the Sri Lankan government has persisted with plans that effectively outsource national security data to a foreign entity, undermining the country’s sovereignty.

While Sri Lanka’s size and economic vulnerability necessitate diplomatic tact, these factors do not justify subservience to any foreign power. The President’s visit to India and the commitments made during the visit failed to uphold the dignity and independence of Sri Lanka. It is imperative that our leaders adopt a more balanced approach that safeguards national sovereignty while engaging constructively with India.

Q: How would you comment on the President’s scheduled visit to China?

A: The geopolitical scene has evolved significantly since the Cold War era, transforming international relations into a complex interplay of economic, political, and military interests. Unlike the binary divisions of the past, where nations were clearly aligned with one of two superpowers, today’s global politics involves multifaceted alliances that often overlap and conflict.

For instance, India, which historically aligned with the USSR, now pursues multiple roles. Economically, India collaborates with China and Russia within BRICS, promoting de-dollarization. However, militarily, India partners with the U.S. and other QUAD nations, positioning itself against Chinese regional dominance. Similarly, China has shifted its foreign policy from rigid ideological stances to pragmatic engagement, often accommodating regional superpowers’ roles in their respective spheres of influence.

In this context, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s upcoming visit to China is unlikely to yield significant pushback against the commitments made to India. China is more likely to seek reciprocal agreements, such as securing concessions in Hambantota or other strategic locations, rather than urging Sri Lanka to reject Indian interests outright. This reflects a broader Chinese strategy of coexistence with other regional powers while pursuing its own strategic and economic goals.

A case in point is China’s stance on Sri Lanka’s IMF programme. Unlike during the Cold War, when China might have opposed Western-led financial restructuring, it now focuses on securing a foothold within those frameworks. For example, if Sri Lanka privatizes state-owned entities like the CEB, China’s concern would not be with the principle of privatization but with acquiring a significant stake in those assets.

The lifting of the moratorium on research vessels in Sri Lankan waters exemplifies the government’s precarious balancing act. Allowing both Indian and Chinese vessels to conduct ocean floor mapping may appear to appease both powers, but it risks antagonizing one or the other, depending on the strategic implications of the research findings. The government might view this as a strategy to placate China following the President’s visit to India, but such concessions only deepen the geopolitical entanglement.

Instead of succumbing to these pressures, Sri Lanka should revisit and reaffirm its historical commitment to neutrality in the Indian Ocean, as embodied in the 1972 UN resolution declaring the region a Zone of Peace. This resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and India, explicitly seeks to prevent military and economically motivated agreements with indirect military implications among Indian Ocean littoral states. By invoking this resolution, Sri Lanka could resist external pressures without directly antagonizing powerful nations.

The government’s current approach, of attempting to “give a little to everyone,” is fraught with risk. It creates the perception of a nation willing to compromise its sovereignty for short-term diplomatic gains. Such policies can lead to long-term strategic vulnerabilities, as seen with the lifting of the research vessel moratorium and the transactional diplomacy of balancing Chinese and Indian interests.

The broader concern is that Sri Lanka’s vulnerability, compounded by economic challenges, could make it a flashpoint in escalating global tensions. Any future conflict, potentially involving advanced ballistic missile systems, AI-driven warfare, and nuclear capabilities, would have catastrophic consequences for small nations like Sri Lanka.

While the government justifies its actions as necessary for an economically bankrupt nation, we believe that there remains space to assert Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and protect its long-term interests. Diplomacy should not equate to submission, and economic hardship must not justify policies that undermine national security and dignity. Instead, the leadership must tread carefully, adopting a principled approach that balances strategic interests while preserving the country’s independence.

Q: How do you view the Aragalaya protests now after years of their end?

A: The Aragalaya emerged as a powerful expression of public frustration, driven predominantly by economic pressures. For many Sri Lankans, the tipping point was the failure of Gotabaya Rajapaksa to provide relief during a devastating economic crisis. The sense of betrayal was especially acute among those who had voted for him in 2019, such as in Kaduwela, where Gotabaya secured 76% of the vote. This sense of disillusionment was evident when thousands from areas like Malabe, Athurugiriya, and Pelawatte—a stronghold of Rajapaksa supporters—joined daily protests for months and ultimately marched 26 kilometers to Colombo on May 9, 2022, to demand his resignation.

This mass movement was not confined to one demographic; it brought together people from all sectors of society, each with their own grievances and aspirations. For the general public, it was primarily about economic hardship and a betrayal of trust. For others, like leftist and progressive groups, it was an opportunity to promote the idea of a revolutionary mass movement aimed at empowering people.

However, the Aragalaya was also marked by significant political and diplomatic interference. Representatives from various political factions—including UNPers sponsored by Ashu Marasinghe, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s allies, Basil Rajapaksa’s agents, Sarath Fonseka’s supporters, and Champika Ranawaka’s supporters were present, each attempting to advance their own agendas. Diplomats from major powers, such as the U.S., India, and China, as well as government intelligence agents, were also actively monitoring and engaging with the movement.

Despite its grassroots energy, the real political shifts occurred in Parliament, not in the streets. The appointment of an interim president was a key moment that divided the movement and eroded its momentum. Opposition parties like the NPP and SJB had the option to reject Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election by refusing to participate in the parliamentary process, aligning with the Aragalaya’s demand for a complete overhaul of the system. Instead, they chose to field their own candidates—Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Dullas Alahapperuma—only to concede and congratulate Wickremesinghe after his victory. These actions were televised, demoralizing many activists who viewed them as a betrayal by the opposition.

An alternative approach, proposed by representatives of the Aragalaya, called for the establishment of an interim government with a six-month mandate, followed by elections. This proposal included forming a cabinet representing all political parties but excluded the concept of an interim president. It was well-received at a meeting at the Public Library Auditorium in Colombo on May 5, 2022, just days before Gotabaya was ousted. However, it failed to gain traction in Parliament, where the ultimate decisions were made.

The Aragalaya, while unprecedented in its scope and inclusivity, was ultimately undermined by political fragmentation, external influences, and the lack of a unified strategy among its leaders and participants. It highlighted the deep disconnection between parliamentary politics and the will of the people, leaving many to question whether meaningful change is possible within the current system.

All News Advertisement

Features

Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa

Published

3 hours ago

2026/05/17

Thilina Walpola

The death of Mr Kapila Chandrasena (KC), the former CEO of SriLankan Airlines, caused quite a stir in the country. A few politicians, particularly from the opposition, tried to take advantage of the confusion surrounding his death, whilst social media went into a frenzy, with everyone having a theory as to the cause of death.

Even Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), the independent anti-corruption watchdog, issued a public statement urging the Government to ensure a full, transparent, and credible investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kapila Chandrasena’s (KC’s) death. TISL further emphasized that the Government bears a responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that individuals connected to high-profile investigations are able to participate in proceedings in a safe and secure environment.

While such concerns are understandable, I strongly believe that it is necessary to await the findings of the magisterial inquiry before reaching conclusions regarding the cause of death. To speculate irresponsibly, particularly to fit pre-existing political beliefs, is unfair not only to the deceased but also to his grieving family and loved ones.

First and foremost, I wish to convey my sincere condolences to the family of KC. I understand personally the trauma and anguish associated with losing a loved one unexpectedly and under tragic circumstances.

My brother’s death

Unfortunately, the death of KC also resulted in renewed interest in the death of my brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, in June 2020. Some individuals on social media attempted to link his death to the newspaper article he published on the Airbus scandal involving SriLankan Airlines, KC and his wife.

Some people even circulated photographs of my brother’s body at the site of the incident across social media platforms. This was deeply insensitive and extremely distressing to my sisters and me. The loss of a sibling under tragic circumstances is something from which one never fully recovers. It took our family years to come to terms with his passing, and to have those painful images resurfaced in connection with an entirely unrelated event reopened old wounds unnecessarily.

On behalf of my sisters and myself, I wish to state unequivocally that my brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, took his own life in June 2020 due to personal circumstances. His death had absolutely no connection whatsoever to his writings regarding the Airbus scandal. Neither the Rajapaksas, nor any political actor, nor any state agency was involved in his death. The magisterial inquiry into the matter returned a verdict of suicide.

Those who know me personally are aware of my forthright and combative nature. Had there been even the slightest credible suspicion surrounding my brother’s death, I would never have rested until justice was pursued. Since this was clearly established as a case of suicide, I sincerely hope that those who continue to circulate unfounded theories will finally allow the matter to rest with dignity.

The Sri Lankan Airbus scandal

The alleged payment of a USD 2 million bribe by Airbus SE to a shell company established in Brunei by the wife of a senior SriLankan Airlines official came to light following the approval of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus SE.

The DPA was approved on January 31, 2020 by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, sitting at the Crown Court in Southwark. The award represented one of the largest global anti-corruption settlements in modern corporate history.

The Airbus investigation by the SFO extended far beyond Sri Lanka. It involved allegations of bribery and corrupt practices linked to aircraft purchases by AirAsia and AirAsia X in Malaysia, SriLankan Airlines, TransAsia Airways in Taiwan, PT Garuda Indonesia, Citilink Indonesia, and military aircraft transactions involving the Government of Ghana.

The approved judgment contained specific references to the SriLankan Airlines transaction (page 12, points 41 to 44). It alleged that Airbus employees, contrary to Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010, failed to prevent bribery involving individuals connected to the airline’s aircraft procurement process between July 2011 and June 2015.

According to the Statement of Facts, Airbus engaged the wife of an individual connected to the aircraft acquisition process through a shell entity described as “Company Intermediary 1”. Airbus employees allegedly offered up to USD 16.84 million in commissions in relation to SriLankan Airlines’ purchase of ten Airbus aircraft and the lease of four additional aircraft. Ultimately, only USD 2 million was allegedly paid.

The judgment further stated that Airbus employees sought to disguise the identity of the beneficial owner behind the intermediary company and misled the United Kingdom Export Finance Agency (UKEF) regarding the intermediary’s qualifications, aviation experience, and role in the transaction.

The smoking gun from Sri Lanka that commenced the UK SFO investigation

The matter became particularly significant because it was the concerns raised by UKEF regarding the SriLankan Airlines intermediary that ultimately triggered the wider SFO investigation into Airbus. UKEF questioned why an individual with little aviation experience and who was domiciled outside Sri Lanka had been engaged as a business partner in such a major transaction.

Airbus reportedly provided misleading and inaccurate responses to those concerns in February 2015. Unsatisfied with the explanations provided, UKEF escalated the matter, which subsequently contributed to the formal investigation launched by the SFO in July 2016.

Ironically, what appears to have been a poorly concealed and amateurishly structured bribe involving SriLankan Airlines ultimately became one of the catalysts for a global corruption investigation that resulted in Airbus paying penalties approaching EUR 4 billion across the United Kingdom, France, and the United States.

Under the settlement approved in the UK, Airbus agreed to pay approximately EUR 991 million into the UK Consolidated Fund, including disgorgement of profits and financial penalties. Simultaneously, French and American authorities imposed additional penalties amounting to nearly EUR 3 billion.

Aircraft procurement and corruption

The Airbus matter once again highlighted a longstanding global reality: aircraft procurement has historically been highly vulnerable to corruption. The purchase of aircraft involves enormous financial values, complex financing arrangements, confidential negotiations, intermediaries, export credit agencies, and political influence. These factors create conditions for improper payments and abuse of authority.

Globally, there have been numerous allegations over several decades involving commissions, hidden intermediaries, and questionable consultancy agreements linked to aircraft purchases by both commercial airlines and governments. It is generally believed that the average commissions paid are between 3% to 5% of the order value.

The cost to Sri Lankan taxpayers

One of the most undesirable aspects of the Airbus affair is the financial burden ultimately borne by ordinary Sri Lankan taxpayers.

In 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka decided to cancel the order for four Airbus A350 aircraft as they were deemed unsuitable. As a consequence of that cancellation, SriLankan Airlines incurred penalties estimated at approximately USD 140 million, equivalent to roughly Rs. 19.2 billion at the time.

While Sri Lankan taxpayers absorbed these enormous losses, the United Kingdom taxpayers benefited financially from the Airbus settlement. The UK Consolidated Fund received almost EUR 1 billion arising from the penalties imposed on Airbus.

The contrast is stark. Sri Lanka suffered substantial financial losses as a result of a transaction tainted by allegations of corruption, while foreign governments received the benefit of the resulting fines and penalties.

The questions raised by my brother

My late brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, wrote an article about the Airbus scandal in an article published in the Sunday Island on February 16, 2020, titled “SriLankan Airlines Airbus Deal”. In the article, he referred to a SriLankan Airlines Board meeting held on October 27, 2016.

According to his article, Board Minute 7.3 dealt specifically with reports that Airbus was under investigation in Europe for bribery-related offences. Rajan Brito, who was then a director of the airline, reportedly informed fellow board members about the investigations and tabled draft letters intended for Airbus, Rolls-Royce, and AerCap.

Those draft letters reportedly suggested that the aircraft transactions may not have been based solely on commercial considerations and sought information regarding the role of facilitators and intermediaries.

However, according to my brother’s article, Brito’s proposal to send those letters was reportedly ignored on the basis that the airline was negotiating favourable terms to cancel aircraft purchase commitments and that sending such letters might sour relations and disadvantage the airline.

However, my brother believed that the decision not to proceed with Brito’s letters was controversial and highly questionable, and that the airline could have sought the assistance of the PNF (Parquet National Financier) to investigate the deal and seek financial restitution, given that the order was allegedly tainted by corruption, particularly given the emerging evidence of corruption surrounding the transaction.

Even today, an important question remains unanswered: did the Government of Sri Lanka or any subsequent board of SriLankan Airlines seriously attempt to recover the USD 140 million cancellation penalty, along with any inflated amounts paid after the global corruption findings against Airbus became public?

The slow pace of Sri Lankan justice

Following the public release of the UK judgment on January 31, 2020, Sri Lankan authorities moved relatively quickly to initiate legal proceedings against KC and his wife.

On February 4, 2020, arrest warrants were reportedly sought. On February 6, 2020, KC and his wife surrendered to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and were remanded until March 4, 2020, when they were released on bail.

The allegations reportedly related to accepting a USD 2 million bribe and engaging in money laundering activities. Press reports also indicated that travel restrictions had been imposed.

However, six years later, the matter still appears unresolved. Based on publicly available information, indictments were reportedly filed before the Colombo High Court in 2022. Since then, several hearings dealing with procedural and preliminary issues have reportedly taken place, but the substantive trial itself has yet to properly commence. With KC now deceased and reports suggesting that his wife may have absconded, the prospects of successfully prosecuting the matter appear increasingly uncertain.

Many Sri Lankans understandably feel frustrated by the slow pace at which corruption-related cases proceed through the judicial system. This frustration is particularly acute where allegations involve politically connected individuals or transactions involving massive losses to the public.

The public perception is that investigations move slowly, prosecutions are delayed for years, and accountability is often ultimately avoided through procedural delays, political changes, or the passage of time.

To be fair, corruption cases involving international financial transactions are inherently complex. They require cooperation between multiple jurisdictions, access to banking records, mutual legal assistance processes, forensic accounting, and substantial documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the extraordinary delays contribute to growing public cynicism regarding the administration of justice.

It is also worth noting that the UK proceedings against Airbus did not publicly identify KC by name. Much of the public discussion in Sri Lanka has therefore relied on local investigations and media reporting rather than the UK judgment itself.

According to information available in the public domain, the alleged funds connected to the USD 2 million payment ultimately found their way into an Australian bank account linked to KC. Given the reputation of Australian authorities for cooperating with international law enforcement investigations, many members of the public expected a faster and more decisive legal process in Sri Lanka.

In that context, a detailed public explanation by the Attorney General’s Department regarding the legal and evidentiary challenges affecting the case may help improve public understanding and confidence.

SriLankan Airlines: A continuing national burden

The Airbus controversy cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader failures surrounding SriLankan Airlines over several decades.

The national carrier has accumulated debts estimated at approximately USD 1.2 billion, equivalent to nearly Rs. 350 billion. This translates to a burden of roughly Rs. 16,000 per Sri Lankan citizen, including millions who have never travelled on the airline.

Successive governments have interfered extensively in the airline’s operations. Political appointments, weak governance, lack of commercial discipline, and poor strategic decision-making have contributed significantly to the airline’s decline.

Far too often, individuals lacking meaningful aviation expertise have been appointed to key board and management positions. Political loyalty has frequently taken precedence over competence and experience.

The decision to terminate the management and ownership partnership with Emirates remains one of the most controversial episodes in the airline’s history. Many industry observers believe that decision alone cost Sri Lanka billions of rupees in lost opportunities and operational deterioration.

Despite repeated financial losses and mounting taxpayer burdens, very few individuals have ever been held accountable for the disastrous decisions that contributed to the airline’s decline.

The current Government faces an unavoidable reality. SriLankan Airlines cannot continue indefinitely as a financially unsustainable state enterprise funded by taxpayers already struggling under severe economic hardship. Decisions regarding the future of the airline must be guided by commercial reality rather than political ideology or emotional nationalism.

Ultimately, the Airbus scandal is not merely about one individual or one alleged bribe. It reflects deeper structural weaknesses involving governance, political interference, accountability, and institutional failure within Sri Lanka.

Sadly, a relatively young man has now lost his life amidst these events and controversies. Regardless of the allegations against him, that remains a human tragedy. At the same time, the country must continue to demand transparency, accountability, and institutional reform so that such scandals are never repeated.

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any organization or institution with which the author is affiliated).

By Sanjeewa Jayaweera

Features

High stakes and hidden hands: Navigating the maze of electronic financial fraud

Published

3 hours ago

2026/05/17

Thilina Walpola

Electronic or digital financial fraud is the current, extremely distasteful description of a blight that has hit the entire globe; a menace that is perpetrated through an unbelievable labyrinth of interconnected dishonourable and nasty manoeuvres. In an era where our financial lives are increasingly becoming digital, the “perfect financial crime” no longer requires a getaway car. It just needs a high-speed internet connection and stupendously brilliant, depraved and Machiavellian minds.

Modern scams have advanced far beyond the poorly spelt emails of the past. They are now extremely sophisticated operations exploiting psychological manipulation and deep-fake technology. Financial fraud has evolved from simple street-level deception into a complex, multi-billion-dollar industry. It has been manipulated through many different currencies in different parts of the world. In Sri Lanka, the landscape of scams has shifted from traditional “pyramid” schemes to sophisticated digital heists and institutional bond scandals that threaten the very fabric of our national economy. From an international outlook, financial fraud is becoming increasingly transnational. Sri Lanka is currently under intense scrutiny by the FATF (Financial Action Task Force). Sri Lanka falling onto the “Grey List” again would have severe repercussions, potentially causing international banks to suspend payments to the island, severely upsetting our exporters.

The financial fraud profile of Sri Lanka has gone from “Bonds” to “Glitches”. Our country has been rocked by high-profile financial irregularities that serve as a stark warning about institutional integrity. First was the Treasury Bond Scandal. Often cited as the largest financial scam in the nation’s history, the Central Bank bond issuance of 2015 highlighted the risks of Insider Trading and the manipulation of government securities. The fallout cost the public billions of rupees, demonstrating how high-level collusion can bypass traditional safeguards.

The recent problem where the Treasury remitted a very large amount of foreign currency to a different portal to which money should not have been sent is a special type of Financial Fraud problem that seems to have been instigated by a deceptive email. It is under investigation at present, and it appears that it is the money that had been earmarked for foreign debt reconciliation. It is the taxpayers’ money that has been allowed to be swindled by unscrupulous crooks.

Then there is the National Development Bank (NDB) “Glitch” Controversy.

The entire banking sector was shaken to its roots by reports of a massive multi-billion-rupee fraud at the NDB. This incident, often referred to in local circles as “The Glitch,” involved the alleged diversion of funds through a sophisticated manipulation of the bank’s internal accounting systems.

Then there are the perceived Guardians, who often serve as Whistleblowers. The fight against such deep-seated corruption rarely begins with a regulator; it often starts with an individual. It is just someone who smells a rat. Maya Senanayake, a forensic expert at NDB, has emerged as a symbol of integrity in this landscape by identifying anomalies that others chose to ignore. Whistleblowers like Senanayake face immense personal and professional risks. Their role is a “Herculean effort”, very often battling institutional stonewalling to bring the truth to light. Without such individuals, “Suspense Account” spikes and “shell-company diversions” would remain invisible to the public eye.

Having mentioned just two of the buzz phrases in circulation, given in Italics above, it is pertinent to provide definitions for some of these phrases that are being bandied about very frequently in articles on the main subject of this article.

· SCAM – It is a fraudulent scheme or deceptive act performed by an individual or group to trick a victim into giving up something of value, typically money, personal information, or assets. It is a blatant lie or a misrepresentation of the truth. Unlike theft (where something is taken by force), a scam usually involves the victim “willingly” handing over assets because they believe the fraudster’s story. Scams often rely on psychological manipulation, such as creating a sense of urgency, fear, or the promise of a “too good to be true” reward.

· HACKERS –

The term has evolved significantly and carries different meanings depending on the context. In the broadest sense, a hacker is someone who uses technical skills to overcome a problem or bypass a system’s limitations. The cybersecurity industry generally classifies hackers by their intent, often using a “hat” colour system.

The White Hat Hackers are an ethical group that is hired to detect vulnerabilities. They are legal and helpful as they improve security by reporting bugs.

The Black Hat Group are cybercriminals who break into systems illegally. They are malicious, steal data, plant malware, or disrupt services.

The Grey Hats Individuals who may break laws to access a system, but without malicious intent. They are individuals who might find a bug without permission and then offer to fix it for a fee.

· MONEY LAUNDERING – It is the process of “cleaning” illicitly-earned money by passing it through complex bank transfers or commercial transactions.

· TREASURY BOND –

A government debt security that provides a fixed interest rate. Manipulating these affects the nation’s debt and interest rates.

· WHISTLEBLOWER –

It is an “insider” who reports and even makes public, concealment of illegal or unethical activities within an organisation to the public or relevant authorities.

· SUSPENSE ACCOUNT –

A temporary account used to hold funds while their final destination is determined. These are frequently used in fraud to “hide” money during transfers.

· SHELL COMPANY –

No., NO…, it is not the Shell Company that deals with fuel. This terminology refers to a company that exists only on paper and has no active business operations. It is very frequently used to obscure the identity of those moving money. They become “Ghosts”.

· FORENSIC AUDIT –

An examination of financial records to find evidence that can be used in a court of law or for legal proceedings.

When one examines some of these frauds and scams, it becomes clear that at the bottom of the distasteful occurrences lie systemic inadequacies. Scrupulous attention to all details of financial transactions, trustworthy and fool-proof systems dealing with financial transactions, utmost vigilance and a very high degree of suspicion are the incontrovertible needs of the hour. The powers-that-be in all things that deal with financial transactions must consist of people with unblemished honesty, unbridled integrity and honour.

International best practices now emphasise a shift from “rules-based” to “risk-based” oversight, even going to the extent of utilising Artificial Intelligence (AI) to detect suspicious patterns in money laundering and financial fraud that a human eye might miss.

For individuals and the general public, the Three Golden Rules for Protection are as follows”

· Demand Transparency:

Whether you are an investor or a depositor, always ask for the audited financial statements of the institution.

· Verify the Chain:

In government securities, ensure you are dealing through registered primary dealers.

· Support Protections:

Advocate for stronger Whistleblower Protection Acts to ensure that those who speak the truth are not penalised by the system they seek to save.

The trick is to protect ourselves from the Invisible Thief by protecting ourselves from Modern Scams. Here is a breakdown of the most prevalent threats today and how to safeguard your assets.

A. The “Urgent Authority” Tactic

Scammers often impersonate trusted institutions such as banks, financial institutions, tax offices, or law enforcement. They create a sense of artificial urgency, claiming your account has been compromised or you owe an immediate fine.

· The Red Flag: Any request to move money to a “safe account” or pay via untraceable methods like gift cards or cryptocurrency.

· The Defence:

Hang up immediately or delete the message if it is on email. Contact the institution using a verified phone number from their official website or the back of your bank card to check the veracity of the request.

B. Investment and “Get Rich Quick” Schemes

With the rise of digital assets, “pig butchering” scams have become rampant. Fraudsters build a relationship with the victim over weeks (the “fattening”) before suggesting a “guaranteed” investment opportunity in crypto or forex (the “slaughter”).

· The Red Flag: Returns that consistently outperform the market with “zero risk.”

· The Defence:

If an investment opportunity sounds “too good to be true”, it almost always is. Professional financial advisors do not solicit clients via WhatsApp or dating apps.

C. Phishing and Smishing (SMS Phishing)

These are deceptive messages designed to steal login credentials. You might receive a text stating a package delivery failed, or your Netflix subscription has lapsed, followed by a link to a “login” page that looks identical to the real thing.

· The Red Flag: Unusual URLs (e.g., wellsfarg0.net instead of wellsfargo.com) and unexpected attachments.

· The Defence:

Never click links in unsolicited messages. Use Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) on all sensitive accounts; even if a thief gets your password, they won’t get the secondary code.

4. The AI Impersonation (The Grandparent Scam)

Advancements in AI voice cloning allow scammers to mimic the voice of a loved one in distress. They may call claiming to be in a car accident or legal trouble, begging for immediate funds.

· The Red Flag: High emotional pressure and a demand for secrecy.

· The Defence:

Establish a “family password” – a unique word or phrase only your inner circle knows. If the caller cannot provide it, they are not who they say they are.

The Three Golden Rules for Financial Safety are

· Slow Down and Do Not Get Frightened:

Scammers rely on panic. Taking five minutes to think or consult a friend usually breaks the spell of the scam. It is also important to realise that some scammers try repeatedly.

· Verify the Source:

Never trust Caller ID, as numbers can be easily “spoofed” to look local or official.

· Protect Your Data:

Be wary of how much personal information you share on social media. Scammers use these details to make their impersonations more convincing.

Your bank will NEVER EVER ask for your Personal Identification Number (PIN), your Account Password, One-Time-Password (OTP) or request you to transfer money to an entirely new, unknown account. If any such request comes, do not fall for it and immediately contact the institution through their standard publicised telephone lines to check on the veracity of the request.

If you suspect you have been targeted, report it to the bank or financial institution, your local authorities and the legal investigative portals…, IMMEDIATELY.

(Some of the material presented

in this article was extracted with the help of AI.)

by Dr B. J. C. Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
An independent free-lance correspondent.

Features

In Memory of Professor M S M Mookiah

Published

3 hours ago

2026/05/17

Thilina Walpola

The passing of Professor M S M Mookiah is a great loss to the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka and to all who knew him. He was a steadfast supporter of our mission of peacebuilding and our commitment to inclusion and justice for all communities. Since 2006 he has served loyally as a member of the NPC Governing Council and Board, bringing to our work the benefit of his long experience in public life and academia. He believed deeply in the possibility of healing divisions through dialogue and understanding. What gave him satisfaction was participation, service, and the opportunity to contribute to a better future.

Professor Mookiah was an alumnus of the University Peradeniya, a Commonwealth Scholar at the University of Wales, Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff and returned to Peradeniya and served and Head Geography at the University of Peradeniya. Subsequently he served as Vice Chancellor of Eastern University, Sri Lanka and later as a member of the Public Service Commission of Sri Lanka. He carried these responsibilities with dignity and humility. Even after retirement, there was nothing he enjoyed more than travelling to distant parts of the country to meet people and discuss the challenges of reconciliation and post war reconstruction. He believed strongly in dialogue, coexistence, and the possibility of building a more just society focusing on subjects such as Pluralism, Transitional Justice, Social Cohesion and Reconciliation.

His scholarly contributions were not merely academic but deeply rooted in social justice. He acted as a catalyst and inspiration for thousands of students, particularly helping students from Hill Country enter higher education. He mentored thousands of students and stood as a primary source of inspiration for students from Hill Country to break barriers and enter the sphere of higher education. He remained deeply loyal to the hill country where he was born and to the Malaiyaha Tamil community whose advancement he quietly supported throughout his life.

He understood the hardships faced by plantation families and the barriers confronting young people seeking higher education. One of his most meaningful contributions was the scholarship scheme he initiated in 2014 together with his brother Dr S. Kanapathyraja. Through the support of the Rotary Club of Carmarthen in Wales and later other well-wishers abroad, the scheme enabled university students from plantation communities to pursue higher education. It continues to this day and stands as a lasting part of his legacy.

Professor Mookiah was also a warm and gracious friend. He and his wife welcomed us into their home with generosity and kindness and shared the chocolates his sons brought when they visited from abroad. In later years he spent long periods with family in Switzerland, the United States, and India, where his ashes now lie. But his life’s work belongs to Sri Lanka, to its universities, to the students he inspired, to the communities he served, and to the cause of peace and reconciliation to which he remained committed throughout his life. His presence will remain with us at NPC in his work of peacebuilding, in the scholarship scheme he helped create, and in the memories of all who had the privilege of knowing him.

We offer our prayers for his soul to rest in peace and extend our heartfelt condolences to his family, friends, and the thousands of students grieving this great loss.

By National Peace Council of Sri Lanka