Opinion
Numbers behind different COVID-19 vaccines
By M. C. M. Iqbal
The vaccines against COVID-19, available today, are based on different strategies and come with different numbers to indicate their performance. Many of us wish to know if one vaccine is better than the other. Two concepts underlying the performance of the vaccines are efficacy and effectiveness. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has an efficacy of 95 percent, the Moderna Vaccine is 94.5 percent and the Russian made Sputnik vaccine is over 90 percent. Does this mean some vaccines are better than the other? The short answer is no. All the approved vaccines are equally good. So, let us look at what these numbers mean.
These numbers refer to statistical calculations to interpret the results of vaccination trials conducted by the manufacturers of vaccines, following a prescribed format. The method of calculation was developed over 100 years ago by two statisticians, who published their results in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1915. They, Major Greenwood (Major is his first name and not a military title) and Udny Yule, were tasked with interpreting the results of immunization of British soldiers against typhoid and cholera, who were fighting in different regions of Europe and Asia favourable to the development of cholera epidemics. In a paper stretching over 82 pages, the authors developed the theoretical and mathematical background for calculating the efficacy of vaccines.
This article seeks to explain to the lay reader what these numbers imply and to bring out the differences between efficacy and effectiveness of a vaccine.
Efficacy and effectiveness
At first sight these two terms appear to be synonyms. However, in the world of vaccines and medicine, these two terms are not the same. Efficacy of a vaccine is how it performs under ideal and controlled conditions in a clinical trial (see below). During clinical trials, the outcome of vaccination is compared between a group of vaccinated people and another group given an inactive form of the vaccine (called a placebo). The effectiveness of a vaccine is how the vaccine performs in the real world – that is after the vaccine is approved by the regulatory agencies and you and I are vaccinated.
The efficacy of a vaccine is measured by the manufacturers under ideal conditions in a clinical trial where criteria are specified for selecting and excluding volunteers. These criteria are usually age groups, gender, ethnicity, geographical location and socio-economic standing. If the criteria are specific, then the effects of the vaccine or drug would not be applicable across the population. For example, if the COVID-19 vaccines are not tested on children below 18 years, then the approved vaccine cannot be used on children.
The effectiveness of a drug or vaccine is a measure of how well the drug or vaccine performs in real life, in a diverse population: Fitness geeks and couch potatoes, housewives and nurses, and farmers and office workers. Effectiveness is of relevance to the medical community and healthcare authorities who are treating the patients. Thus, studies on effectiveness would look at to what extent the vaccine is beneficial to the patient to prevent infection.
One may ask, why not simply look at the effectiveness of the vaccine? This is because if the participants in an initial trial of the vaccine are not carefully controlled, then it is difficult to interpret the outcome of the trial. We have many characteristics, which can potentially interfere with the outcome of a trial testing a vaccine. The person volunteering for the trial could be young or old, pregnant or not, a marathon runner or an average person and smoker or non-smoker. Thus, the volunteers selected for the trials are very similar within their groups with many criteria to exclude persons who could confuse the results (for example, an unhealthy person with other diseases would be excluded).
Efficacy of a vaccine asks the question ‘Does the vaccine work under ideal conditions?’ On the other hand, a study on the effectiveness of the same vaccine asks the question ‘Does vaccination work in the real world?’
Clinical trials
Under normal circumstances, vaccines take many years of research and testing to be approved. The COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented, and pharmaceutical companies embarked on a race against time to produce safe and effective vaccines. The genome of this coronavirus, which was discovered by Chinese scientists, in January 2020, was a major contribution to the development of the vaccines. At the moment there are 94 vaccines being tested on humans in clinical trials, 32 of which have reached the final stage of Phase 3 testing.
To obtain approval for a vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers go through a prescribed process to ensure that the vaccine is safe. All the countries have a national drug approval agency, who should approve the use of a drug or vaccine in that country. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States is an important regulatory agency, which has stringent criteria to approve medicines and drugs. In Sri Lanka, it is the National Medicines Regulatory Authority. COVID-19 vaccines are also assessed and approved by the WHO.
Initially, the vaccine is tested on cells in the laboratory and then given to animals, usually mice or monkeys. After this, if the mice or monkeys are happy, human volunteers are recruited to conduct the clinical trials, which is done in three phases. In the first phase, the vaccine is tested on a small group of people to determine the safety, dosage and ability to stimulate our immune system. If this is confirmed, the vaccine then moves into the Phase 2 stage where the safety of the vaccine is tested on hundreds of people who are split into different groups. Once these trials are successful, the vaccine moves to the final Phase 3 trials. Here thousands of people are recruited as volunteers. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine there were over 40,000 volunteers, above the age of 16, from different countries. This trial is more comprehensive, with the volunteers belonging to different age groups, physical fitness, ethnicities and geographical locations. The volunteers are divided into two groups. One group gets the real vaccine while the other group gets a fake vaccine or placebo (the syringe has just water). The volunteers would not know if he/she is getting the vaccine or a placebo and neither do the nurses and doctors giving the vaccine. This is called a double-blind clinical trial. Thus, no one knows, except those conducting the trial, who was vaccinated with what.
After some time, the volunteers, who fell sick with the coronavirus, are PCR tested to confirm if they are COVID-19 positive. The scientists will be on the lookout for any side effects of the vaccine; if they find any cause for concern the trial can be stopped temporarily to conduct investigations and remedy the problem. If the scientists are not satisfied, the trial would be abandoned. Once the results are in, the calculations are done, and all the details are submitted to the regulating authorities. The regulators would ask the manufacturers more questions and once they are satisfied, approval is given to manufacture and market the vaccine. To accelerate the process, such as now during the COVID-19 crises, Phase 1 and 2 may be combined and run in parallel.
Calculating efficacy
The calculations involved are quite simple once the data is collected. Let us assume that 50,000 volunteers were recruited for the vaccination trial. Half were given the vaccine and the other half a placebo. Let us assume that of the 25,000 who received the vaccine, 10 persons were infected, and of the other 25,000 who received the placebo, 200 were infected. Although the numbers of people infected are small, those in the placebo group are 20 times larger (see Table). The researchers are concerned with the relative risk between the groups. This is called the efficacy of the vaccine.

The risk of infection is calculated as follows.
What is the difference in the risk of infection between the vaccinated group and those who got the placebo? From the table this is, 0.80 percent – 0.04 percent = 0.76 percent.
Thus, the vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 0.76 percent, which looks quite small. This is what would happen if we are vaccinated. To understand this in terms of the risk of infection, if none were vaccinated, we look at the ratio of the Reduction in Infection (0.76 percent) to the Risk of infection (0.80 percent – those who got the fake vaccine). This is the Vaccine Efficacy (VE).
VE percent = Reduction in infection ÷ Risk of infection = 0.76 ÷ 0.80 = 95 percent
If this is still confusing, let us see what it means in a population of 100,000 persons who are vaccinated with a vaccine of 95 percent efficacy, and exposed to the virus. From the table above, the risk of infection for the vaccinated population is 0.04 percent, which translates to 40 persons (0.04 percent x 100,000). That is, we can expect that 40 persons would fall ill with an infection by the coronavirus and the rest of the vaccinated people may not develop an infection at all or develop an asymptomatic infection (you are infected but do not show symptoms) or get a mild disease.
(This example of calculating Vaccine Efficacy is adapted from an article by Dashiell Young-Saver in the New York Times of December 13, 2020, where the above calculation is explained in detail for students.)
What does efficacy mean?
The efficacy of a vaccine refers to two aspects. The first is how many of us are protected by the vaccine if we are exposed to the virus; this is given by the percentage. The vaccine also refers to different disease conditions it is capable of preventing. This could be causing an infection, mild disease, severe disease, hospitalisation, or death. This information can be found if one looks carefully at the statements issued by the vaccine manufacturer and regulatory agencies. For example, the statement by Pfizer-BioNTech states: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, was 91.3 percent effective against COVID-19 (symptomatic cases of COVID-19), measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose. The vaccine was 100 percent effective against severe disease as defined by the US centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 95.3 percent effective against severe disease as defined by the US FDA.
The efficacy of a vaccine (VE) is the relative reduction of being infected, if we are vaccinated, compared to the placebo or unvaccinated group. If the vaccine is perfect, then the risk of being infected is totally eliminated, so that VE = 1 or it is 100 percent. On the other hand, if there is no difference in the number of people infected between the two groups, the vaccine has no efficacy, or it is zero. Even with a perfect vaccine, our capacity to acquire an infection is determined by our age, health and immunity status.
In short, efficacy is a statistical measurement based on clinical trials of the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection. The volunteers taking part in the trials are not a perfect sample or representative of the real world (for example, children and sick people do not take part). Is there a lower limit for the efficacy of a vaccine to be accepted? Under the present circumstances, the FDA said it would consider granting emergency approval if the vaccines showed even 50 percent efficacy; the vaccines that have received approval now show an efficacy of over 90 percent.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the vaccine tells us how well the vaccine is performing among the population, in the real world, to prevent infection. The effectiveness of the vaccine depends on the impact it makes on society. After vaccination our immune system is primed to combat the coronavirus, reducing the multiplication of the virus in our body. This will gradually slow down the spread of the virus as more and more people are vaccinated. In other words, it is important that most if not all the people are vaccinated to have a large impact on the spread of the virus in society. Good examples are the smallpox vaccine, which completely eliminated the smallpox virus, and the polio vaccine, which has almost wiped out the polio virus except for a few small pockets in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa. Thus, the effectiveness of a vaccine looks at the medical and societal importance of the outcome.
Here is the above in a nutshell. The percentage numbers given with a vaccine refers to its efficacy – its ability to prevent an infection developing into a serious condition, determined under controlled clinical trials. Vaccines do not prevent infection – they prevent the infection from developing into a severe disease. Once we are vaccinated, our immune system is activated. If we are infected by the coronavirus, the virus has a small window of time to multiply, before it is eliminated by our immune system. This means we can release virus particles from our body, but much less than if we were not vaccinated. The message is we should get vaccinated with the first available vaccine and still wear our masks when going outside, even if we are vaccinated. The chances of ending up in a hospital is low and the chances of ending up in the ICU is very low. There is always a chance.
‘Tis impossible to be sure of anything but Death and Taxes (Christopher Bullock, 1716).
(M.C.M. Iqbal is Associate Research professor, Plant and Environmental Science, National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Hanthane Road, Kandy, and can be reached at iqbal.mo@nifs.ac.lk)
References
Zimmer, C. New York Times Nov. 20, 2020. Two companies say their vaccines are 95 percent effective. What does that mean?
Haelle,T. Association of Health Care Journalists. October 22, 2020. Know the nuances of vaccine efficacy when covering Covid-19 trials. https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2020/10/know-the-nuances-of-vaccine-efficacy-when-covering-covid-19-vaccine-trials/
Greenwood, M., & Yule, G. U. (1915). The Statistics of Anti-typhoid and Anti-cholera Inoculations, and the Interpretation of such Statistics in general. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 8 (Sect Epidemiol State Med), 113–194.
Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download
Opinion
The Plunder of Sri Lanka Through Trade Misinvoicing
A Case Study on Sri Lanka-Thailand Trade
In March 2026, a Washington-based think tank, Global Financial Integrity (GFI), released its report on “Trade-Related Illicit Financial Flows in Developing Asia” for the 2013–2022 period. The report calculates the possible misappropriation of 20.51% of Sri Lanka’s total trade value through trade misinvoicing.
A calculation of Sri Lanka’s exports to Thailand in 2024, using the same GFI methodology, shows a possible misappropriation of 207% of the export value by Sri Lankan exporters and Thai importers
The phrase “plunder of Sri Lanka” normally refers to resource extraction through violent foreign invasions with swords and guns. This article is not about them. This article focuses on a more discreet and genteel version of plunder through illicit financial flows and the stashing of foreign exchange earnings offshore through trade misinvoicing.
What is Trade Misinvoicing?
Trade misinvoicing is the fraudulent recording of key invoice information for the purpose of facilitating illicit cross-border financial flows. One of the easiest ways to identify possible misinvoicing is the study of “mirror trade” data, that is, the comparative analysis of partner-country trade data with Sri Lankan trade data. If this flags discrepancies (value gaps), those are indicators of misinvoicing. These gaps could be due to overinvoicing imports, underinvoicing exports, or phantom imports.
Overinvoicing imports occurs when Sri Lankan importers and their foreign counterparts artificially inflate invoice prices for goods. The importer remits foreign currency abroad to settle the bogus invoice amount in full, and the surplus cash is subsequently split or retained in offshore accounts.
Similarly, underinvoicing exports happens when exporters ship high-value goods (for example, gems) out of Sri Lanka but state a considerably lower price on the customs invoice and the importer pays the low price through official channels. Then the actual market balance is paid directly into foreign bank accounts.
Phantom imports occur when bogus companies are set up to execute telegraphic transfers to foreign suppliers under the pretext of importing goods, which never physically enter Sri Lanka. The recently uncovered large-scale foreign exchange fraud totalling around US$85 million linked to fictitious imports revealed by the Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala is an example of phantom imports. However, what he revealed was just the tip of the iceberg. The annual loss from overinvoicing imports and underinvoicing exports is much larger and may be as high as US$ billion or higher.
So, whenever value gaps occur in mirror data, they should be treated as risk indicators. If the gaps are significantly large, then the authorities should immediately investigate the relevant invoices with the partner countries to find out the reasons for the disparities.
Misinvoicing in Sri Lanka
In 2017, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Global Financial Integrity (GFI) released a landmark investigative report exposing massive gaps in Sri Lanka’s trade data due to trade misinvoicing during the period 2005–2014. The estimated amount that may have been misappropriated during the period is US$36.83 billion. This report received wide publicity in Sri Lanka. It is not clear if the authorities had initiated any investigations into this foreign exchange hemorrhage. In March 2026 the GFI released its report on “Trade-Related Illicit Financial Flows in Developing Asia” for the 2013–2022 period. The report calculates Sri Lanka’s trade value gap at 20.51% of total trade.
Underinvoicing in Sri Lanka – Thailand Trade
Why a case study on Sri Lanka – Thailand Trade?
Thailand is a relatively small export market for Sri Lanka and ranks 47th as an export destination. As per Sri Lankan customs data, in 2024 Sri Lanka’s total exports to Thailand were valued at US$ 41 million. However, according to Thai customs data, in 2024 Thailand’s imports from Sri Lanka were valued at US$ 126 million. This is a value gap of US$ 85 million. That is a massive 207% value gap… ten times larger than the global average for Sri Lanka. As the table below illustrates, these large value gaps have been growing over the years. (See Table)
A closer look at the data would reveal that the largest value gaps are under gemstones (HS 710391). It is common knowledge that the Sri Lanka–Thailand gem trade suffers from prevalent underinvoicing, resulting in millions of dollars in lost export revenue. Yet, it appears that Sri Lanka Customs and the National Gem and Jewellery Authority (NGJA) have not intervened to curtail this practice. One may argue that the trade ministry, the NGJA, or the customs do not routinely analyse mirror data. However, as Thailand is the third-largest market for Sri Lankan gems, the NGJA should have a very good knowledge of that market, including Thai customs statistics. In-depth analysis of Thai customs data is also a main responsibility of the Sri Lanka embassy in Bangkok.
Sri Lanka-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (SLTFTA)
In addition to that, Sri Lanka commenced negotiations for the Sri Lanka-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (SLTFTA) in 2018. After multiple rounds of negotiations covering trade in goods, services, investments, and customs cooperation, both nations officially signed the SLTFTA in February 2024. While preparing for these multiple rounds of negotiations, Sri Lankan trade negotiators and the embassy in Bangkok should have extensively analysed the Thai customs data. They should have also known Sri Lanka’s export data like the back of their hands. Then, didn’t they discover these massive discrepancies in data sets? If they did, did they address them during the negotiations?
Whatever happens, the gaps keep growing.
So, now it is time for the appropriate agencies to start investigating these enormous value gaps … after all, a massive US$ 85 million, 207% value gap is simply not loose cash.
(The writer can be reached at enadhiragomi@gmail.com) )
By Gomi Senadhira
Opinion
‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’: A Truth That Cannot Be Unseen
“May their hard hearts soften towards you”- Voice on the phone to Red Crescent team trying to save Hind Rajab
Nothing really prepares one for the intense experience, for that is what it was, of sharing in the helpless anguish of the Palestine Red Crescent team at the emergency call centre in Gaza, making frantic efforts to rescue the 5 year old girl trapped for several hours in a car among the corpses of 5 members of her family, gunned down by members of the Israeli Defense Force. Nor was it easy to hear the pleas of the little girl, begging to be rescued in her sweet, child’s voice for hours on the phone, as the feature film dramatizing her last hours, played the original recordings of her voice made at the emergency call center, interspersed with actors playing the roles of the desperate Red Crescent team. After that searing encounter, deep reflection is an inevitable compulsion.
8 Minutes too far
Hind Rajab’s story was already well known, from the moment the Red Crescent call centre released the voice recordings on social media, in an attempt to pressure the Israeli authorities into giving a safe route for the ambulance to reach the child, hiding in a bullet riddled car. The distance between the closest ambulance and the child was 8 minutes, according to calculations of the call center. More than two hours later, they were still pleading for approval for a safe route, to ensure this ambulance crew wouldn’t join the rest of the names of more than a dozen rescue workers on their wall, killed by the Israeli forces while on rescue missions.
The feature film “The Voice of Hind Rajab” depicting those last hours of Hind Rajab’s precious life, premiered in Colombo at the Platinum Screen, Majestic City, sponsored by the Embassy of the State of Palestine, the Sri Lanka Committee for Solidarity with Palestine and Ceylon Theatres (Pvt) Ltd, on the 18th of June 2026.
Hind Rajab, the 5 year old Palestinian girl was murdered in Gaza in January 2024. The film, produced by Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix among others, won several awards: The Silver Lion Grand Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival, CICT_UNESCO Enrico Fulchignoni Award, Audience Award at the San Sebastian Film Festival, and Audience Award for International Feature at the Middleburg Film Festival, as well as the Main Prize (Brussels section) at the One World Festival.
The system vs Red Crescent
In the film, the vantage point is that of the members of the Palestinian Red Crescent emergency call center team who were involved in the exchange with the little girl as she lay hidden in the car, after her cousin, another little girl a few years older, was killed while on the phone to them minutes earlier. The older girl said that there were tanks next to the car and that they were shooting at her. They heard the shots, then she fell silent.
Miraculously, Hind survived that spell of shooting, and the team was able to be in contact with her while they tried to get a rescue team to reach the car in which she was hiding. The family was in compliance with an Israeli order to vacate that area of Gaza where they lived and was on their way out when their car was attacked, killing most of the occupants, except for two girls. Their only hope for survival was the Red Crescent emergency response center.
What unveils in the film is the unbearable emotional rollercoaster the members of the Red Crescent team go through, as their humanity is repeatedly tested against the requirements of a brutally lopsided, oppressive system of administrative authority which is structured with layer upon layer of permissions, approvals, co-ordinations which delay and hamper their efforts to respond urgently to an emergency.
In a story that holds tragedy within tragedy, an accumulation of hopeless despair, some of the issues of the impossible conditions of existence of the people of Gaza are laid bare. As individual members of the Red Crescent team respond to these events, their own hearts are broken by the predicament of little Hind Rajab, as they helplessly promise they would come to her aid, desperately hoping they would be able to live up to their promise. Rana, a female member of the team, keeps her talking until Rajab herself says she is dying. Rana, overcome with grief, gets her to repeat a verse from the Holy Quran, with little Hind doing so beautifully and fluently. She urges Rana to come soon to save her, which Rana knows by then, is an impossible request.
The daily encounter with the conditions of a heartless occupation come alive, as the supervisor at Red Crescent bends over backwards to comply with the list of rules and regulations even to allow an ambulance crew 8 minutes away to save a child, in a convoluted process with arbitrary decisions at each stage. As the team continues the calls to get approvals, a safe route and coordination with the IDF, a doctor at the other end of the phone hearing that permission had still not been granted says with resignation, “May their hard hearts soften towards you”.
A knife’s edge
The dramatisation of the day’s events shows the knife’s edge their nerves have to balance on, with a younger employee’s patience and tolerance of an unfair system reaching their limits in the face of the callous disregard by the system of a little girl begging to be saved. The staff at Red Crescent survive the stress by having a trained counsellor on hand, to help them deal with the deaths while on the phone to victims. The counsellor herself is finally called upon to keep little Hind company in her last minutes, teaching her to breathe deeply while imagining her favourite places.
The tragedy is that their unrelenting efforts including the release of all tapes of the little girl appeals uploaded to social media eventually succeeded in getting a safe route for the ambulance to get to her, but still failed to complete the mission to save her. The ambulance itself was shot at when it got to within 50 meters of the car which held Hind Rajab still alive, killing both rescue workers and destroying the vehicle. The logic of a hostile occupation over the Palestinian population took its predictable course, having granted permission to arrive at the site, the rescue ambulance was nevertheless attacked, simply because the occupation force could, despite every effort to stick to the rules by the Red Crescent.
The younger man’s impassioned indictment of his law-abiding supervisor at one moment shouting “We are still occupied because of men like you!” as the supervisor continued to comply with every impossible rule set upon them even at the cost of delaying the rescue effort, revealed the churning depths of a subterranean sea of emotion an occupied people must endure, keeping it controlled in survival mode until it bubbles up in tidal waves of frustration and anger. The young man who was unable to hide his emotions that day, was reportedly arrested subsequently and was killed by the occupying authorities.
Not without consequence
It is impossible not to be shocked at the bullet riddled ambulance and the totally destroyed car shown at the end of the movie. For 12 days there was no news of what happened to the girl or where the car was, until the IDF left the area. Then they found her, with the other bodies, with almost three hundred bullets in Hind Rajab. Whatever those conducting atrocities may think at the time they celebrate such “triumphs” over innocents, such continued conduct clearly impairs their humanity.
The story being told from the perspective of the Red Crescent employees, brings home the fact that these are every day traumas borne by the people of Palestine, not isolated incidents of excesses. There were young people at the Majestic Cinema who were sobbing in shocked empathy. How is it that year after year, the Palestinians bear these tragedies, as their country keeps getting smaller and smaller, their lands taken over, their buildings destroyed, and their history reduced to patches of hopelessness in a sea of gray rubble?
We have watched it together with the rest of the world for decades. Some of our own leaders have prevented or tried to prevent, and even punished those who couldn’t be prevented from speaking out against the injustices carried out in broad daylight against the Palestinian people. Fortunately, they do not represent most of the people of Sri Lanka. The Security Council held an emergency session this week, called by all 10 non-permanent members and supported by 4 of the permanent members, to debate the prevention of humanitarian aid to Gaza. One permanent member didn’t sign it.
Given the current global dynamics facilitating a peace agreement, at least in the form of an MoU, between Iran and the United States, one can only hope that things will change and one day sooner than later, all members of the Security Council will speak with one voice on the situation of Palestine, and that the courage of the film makers and all those involved in its creation will be rewarded with justice for the incredibly resilient people of the State of Palestine. May their hard hearts soften towards the long-suffering Palestinian people, innocent civilians caught up in an unending war, who in helping each other have retained their humanity in the most trying of circumstances, while their occupiers are rapidly losing theirs.
by Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka
Opinion
Can a punishment-free child become a threat to Sri Lankan society?
Children are the future of every nation, and the values they learn during childhood shape the society they will eventually lead. In Sri Lanka, where family traditions, respect for elders, and social responsibility have long been important cultural values, the way children are raised remains a topic of great interest. In recent years, many parents and educators have moved away from traditional forms of punishment and embraced more child-friendly approaches to discipline. While protecting children from physical and emotional harm is essential, an important question arises: can a child who grows up without any form of punishment or consequences become a threat to Sri Lankan society?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the difference between punishment and discipline. Punishment is often associated with penalties imposed for wrongdoing, while discipline refers to teaching children self-control, responsibility, and respect for rules. Modern child psychology generally discourages harsh physical punishment because it can cause fear, anxiety, and resentment. However, completely removing consequences for inappropriate behavior may create a different set of problems.
Sri Lankan society has traditionally emphasized discipline within the family. Parents, grandparents, and teachers have often played active roles in guiding children’s behavior. Respect for elders, obedience, and good manners have been considered important virtues. While some traditional disciplinary methods may no longer be acceptable, the underlying principle of teaching accountability remains relevant.
A child who never faces consequences for wrongdoing may struggle to understand the boundaries that exist in society. For example, if a child is allowed to insult others, damage property, or ignore rules without correction, they may develop the belief that their actions have no consequences. Such attitudes can become problematic when the child enters school, the workplace, or the wider community.
Sri Lankan schools already face challenges related to student discipline. Teachers often report difficulties in managing classrooms where some students refuse to follow instructions or respect school regulations. When children are not taught accountability at home, educational institutions may find it harder to maintain a productive learning environment. This can affect not only the individual student but also classmates whose education is disrupted.
Another concern is the development of entitlement. A child who is never told “no” may come to believe that personal desires should always be fulfilled. In a society where cooperation and mutual respect are essential, such attitudes can lead to conflicts with peers, teachers, employers, and even family members. Sri Lanka’s social fabric depends heavily on community relationships, and individuals who fail to respect others can weaken these bonds.
The influence of social media and modern technology has added another dimension to this issue. Today’s children have access to information and entertainment on an unprecedented scale. Without proper guidance and consequences, some may misuse technology, engage in cyberbullying, spread misinformation, or develop unhealthy habits. Parents who avoid setting limits may unintentionally expose children to risks that affect both personal development and social well-being.
The workplace offers another example of why accountability is important. Sri Lanka’s economic development depends on a workforce that is disciplined, responsible, and capable of working with others. Employers value punctuality, respect, and professionalism. Individuals who grow up without learning responsibility may find it difficult to meet these expectations, affecting both their personal success and the productivity of organizations.
However, it is equally important not to interpret this argument as support for harsh punishment. Research has shown that excessive physical or emotional punishment can have serious negative effects on children. Fear-based parenting may produce obedience in the short term but can damage confidence, trust, and mental health in the long term. Therefore, the solution is not stricter punishment but more effective discipline.
Positive discipline provides a balanced alternative. It involves setting clear rules, explaining expectations, and applying fair consequences when those rules are broken. For instance, if a child neglects schoolwork, they may lose certain privileges until responsibilities are fulfilled. If they damage property, they can be required to help repair or replace it. Such consequences teach accountability while preserving the child’s dignity.
Sri Lankan parents, teachers, and community leaders all have a role to play in nurturing responsible citizens. Families should create environments where children feel loved and supported but also understand that actions have consequences. Schools should encourage character development alongside academic achievement. Religious and community organizations can reinforce values such as honesty, compassion, and respect for others.
A balanced approach is especially important in a rapidly changing society. As Sri Lanka continues to modernize and integrate with the global community, young people must learn not only their rights but also their responsibilities. Freedom without responsibility can lead to selfishness, while discipline without compassion can lead to fear. The challenge is to find the middle ground.
A punishment-free child can become a concern for Sri Lankan society if the absence of punishment also means the absence of discipline and accountability. Children who never learn consequences may struggle to respect rules, authority, and the rights of others. However, harsh punishment is not the answer. The most effective approach combines love, guidance, clear boundaries, and fair consequences. By raising children who understand both freedom and responsibility, Sri Lanka can build a future generation that strengthens society rather than threatens it.
Saumya Aloysius
(An essayist, children’s writer and freelance writer who holds a Master’s Degree in Sociology from the University of Kelaniya)
-
News6 days agoBeijing Capital Airlines to resume flights to Colombo signalling boost to tourism
-
Features5 days agoKilling of Colombo’s ancient trees — a warning on UN’s World Desertification Day – 17 June
-
News3 days agoCreditor receives USD 2.5 mn as Lankan public bears loss from theft of Treasury funds
-
News2 days agoCreditor not yet paid
-
News2 days agoConsumers bearing 22% tax burden despite 18% VAT claim: Dr. Harsha de Silva
-
Opinion4 days agoBeyond diagnosis: A strategic design for 7% growth by 2029 (Part I)
-
Opinion6 days agoFifty years after Soweto uprising
-
News5 days agoIndia provides military stores worth USD 5.5 mn to SL
