Connect with us

Features

Amendment 21A: President and Cabinet Responsible to Parliament

Published

on

by Neville Ladduwahetty

During the course of a special televised statement, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have stated among other Amendments to 21A, an Amendment to make the President and the Cabinet of Ministers responsible/answerable to Parliament. Since other Amendments proposed are limited to reorganising one organ of government, the Parliament, what is addressed herein involves the relationship of two separately elected organs of government to which the Peoples of Sri Lanka assigned their sacred sovereignty, namely the Executive and the Legislature.

While Amendments or reforms relating to one organ of government such as the Parliament could be undertaken without seeking the opinion of the People, the question is whether powers Constitutionally assigned could be withdrawn from one organ and transferred to another without seeking the opinion of the People. Furthermore, since the intended 22A is supposed to abolish the Executive Presidency, the conclusion the public could rationally arrive at is that the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister to make the President and the Cabinet responsible/answerable to Parliament, could be achieved without seeking the opinion of the People through a referendum.

OPINION of the SUPREME COURT

The unanimous judgment given by a panel of seven Supreme Court judges becomes aptly relevant. They stated in SC FR 351 – 3612/2018: “the first rule when interpreting Constitutions is that words in a statute must be given their ordinary meaning”. Based on this rule, while Article 3 states: “Sovereignty includes powers of government…”, Articles 4 (a) and 4 (b) state the specific powers of government assigned by the People to the Legislature and the Executive.

Article 4 (a) states: “the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People by a Referendum”. AND Article 4 (b) states: “the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People”.

It is in this background that the Determination of the Supreme Court in S.D. No. 04/2015 should be revisited in the event the President is to be responsible to Parliament. The Court stated: “In fact, Mr. Sumanthiran contended that Article 42 is identical to corresponding provision in the 1st Republican Constitution of 1972, which stated in Article 91 that “the President shall be responsible to the National State Assembly for the due execution and performance of the powers and functions of his office under the Constitution…. Thus, the position of the President vis-a-vis the legislature, in which the president is responsible to the legislature was left untouched by the 1978 Constitution.”

What is of serious concern is how Article 91 of the 1972 Constitution came to be incorporated “untouched” in the 1978 Constitution when the political systems under which the two Constitutions operated were as different as chalk and cheese. For instance, the 1972 Constitution specifically states in Article 4: “The sovereignty of the People is exercised through a National State Assembly… Article 5 states: “The National State Assembly is the supreme instrument of State power of the Republic. The National State Assembly exercises – (a) the legislative power of the People (b) the executive power of the People (c) the judicial power of the People”. Thus, the 1972 Constitution caters to a system that is based on a single “supreme instrument of State power. On the other hand, the 1978 Constitution caters to a system where the where powers of government are separated between the “Legislative power of the people” and the “Executive power of the people”. Under such circumstances, it is beyond comprehension how provisions applicable to the arrangement that recognizes a single authority of State power could possibly be also applicable to a system of government where the sovereign People gave a mandate to divide their sovereignty between separate organs of State power.

How such a provision where the sovereignty of the People is exercised by a single all – encompassing entity, the National State Assembly, in which the President elected by Parliament is responsible to the legislature REMAINS “untouched in the 1978 Constitution” in which the sovereignty of the People is exercised by a separately elected President and a separately elected Parliament as separate organs of government is a judicial conundrum. What is tragic is that this seriously flawed notion has persisted without question since 1978 and would continue if a bold initiative is not taken by the legal fraternity to correct this legislative misadventure.

If the first rule of interpretation is to go by the ordinary meaning and Article 42 remains, there is a strong possibility, however flawed, that the President and the Cabinet would become responsible/answerable to Parliament. This would mean that the Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister in 21A would be subject only to a 2/3 majority. The need for a referendum would not arise either on spurious grounds that Article 4 is not an entrenched Article even though Courts have repeatedly state that Article 4 should be read with Article 3, or on blindly accepting existing constitutional provisions without questioning fundamentals.

It is only if Courts indulge in the luxury of exploring fundamentals that they would realise that the inclusion of Article 42 in the 1978 Constitution is misplaced. This means that under provisions of the 1978 Constitution, the President cannot be responsible to Parliament. The only way the President is required to be responsible to Parliament is by seeking the consent of the Peoples through a Referendum.

JUDGEMENT RELATING to the CABINET

Another issue of concern relates to the Cabinet. The judgement in S.D. No. 04/2015 states: “The People in whom sovereignty is reposed have made the President as the Head of the Executive in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution entrusted in the President, the exercise of Executive power being the custodian of such power. If the People have vested such power on the President, it must either be exercised by the President directly or someone who derives authority from the President. There is no doubt that Executive power can be distributed to others via President. However, if there is no link between the President and the person exercising Executive power, it may amount to a violation of mandate given by the people to the President”.

Continuing the judgment states: “Though Article 4 provides the form and manner of exercise of the sovereignty of the People, the ultimate act or decision of his executive functions must be retained by the President. So long as the President remains the Head of the Executive, the exercise of his powers remain supreme or sovereign in the executive field and others to whom such power is given must derive the authority from the President or exercise Executive power vested in the President as a delegate of the President”.

Therefore, the conclusions that could be drawn from the judgment is that the Executive power of the President is independent of Parliament, and since the Cabinet derives its authority from the President, the Cabinet too must necessarily be independent of Parliament. Consequently, any attempt to alter this relationship between the President/Cabinet and Parliament must necessarily require an endorsement from by the people through a Referendum.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion that could justifiably be reached from the material presented above is that an Amendment that attempts to make the President to whom the people have unequivocally assigned part of their sovereignty to exercise their Executive power, responsible to Parliament to whom the People have assigned a separate part of their sovereignty, cannot be made without first seeking the consent of the people through a Referendum. Furthermore, since the Cabinet derives its authority from the President, the constraint that is applicable to the President is equally applicable to the Cabinet.

If the intent is to prevent an individual such as a President from exercising unfettered Executive power, Parliament could legislate broad benchmarks and guidelines for the Executive to abide by, and for Parliamentary Oversight Committees to monitor and report to Parliament. Such an arrangement would be in keeping with the core principles of the present Constitution.

The focus at this moment of desperation should not be to engage in a contest as to which branch has more power, but together focus on restoring the economy for the sake of the People. The notion that these Amendments are undertaken in response to the boisterous voice of some is a misplaced distraction because the concern of the silent majority is for essentials of livelihood that is not getting the attention it deserves. Therefore, the need of the moment is for both branches of government to work together without competing as to who has more power.

A suggestion that would have a significant impact on the overwhelming majority is availability of petroleum products. Therefore, instead of depending on credit lines, the government should take a bold initiative and consider negotiating with Russia to set up a refinery in Trinco of sufficient capacity to furnish local needs and export any excess. In the interim, Sri Lanka should negotiate with China to secure excess petroleum products in their possession due to devaluation of the yuan and the slow down of their economy due to COVID-19. Such interim arrangements should not be a concern for India, because LIOC already has 35% of Sri Lanka’s market share. Engaging with India, Russia and China to resolve Sri Lanka’s desperate energy needs would be in keeping with its Neutral Foreign Policy. It is only such bold initiatives that will prevent Sri Lanka from experiencing instability of a nature hitherto unknown.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Celebrating 25 Years of Excellence: The Silver Jubilee of SLIIT – PART I

Published

on

The event was graced by distinguished guests, including H.E. Paul Stephens – Australian High Commissioner, Eric Walsh – High Commissioner for Canada in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Prof. Harlene Hayne – Vice-Chancellor, Curtin University, Australia along with many esteemed industry experts.

SLIIT is a degree-awarding higher education institute authorized and approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Ministry of Higher Education under the University Act of the Government of Sri Lanka. SLIIT is also the first Sri Lankan institute accredited by the Institution of Engineering & Technology, UK. Further, SLIIT is also a member of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) and the International Association of Universities (IAU).

Founded in 1999, with its main campus in Malabe and multiple centers across the country—including Metro Campus (Colombo), Matara, Kurunegala, Kandy (Pallekele), and Jaffna (Northern Uni)—SLIIT provides state-of-the-art facilities for students, now celebrating 25 years of excellence in 2025.

SLIIT continues to expand its academic, research, and industry connections, ensuring its graduates are well-prepared for global challenges while maintaining high standards of education and innovation.

Since its establishment in 1999, the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) has played a transformative role in shaping the nation’s technological and educational landscape. Operating as a company limited by guarantee, SLIIT reinvests all surpluses into academic and institutional development, maintaining independence from government ownership and funding since its inception, except for an initial BOI grant and temporary financial support from the Mahapola Trust Fund, which was fully repaid by 2015.

Officially delisted from any government ministry in 2017, SLIIT stands as a fully self-sustaining, non-state higher education institution. Over the years, it has grown from a pioneering IT-focused institute into a multidisciplinary university, offering programs in engineering, business, architecture, and humanities. With a strong emphasis on research, industry collaboration, and global academic partnerships, SLIIT continues to produce highly skilled graduates, reinforcing its reputation as a center of academic excellence and innovation.

Academic Excellence & Global Recognition

*  Ranked Sri Lanka’s No. 1 non-state university and 3rd overall in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2025.

*  Ranked No. 1 in Sri Lanka in the AD Scientific Index World Young University Ranking 2025.

*  Secured 5th place in the 2024 Scimago Institutional Ranking (first quartile).

*  Maintains an active research culture through grants, research integration into curricula, and a dedicated research center.

Programs, Faculty & Employability

*  25,000+ students, 96% employment rate, and an alumni base of over 40,000 graduates.

*  Offers undergraduate, postgraduate, and PhD programs in IT, Engineering, Business, Law, Psychology, Architecture, Quantity Surveying, Nursing, Hospitality & Tourism, Education, and more. Plans to introduce a Medicine program.

*  400+ eminent academics, many with PhDs and international research backgrounds, with a combined 5,000+ years of experience.

Industry & Global Partnerships

*  50+ industry partners, providing internships and job placements.

*  Collaborations with leading global universities such as Curtin, Liverpool John Moores, University of Edinburgh, University of Western Australia, and University of Queensland.

Achieving Global Recognition: SLIIT’s World University Ranking

A defining achievement in SLIIT’s journey has been its recognition on the global stage. Today, SLIIT proudly stands as the 3rd highest-ranked university in Sri Lanka among both state and non-state institutions in world university rankings in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2025. Notably, it holds the prestigious position of being the highest-ranked non-state university in the country. This recognition is a testament to SLIIT’s unwavering dedication to academic excellence, research contributions, and strong industry partnerships. By continuously improving its academic framework, research output, and international collaborations, SLIIT has firmly established itself as a leading institution in higher education, both locally and globally.

SLIIT Ranked Sri Lanka’s No. 1 Non-State University, Secures 3rd Place Nationally

SLIIT’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Lalith Gamage, expressed pride in the institution’s achievement, emphasizing its commitment to academic quality, research impact, and industry collaboration. Prof. Nimal Rajapakse echoed this sentiment, reaffirming SLIIT’s dedication to institutional excellence and global engagement. Looking forward, SLIIT aims to further strengthen its academic and research capabilities while positioning itself as a top choice for students seeking international-standard education.

Academic Excellence and Research Contributions

SLIIT has consistently maintained high academic standards, fostering an environment that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and technological innovation. Its research contributions in artificial intelligence, data science, cybersecurity, and other emerging fields have significantly impacted the academic and industrial spheres. Collaborations with international universities and institutions have further strengthened its research capabilities, allowing students and faculty to engage in groundbreaking projects that address global challenges.

Industry Partnerships and Global Recognition

One of the hallmarks of SLIIT’s success has been its strong industry partnerships. By working closely with leading corporations, startups, and government agencies, the institution has ensured that its graduates are well-equipped with the skills and knowledge required to excel in the modern workforce. Internship programs, industry-led workshops, and career placement initiatives have solidified SLIIT’s reputation as a premier institution for producing job-ready professionals. The university’s global collaborations have also positioned it as a key player in international education, further enhancing its credibility and influence.

Empowering Future Leaders

SLIIT Vice Chancellor, Professor Lalith Gamage, presents the winners’ trophy

Beyond academics, SLIIT has nurtured a vibrant student community that thrives on extracurricular activities, leadership development, and social responsibility. Student-led clubs, hackathons, entrepreneurship initiatives, and community service projects have created a holistic learning experience, empowering students to become well-rounded individuals and future leaders in their respective fields.

The Future

To be a globally recognized leader in higher education, research, and innovation, driving technological advancements and academic excellence to empower future generations. SLIIT envisions itself as a transformative force in shaping the future of education, fostering a culture of creativity, critical thinking, and industry collaboration to address emerging global challenges.

As SLIIT embarks on its next 25 years, SLIIT is looking forward to:

Expand academic offerings to align with the evolving demands of industry and society, ensuring students are equipped with future-ready skills.

Strengthen research capabilities by fostering innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and real-world impact in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, engineering, and business.

Cultivate a dynamic learning environment that nurtures intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and ethical leadership.

Enhance global partnerships with universities, industries, and research institutions to promote knowledge exchange and technological advancements.

Contribute meaningfully to national and global progress by developing a generation of professionals, entrepreneurs, and researchers who drive sustainable development and innovation.

Winning National and International Competitions

SLIIT has demonstrated excellence not only in academics and sports but also in various national and international competitions. Students and faculty have participated and triumphed in globally recognized contests, including programming competitions, hackathons, robotics championships, and business case challenges. These victories highlight SLIIT’s emphasis on innovation, problem-solving, and technical expertise. The university’s commitment to nurturing talent and providing competitive exposure has enabled students to showcase their capabilities on prestigious global platforms, bringing recognition to both themselves and the institution.

Conclusion

The Silver Jubilee of SLIIT is not just a celebration of its past achievements but also a recognition of its continued commitment to shaping the future of education and technology. As we commemorate this significant milestone, we extend our gratitude to the visionary leaders, dedicated faculty, industrious students, and supportive industry partners who have contributed to SLIIT’s remarkable journey. With a strong foundation and an inspiring vision, SLIIT is poised to achieve even greater heights in the years to come.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

Continue Reading

Features

Notes from AKD’s Textbook

Published

on

Small State Diplomacy:

There is a vast and increasingly interesting body of literature on the ways in which small and militarily and economically not so powerful countries, such as Sri Lanka, could deal with more powerful countries such as India and China, the United States and Canada and much of Western Europe, with whom Sri Lanka has trade and political links. In general, small state diplomacy is understood in the context of and in opposition to great power diplomacy. Until the Cold War came to an end, small states were generally seen as ‘rule-takers’ or those following diktats set by powerful nations, the ‘rule-makers’. Along the same vein, such small nations were also seen as mere consumers of security products and military alliances rather than initiators of these things.

But in contemporary times, there are many studies that have attempted to explain how and under what conditions it would be possible for the foreign policies of small states and their diplomatic efforts to influence and impact international affairs. Ideally, like more powerful countries, the goals of smaller and less powerful nations should also reflect their own core national interests, including safeguarding territorial integrity, advancing prosperity, and protecting the rights of their citizens beyond their borders. But these interests should be advanced in tandem with broader global concerns, focused on influencing the international environment in general.

It is in this context that Sri Lanka has spectacularly failed as a small state, particularly after the collapse of the Non-Aligned Movement and the abysmal failure of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Sri Lanka’s failure has also resulted from very specific local ruptures directly linked to dismantling democratic practices in the country since the late 1970s. These include the steady politicization and the resultant mediocratization of the country’s Foreign Service and the negative impact of the long lineage of elected but unenlightened political leaders from Presidents to Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and others who have undisputedly compromised Sri Lankan foreign policy and global standing. The country has not produced diplomats in a long time who have steadfastly looked after Sri Lanka’s interests in the world without pandering to the diktats of autocratic governments at home, with the assurance that they will be protected in return.

Similarly, Sri Lanka has been very unfortunate to not have leaders at the apex of local power who could intelligently and sensibly speak their mind to global and regional powers with a clear understanding of how international politics work and how the country can protect its national interest within this rubric.

So far, there has been an utter compromise of such interests through personal greed, the lack of preparedness and absence of intelligence. This is the reason Sri Lankan diplomacy and foreign policy have often failed or become very ordinary, even when it comes to crucial elements of the field, such as negotiations. I include in this category both political leaders and weak-willed and unenlightened foreign service officers. This has resulted in Sri Lanka ending up agreeing to be part of woefully inadequate and nationally unprofitable agreements, thereby constantly relegated to being on the proverbial backfoot; the longstanding Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva being a case in point, while the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement is another problematic example from the region. As a nation, we have shown our incapability in negotiating not only with more powerful countries, but even with private entities from such countries.

Against this backdrop, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visit to India, in December 2024, can be seen as a breath of fresh air on how one may engage in a more refined foreign policy that will look after local interests at the global level. Given our usual pusillanimity, the stand taken by President Disanayake when India’s Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar called on him, becomes interesting. Of course, Jaishankar is a seasoned career diplomat who has always stood for India’s interests internationally, while Dissanayake is a man without experience in dealing with global leaders. After all, this was his first state visit with a motley crew, equally lacking experience in international relations.

However, by all reports reaching us from the discourse on this visit, Dissanayake did well even though much of this has not been adequately reported in the press, barring the solitary intervention by Minister Sunil Handunnetti in Parliament, in February 2025. President Dissanayake’s success came from his political acumen and extreme confidence emanating from the powerful local mandate he had been given by the Sri Lankan people. He expressed what he had to say without floundering, in clear Sinhala, which was translated into English. At one point, Jaishankar had engaged Dissanayake on the perennial fishermen’s issue involving the two countries. He said it would be good to find a solution that made sense to Sri Lanka, but it also needed to convince the political interests in Tamil Nadu.

In his response, President Dissanayake minced no words, articulating where his responsibility lies, stating that for the first time people from northern Sri Lanka showed confidence in a political party from the south, which he represented, and it was essential to build on this trust and safeguard their rights, livelihood and security. In other words, he resisted the usual official Indian refrain and raised without reservations the issue of Indian poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Sri Lanka’s firm position on this controversial issue was thus elucidated very clearly by President Dissanayake to Dr Jaishankar.

For me, used to seeing nationally counter-productive positions and agreements shoved down Sri Lanka’s throat by powerful nations and organizatipns at international meetings, this was a refreshing textbook example of how a small country should conduct its foreign relations with a powerful neighbour with a reasonable degree of self-respect and core national interest at heart. But this is merely one example of Dissanayake’s numerous successful engagements with Jaishankar. It is understood that other such instances include Dissanayake’s stand on India’s interest in constructing a land bridge between the two countries and its persistent pressure on the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution.

This brings to my mind a comparatively different example from the Yahapalanaya era. In 2015, while preparing to meet the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala with a small group of academics and friends, I was informed by one of his staff members that he longed to visit the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, at least once in his life, the only significant Buddhist temple connected directly to the life of the Buddha he had not been able visit. The reason being he would not be given a visa by the Sri Lankan government due to its needless deference to the Chinese government. This had become an unquestioned and established practice of Sri Lankan foreign policy with regard to the Dalai Lama. The irony is that this is a highly respected global personality who continues to be welcomed openly by countries which have robust trade and political relations with China. I took it upon myself to write to President Maithirpala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that Sri Lanka should allow the Dalai Lama to visit and expounded on why this would not dent our relations with China. I never heard from them. I was also told by Sri Lankan diplomats at the time both in Delhi and Colombo this would never happen.

This is a telling example of the mediocrity and non-independence of our foreign policy, even at a fundamental level. It is, and not only in this instance, often dictated by what other nations might think, or how they may feel or react, rather than what Sri Lanka wants to do in keeping with its convictions, and that, too, without properly evaluating the merits of each case. Consecutive post-Independence Sri Lankan governments have not issued a visa to the Dalai Lama. Juxtapose this to the instance when in 2014, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government allowed the violent Burmese Buddhist monk, Ashin Wirathu, who once identified himself as ‘the Burmese bin Laden’ to visit Sri Lanka to attend a public meeting in Colombo.

This needs to be considered in terms of realpolitik. That is, would the Chinese want to lose out on the far greater advantages of their considerable investments and structures of influence by withdrawing from Sri Lanka, because the Sri Lankan government allowed the elderly Dalai Lama a deeply personal spiritual visit? At most, they would issue an irate statement conveying their displeasure as they have done consistently on all such occasions involving other countries. But on the Sri Lankan government’s part, depriving a visit to the Dalai Lama to the Temple of the Tooth located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Kandy no less, is utterly un-Buddhist for a state that accords the foremost place to Buddhism in its constitution. I do hope President Dissanayake would be able to see the frivolity of the reasoning of his successors and advance the possibilities in his newfound textbook on small state diplomacy.

But, in the long term, this new textbook approach will be successful only if more concrete work is put into the process. A visit by the Dalai Lama would be one aspect that can send a much needed signal to the world that finally our foreign policy is standing on its own feet without compromising the country’s relations with other nations. More can be done when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Sri Lanka on 5th April 2025. One hopes that Dissanayake will engage with his foreign visitor to make clear what the national interests are.

After all, the land bridge idea consistently pushed by India is vehemently opposed by both the country’ powerful Buddhist clergy and many ordinary Sri Lankans who happen to have brought President Dissanayake and his party to power. The 13th Amendment, forced into the Sri Lankan Constitution with direct Indian intervention, albeit under an Indian National Congress (INC) government, should never be part of any future constitution. After all, President Dissanayake’s own party, the JVP, has consistently opposed the 13th Amendment. This does not mean, however, that regional socio-political interests within the island should not be addressed in a future constitution-making process within a local paradigm; they certainly should be.

On the other hand, while we should be open to Indian investments and any others in keeping with the laws of the land, allowing backdoor and illegal entry of projects of the kind that Adani attempted, should be out of the question. This can be part of the conversation during the upcoming visit of Mr Modi. It would behoove the Sri Lankan government to be mindful that Indian foreign policy in the region has in recent times run into spectacular failures as exemplified by the cases of Bangladesh, Nepal and the Maldives as well as India’s general inability to counter Chinese influence in the region.

One hopes that President Dissanayake will continue to engage with his visitor and others like him in times to come in the manner he has already established during his 2024 state visit to India.

Continue Reading

Features

Removing obstacles to development

Published

on

President Dissanayake

Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.

There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.

More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.

RENEWED GROWTH

The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.

Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.

The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.

COMMITTED GOVERNMENT

The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.

There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.

By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Trending