Features
Don’t bank on FTAs with countries like Thailand to boost Sri Lanka’s exports
by Gomi Senadhira
“In Sri Lanka’s pursuit of transforming into a high-income country by 2048, involving trade negotiations with countries like Thailand, the Sri Lanka Thailand Free Trade Agreement (SLTFTA), was signed ….” (media release by the Presidential Secretariat, 03 February)
Five long years after starting negotiations, the trade ministers of Sri Lanka and Thailand signed what they claimed to be a very ambitious Free Trade Agreement. The negotiations on the FTA, which commenced in July 2018 during the official visit of General Prayut Chan-o-cha, then Prime Minister of Thailand, to Sri Lanka, continued through nine rounds before the agreement was finalised. At this stage, it is difficult to comment comprehensively on this agreement as the text of the agreement is still not available to the public. But it is appropriate and timely to share a preliminary analysis based on available information to initiate an informed discussion on this important agreement.
Given the lacklustre performance in the export sector over the recent years and the government’s inability to take any meaningful steps to reverse the trend, many Sri Lankans may view signing an FTA to boost exports as something to be welcomed. Particularly because of the very grand objectives Sri Lanka hopes to achieve through this FTA (as per information available through media releases), namely,
1. boosting exports from Sri Lanka to Thailand by threefold via the FTA,
2. enhancing access for Sri Lanka’s exports to markets in other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway.
But can we achieve these objectives through this FTA? Or, are those just pipe dreams?
1. The objective to boost exports from the country to Thailand by three folds
In February 2023, after the third round of negotiations between Sri Lankan officials and the Thai delegation, headed by Thailand Trade Negotiations Department’s Director-General Auramon Supthaweethum at a post-Cabinet media briefing Minister Banduala Gunawardena, while justifying the plans to sign a trade agreement (FTA) with Thailand, stated,“Sri Lanka lacks FTAs with countries and that is one of the key reasons why we have not been able to boost our exports over time … and “The objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA,”. That was when Sri Lanka was facing its worst currency crisis in history. So, the claim was widely welcomed and given extensive publicity in the newspapers and news websites. However, those who are familiar with Sri Lanka’s exports would have noticed these numbers were far from accurate. Interestingly, before the commencement of the third round of the negotiations, a press release from the Presidential Media Division (PMD) had clearly stated, “… The start of the negotiations will take place against the backdrop of a significant trade imbalance in Thailand’s favour. In 2021, Sri Lanka imported goods from Thailand worth USD 355 million, but only sent USD 59 million to Thailand”. So, the officials at the Presidential Secretariat knew the correct numbers and should have issued a clarification/correction after the news was published. It should have been done promptly because these kinds of announcements send wrong signals, not only to the people of this country but also to our negotiating partners, particularly about professionalism of Sri Lanka’s Trade Negotiators.
Unfortunately, no corrections came from the government and then in May, Minister Gunawardena reiterated, “… the objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA.” That was after President Ranil Wickremesinghe had briefed the Cabinet on the progress of the discussions between the two countries.
Why is it that the Cabinet spokesman repeatedly stated “The objective of the Government is to boost exports from the current $ 550 million to $ 1.5 billion via Sri Lanka and Thailand FTA!”, at the post-Cabinet media conferences? We cannot expect the minister to have the trade statistics at his fingertips. So, where did the Cabinet and its spokesman get their numbers from? Was it from a Cabinet memo? Was he (and the Cabinet) misled by some officials in the Presidential Secretariat who wanted an FTA with Thailand at any cost? If the real numbers were presented, some ministers may have questioned the need for an FTA with Thailand, the 37th exporting destination of Sri Lanka. On the other hand, Thailand is the 10th largest exporter in to Sri Lanka. So, some may even ask will such an agreement exacerbate the foreign exchange crisis by increasing the imports from Thailand? However, none of the ministers would object to a trade agreement that would increase exports by one billion US dollars.
Anyway, now that the agreement has been finalised, I hope that the government will explain how Sri Lanka hopes to reach the highly ambitious objective set by our negotiators to boost exports by three times the current exports via the FTA. Not from $ 550 million as the government has finally corrected the numbers. Now, the new (revised) objective is, according to the PMD media release, of 3rd February, “…. tripling the existing bilateral trade value (USD 550 Mn) to USD 1.5 Billion within four years. One of the main objectives of entering into a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Thailand is to enhance market opportunities for Sri Lanka with possible expansion.”
That means the revised objective is triple the existing bilateral trade and not Sri Lanka’s exports within four years. Is it an achievable target within four years? Out of this USD 1,5 billion what would be the Sri Lanka’s share? Or, will it be heavily in favour of Thailand? A study undertaken by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) last year projected, “Assuming an immediate phasing-out of the existing tariffs, an FTA would increase bilateral trade to USD 619.6 million by 29.1 %. This increase falls short of the ambitious goal of a threefold increase in bilateral trade, at least in the short run.” The report also pointed out that if the existing tariff was immediately phased out Sri Lanka’s exports would increase by $27.6 million and Thailand’s exports would increase by $141.8 million. However, in real negotiations, it doesn’t happen like that. Countries negotiate and sign Free Trade agreements to help open markets and expand opportunities for their exporters in a balanced and mutually beneficial manner.
In 2022, out of Sri Lanka’s total exports to Thailand valued at $57.7 million, precious or semi-precious stones accounted for $33.4 million. Almost all these (precious stones) have duty-free market access in Thailand. Hence, the FTA will not add any additional enhanced market access. So, any export growth has to come from the rest of the basket and any new products that may get duty-free access to Thailand. What are the products our economic operators can export to Thailand under this FTA? What are those products that can add 100 million in additional exports within four years? Who are the exporters undertaken that challenge?
Recently in Bangkok, Ms Supthaweethum announced more realistic but substantial gains for Thailand from the FTA. She projected the Thai economy to expand by 0.02% equivalent to US$ 80 million through expansion of investment and value of Thai exports to Sri Lanka. Thai manufacturing industries and products that would benefits from the agreement would be automotive, fashion, gems, metal, electronics, rubber, pet food and corn. Although details on these projected gains are not available, I believe, most of the gains would come through duty reductions for these products by Sri Lanka. In addition to that Thai finance, insurance, tourism and R&D industries also are expected to benefit from the agreement. However, if Thailand’s economy is to expand by US$ 80 million that would require substantial (a threefold?) increase in Thai exports to Sri Lanka. But at this stage it is difficult to comment on this as we do not have the full text of the agreement.
2. Access markets in other ASEAN countries
The media release by the PMD in January, last year, identified one other objective of the Sri Lankan negotiators, that is,” … from the perspective of Sri Lanka, the negotiations will be aimed at enhancing access to our exports not only in the Thai market but also in markets in other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway.” I cannot understand how this can be achieved through a bilateral FTA between two countries exchanging reciprocal concessions. Does this mean that Sri Lanka also has to open up the market to other ASEAN countries through Thailand’s gateway? How will the Rules of Origin impact such trade? It will be interesting to find out how our negotiators have achieved this objective.
Third time lucky! Or, Finally unlucky?
This is not the first time Sri Lanka and Thailand tried to negotiate an agreement to enhance trade. The attempts were made twice before. The first was to negotiate a preferential trade agreement (PTA). It was initiated when the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra visited Sri Lanka in 2003 on the invitation of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. I understand those negotiations were abandoned after few rounds as Thailand refused to include products of export interest to Sri Lanka in their concession list in a meaningful manner.
After that a very comprehensive FTA was negotiated with Thailand under the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Although it was an agreement between the BIMSTEC members, as the South Asian countries already had preferential trade agreements and India had an FTA with Thailand, the negotiations essentially were between other South Asian members and Thailand. The negotiations which commenced in September 2004, in Bangkok, was largely driven by Thailand. After 20 rounds of negotiations, a comprehensive trade agreement was almost finalised before 2010. During the negotiations, Thailand aggressively pushed for enhanced market access for their products. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan negotiators conceded substantial amount of concessions to Thailand without receiving any significant concessions in return. Thailand kept the limited number of products Sri Lanka was interested on its negative list. As a result, the final draft was heavily in favour of Thailand. Consequently, before moving forward with negotiation any further, during the 2010 – 2011 period, the Department of Commerce carried out an extensive consultation process with local stakeholders.
During those consultations, local manufacturers clearly explained that the impact of the FTA would be highly disadvantageous to the local industries and lobbied strongly against the FTA. Even the export associations did not consider an FTA with Thailand a necessity. They considered the Thai market a difficult market to enter even with tariff concessions. Only the importers (and some officials) lobbied heavily in favour of the agreement. Based on those consultations the Department of Commerce advised the ministry and all other line agencies against signing of the agreement as the objective of signing a trade agreement was to boost Sri Lanka exports in a mutually beneficial manner. At the same time the department managed to renegotiate the agreement to expand the negative list to protect local industries. This was done because there was a possibility of a decision by the government to sign the agreement for “political or religious reasons”. Fortunately, 12 years later that agreement is still at the negotiation table.
$80 million boost for Thailand. How much for Sri Lanka?
After failing twice to get a trade agreement with Sri Lanka, the Thai negotiators have finally managed to overcome the hurdle in their third attempt. What have they achieved? And where does this US$ 80 million come from? And the time-frame? What gains will Sri Lanka secure from the FTA? It is extremely unlikely that total trade also will increase to US$ 1.5 billion in four years. Even if that happens then that increase will be heavily in favour of Thailand. What will be the share of Sri Lanka? But it is difficult to comment as government is yet to share the agreement with the people of this country. Meanwhile, we can consider the IPS prediction of US$ 27.6 million as a more realistic short-term objective. But that type of expansion does not need an FTA. A good customs cooperation arrangement to tackle misinvoicing can increase our (recorded) exports by that amount.
(The writer, a former Director General of Commerce, can be contacted via senadhiragomi@gmail.com.)
Features
Challenges faced by the media in South Asia in fostering regionalism
SAARC or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has been declared ‘dead’ by some sections in South Asia and the idea seems to be catching on. Over the years the evidence seems to have been building that this is so, but a matter that requires thorough probing is whether the media in South Asia, given the vital part it could play in fostering regional amity, has had a role too in bringing about SAARC’s apparent demise.
That South Asian governments have had a hand in the ‘SAARC debacle’ is plain to see. For example, it is beyond doubt that the India-Pakistan rivalry has invariably got in the way, particularly over the past 15 years or thereabouts, of the Indian and Pakistani governments sitting at the negotiating table and in a spirit of reconciliation resolving the vexatious issues growing out of the SAARC exercise. The inaction had a paralyzing effect on the organization.
Unfortunately the rest of South Asian governments too have not seen it to be in the collective interest of the region to explore ways of jump-starting the SAARC process and sustaining it. That is, a lack of statesmanship on the part of the SAARC Eight is clearly in evidence. Narrow national interests have been allowed to hijack and derail the cooperative process that ought to be at the heart of the SAARC initiative.
However, a dimension that has hitherto gone comparatively unaddressed is the largely negative role sections of the media in the SAARC region could play in debilitating regional cooperation and amity. We had some thought-provoking ‘takes’ on this question recently from Roman Gautam, the editor of ‘Himal Southasian’.
Gautam was delivering the third of talks on February 2nd in the RCSS Strategic Dialogue Series under the aegis of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Colombo, at the latter’s conference hall. The forum was ably presided over by RCSS Executive Director and Ambassador (Retd.) Ravinatha Aryasinha who, among other things, ensured lively participation on the part of the attendees at the Q&A which followed the main presentation. The talk was titled, ‘Where does the media stand in connecting (or dividing) Southasia?’.
Gautam singled out those sections of the Indian media that are tamely subservient to Indian governments, including those that are professedly independent, for the glaring lack of, among other things, regionalism or collective amity within South Asia. These sections of the media, it was pointed out, pander easily to the narratives framed by the Indian centre on developments in the region and fall easy prey, as it were, to the nationalist forces that are supportive of the latter. Consequently, divisive forces within the region receive a boost which is hugely detrimental to regional cooperation.
Two cases in point, Gautam pointed out, were the recent political upheavals in Nepal and Bangladesh. In each of these cases stray opinions favorable to India voiced by a few participants in the relevant protests were clung on to by sections of the Indian media covering these trouble spots. In the case of Nepal, to consider one example, a young protester’s single comment to the effect that Nepal too needed a firm leader like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was seized upon by the Indian media and fed to audiences at home in a sensational, exaggerated fashion. No effort was made by the Indian media to canvass more opinions on this matter or to extensively research the issue.
In the case of Bangladesh, widely held rumours that the Hindus in the country were being hunted and killed, pogrom fashion, and that the crisis was all about this was propagated by the relevant sections of the Indian media. This was a clear pandering to religious extremist sentiment in India. Once again, essentially hearsay stories were given prominence with hardly any effort at understanding what the crisis was really all about. There is no doubt that anti-Muslim sentiment in India would have been further fueled.
Gautam was of the view that, in the main, it is fear of victimization of the relevant sections of the media by the Indian centre and anxiety over financial reprisals and like punitive measures by the latter that prompted the media to frame their narratives in these terms. It is important to keep in mind these ‘structures’ within which the Indian media works, we were told. The issue in other words, is a question of the media completely subjugating themselves to the ruling powers.
Basically, the need for financial survival on the part of the Indian media, it was pointed out, prompted it to subscribe to the prejudices and partialities of the Indian centre. A failure to abide by the official line could spell financial ruin for the media.
A principal question that occurred to this columnist was whether the ‘Indian media’ referred to by Gautam referred to the totality of the Indian media or whether he had in mind some divisive, chauvinistic and narrow-based elements within it. If the latter is the case it would not be fair to generalize one’s comments to cover the entirety of the Indian media. Nevertheless, it is a matter for further research.
However, an overall point made by the speaker that as a result of the above referred to negative media practices South Asian regionalism has suffered badly needs to be taken. Certainly, as matters stand currently, there is a very real information gap about South Asian realities among South Asian publics and harmful media practices account considerably for such ignorance which gets in the way of South Asian cooperation and amity.
Moreover, divisive, chauvinistic media are widespread and active in South Asia. Sri Lanka has a fair share of this species of media and the latter are not doing the country any good, leave alone the region. All in all, the democratic spirit has gone well into decline all over the region.
The above is a huge problem that needs to be managed reflectively by democratic rulers and their allied publics in South Asia and the region’s more enlightened media could play a constructive role in taking up this challenge. The latter need to take the initiative to come together and deliberate on the questions at hand. To succeed in such efforts they do not need the backing of governments. What is of paramount importance is the vision and grit to go the extra mile.
Features
When the Wetland spoke after dusk
As the sun softened over Colombo and the city’s familiar noise began to loosen its grip, the Beddagana Wetland Park prepared for its quieter hour — the hour when wetlands speak in their own language.
World Wetlands Day was marked a little early this year, but time felt irrelevant at Beddagana. Nature lovers, students, scientists and seekers gathered not for a ceremony, but for listening. Partnering with Park authorities, Dilmah Conservation opened the wetland as a living classroom, inviting more than a 100 participants to step gently into an ecosystem that survives — and protects — a capital city.
Wetlands, it became clear, are not places of stillness. They are places of conversation.
Beyond the surface
In daylight, Beddagana appears serene — open water stitched with reeds, dragonflies hovering above green mirrors.
Yet beneath the surface lies an intricate architecture of life. Wetlands are not defined by water alone, but by relationships: fungi breaking down matter, insects pollinating and feeding, amphibians calling across seasons, birds nesting and mammals moving quietly between shadows.
Participants learned this not through lectures alone, but through touch, sound and careful observation. Simple water testing kits revealed the chemistry of urban survival. Camera traps hinted at lives lived mostly unseen.
Demonstrations of mist netting and cage trapping unfolded with care, revealing how science approaches nature not as an intruder, but as a listener.
Again and again, the lesson returned: nothing here exists in isolation.
Learning to listen
Perhaps the most profound discovery of the day was sound.
Wetlands speak constantly, but human ears are rarely tuned to their frequency. Researchers guided participants through the wetland’s soundscape — teaching them to recognise the rhythms of frogs, the punctuation of insects, the layered calls of birds settling for night.
Then came the inaudible made audible. Bat detectors translated ultrasonic echolocation into sound, turning invisible flight into pulses and clicks. Faces lit up with surprise. The air, once assumed empty, was suddenly full.
It was a moment of humility — proof that much of nature’s story unfolds beyond human perception.

Sethil on camera trapping
The city’s quiet protectors
Environmental researcher Narmadha Dangampola offered an image that lingered long after her words ended. Wetlands, she said, are like kidneys.
“They filter, cleanse and regulate,” she explained. “They protect the body of the city.”
Her analogy felt especially fitting at Beddagana, where concrete edges meet wild water.
She shared a rare confirmation: the Collared Scops Owl, unseen here for eight years, has returned — a fragile signal that when habitats are protected, life remembers the way back.
Small lives, large meanings
Professor Shaminda Fernando turned attention to creatures rarely celebrated. Small mammals — shy, fast, easily overlooked — are among the wetland’s most honest messengers.
Using Sherman traps, he demonstrated how scientists read these animals for clues: changes in numbers, movements, health.
In fragmented urban landscapes, small mammals speak early, he said. They warn before silence arrives.
Their presence, he reminded participants, is not incidental. It is evidence of balance.

Narmadha on water testing pH level
Wings in the dark
As twilight thickened, Dr. Tharaka Kusuminda introduced mist netting — fine, almost invisible nets used in bat research.
He spoke firmly about ethics and care, reminding all present that knowledge must never come at the cost of harm.
Bats, he said, are guardians of the night: pollinators, seed dispersers, controllers of insects. Misunderstood, often feared, yet indispensable.
“Handle them wrongly,” he cautioned, “and we lose more than data. We lose trust — between science and life.”
The missing voice
One of the evening’s quiet revelations came from Sanoj Wijayasekara, who spoke not of what is known, but of what is absent.
In other parts of the region — in India and beyond — researchers have recorded female frogs calling during reproduction. In Sri Lanka, no such call has yet been documented.
The silence, he suggested, may not be biological. It may be human.
“Perhaps we have not listened long enough,” he reflected.
The wetland, suddenly, felt like an unfinished manuscript — its pages alive with sound, waiting for patience rather than haste.
The overlooked brilliance of moths
Night drew moths into the light, and with them, a lesson from Nuwan Chathuranga. Moths, he said, are underestimated archivists of environmental change. Their diversity reveals air quality, plant health, climate shifts.
As wings brushed the darkness, it became clear that beauty often arrives quietly, without invitation.

Dr. Kusuminda on bat traps
Coexisting with the wild
Ashan Thudugala spoke of coexistence — a word often used, rarely practiced. Living alongside wildlife, he said, begins with understanding, not fear.
From there, Sethil Muhandiram widened the lens, speaking of Sri Lanka’s apex predator. Leopards, identified by their unique rosette patterns, are studied not to dominate, but to understand.
Science, he showed, is an act of respect.
Even in a wetland without leopards, the message held: knowledge is how coexistence survives.
When night takes over
Then came the walk: As the city dimmed, Beddagana brightened. Fireflies stitched light into darkness. Frogs called across water. Fish moved beneath reflections. Insects swarmed gently, insistently. Camera traps blinked. Acoustic monitors listened patiently.
Those walking felt it — the sense that the wetland was no longer being observed, but revealed.
For many, it was the first time nature did not feel distant.

A global distinction, a local duty
Beddagana stands at the heart of a larger truth. Because of this wetland and the wider network around it, Colombo is the first capital city in the world recognised as a Ramsar Wetland City.
It is an honour that carries obligation. Urban wetlands are fragile. They disappear quietly. Their loss is often noticed only when floods arrive, water turns toxic, or silence settles where sound once lived.
Commitment in action
For Dilmah Conservation, this night was not symbolic.
Speaking on behalf of the organisation, Rishan Sampath said conservation must move beyond intention into experience.
“People protect what they understand,” he said. “And they understand what they experience.”
The Beddagana initiative, he noted, is part of a larger effort to place science, education and community at the centre of conservation.
Listening forward
As participants left — students from Colombo, Moratuwa and Sabaragamuwa universities, school environmental groups, citizens newly attentive — the wetland remained.
It filtered water. It cooled air. It held life.
World Wetlands Day passed quietly. But at Beddagana, something remained louder than celebration — a reminder that in the heart of the city, nature is still speaking.
The question is no longer whether wetlands matter.
It is whether we are finally listening.
Features
Cuteefly … for your Valentine
Valentine’s Day is all about spreading love and appreciation, and it is a mega scene on 14th February.
People usually shower their loved ones with gifts, flowers (especially roses), and sweet treats.
Couples often plan romantic dinners or getaways, while singles might treat themselves to self-care or hang out with friends.
It’s a day to express feelings, share love, and make memories, and that’s exactly what Indunil Kaushalya Dissanayaka, of Cuteefly fame, is working on.
She has come up with a novel way of making that special someone extra special on Valentine’s Day.

Indunil is known for her scented and beautifully turned out candles, under the brand name Cuteefly, and we highlighted her creativeness in The Island of 27th November, 2025.
She is now working enthusiastically on her Valentine’s Day candles and has already come up with various designs.
“What I’ve turned out I’m certain will give lots of happiness to the receiver,” said Indunil, with confidence.
In addition to her own designs, she says she can make beautiful candles, the way the customer wants it done and according to their budget, as well.
Customers can also add anything they want to the existing candles, created by Indunil, and make them into gift packs.
Another special feature of Cuteefly is that you can get them to deliver the gifts … and surprise that special someone on Valentine’s Day.
Indunil was originally doing the usual 9 to 5 job but found it kind of boring, and then decided to venture into a scene that caught her interest, and brought out her hidden talent … candle making
And her scented candles, under the brand ‘Cuteefly,’ are already scorching hot, not only locally, but abroad, as well, in countries like Canada, Dubai, Sweden and Japan.
“I give top priority to customer satisfaction and so I do my creative work with great care, without any shortcomings, to ensure that my customers have nothing to complain about.”
Indunil creates candles for any occasion – weddings, get-togethers, for mental concentration, to calm the mind, home decorations, as gifts, for various religious ceremonies, etc.
In addition to her candle business, Indunil is also a singer, teacher, fashion designer, and councellor but due to the heavy workload, connected with her candle business, she says she can hardly find any time to devote to her other talents.
Indunil could be contacted on 077 8506066, Facebook page – Cuteefly, Tiktok– Cuteefly_tik, and Instagram – Cuteeflyofficial.
-
Opinion6 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business5 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business2 days agoSLIM-Kantar People’s Awards 2026 to recognise Sri Lanka’s most trusted brands and personalities
-
Business5 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business5 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business4 days agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business4 days agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial5 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
