Connect with us

Features

Don’t bank on FTAs with countries like Thailand to boost Sri Lanka’s exports

Published

on

Minister of Trade, Commerce, and Food Security, Nalin Fernando, with Phumtham Wechayachai, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce, after signing the Sri Lanka Thailand Free Trade Agreement on 03 Jan, 2024.

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.)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Features

The final voyage of the Iranian warship sunk by the US

Published

on

By

The Iris Dena seen in the Bay of Bengal during the International Fleet Review 2026 [BBC]

On 17 February, the Indian Navy posted a cheerful message on X.

“Welcome!” it wrote, greeting the Iranian warship Iris Dena as it steamed into the port of Visakhapatnam to join an international naval gathering.

Photographs showed sailors in crisp whites and a grey frigate gliding in the sea harbour on a clear day. The hashtags spoke of “Bridges of Friendship” and “United Through Oceans”.

Two weeks later the ship, carrying 130 sailors, lay at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. It had been torpedoed by a US submarine off Sri Lanka’s southern coast on 4 March.

Commissioned in 2021, the Dena was a relatively new vessel – a Moudge-class frigate of Iran’s Southern Fleet, which patrols the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.

According to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, the vessel “thought it was safe in international waters” but instead “died a quiet death”. Rescue teams from Sri Lanka have recovered at least 87 bodies. Only 32 sailors survived.

The sinking marks a dramatic widening of the war between America, Israel and Iran. And, though it occurred in international waters of the Indian Ocean and outside India’s jurisdiction, it is an awkward moment for Delhi.

“The war has come to our doorsteps. That is not a good thing,” says retired Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh.

For some strategists, the episode carries broader implications for India’s regional standing.

Indian strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney wrote on X that the US torpedoing of the Iranian warship in India’s “maritime neighbourhood” was “more than a battlefield episode” – calling it a “strategic embarrassment” for Delhi.

“By sinking a vessel returning from an Indian-hosted multilateral exercise, Washington effectively turned India’s maritime neighbourhood into a war zone, raising uncomfortable questions about India’s authority in its own backyard,” Chellaney wrote.

Just days before its destruction, the Dena had been a diplomatic guest of the Indian Navy.

The ship had travelled to Visakhapatnam, a sun-washed port city on India’s east coast, to participate in the International Fleet Review 2026 and Exercise Milan, a large multilateral naval exercise meant to showcase India’s growing maritime leadership.

Seventy-four countries and 18 warships took part in the events, which Delhi described as a demonstration of its ambition to become the Indian Ocean’s “preferedsecurity partner”.

Visiting ships at such multilateral exercises usually do not carry a full combat load of live munitions, unless scheduled for a live-fire drill, according to Chellaney. Even during the sea phase, when drills and live firing take place, ships carry only tightly controlled ammunition limited to the specific exercises.

Singh, an invitee to the event, recalls seeing the warship and its Iranian sailors in Visakhapatnam just days before its fate changed.

“I saw the boys marching in front of me,” he says of the Iranian naval contingent during the parade along the seafront, just 10m away. “All young people. I feel very sad.”

He says on 21 February, the assembled ships – including the Iranian vessel – sailed out for the sea phase of Exercise Milan, scheduled to run until 25 February.

“What happened next is less clear: the ship may have returned to port or peeled away after exercises. Either way, the waters where it was later sunk – off Galle in Sri Lanka – lie only two to three days’ sailing from India’s east coast,” Singh says. What the ship was doing in the 10-12 days in between is not clear.

A map showing the Arabian Sea region including Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, India, and Sri Lanka. A red label near Sri Lanka marks the location where the Iris Dena sank near Galle. The Strait of Hormuz is labelled between Iran and Oman. In the upper-right corner, an inset photo shows a grey naval ship docked at a port with cranes in the background, labelled the Iris Dena in Brazil in 2023. A small world map in the upper-left highlights the region with a red rectangle.

Singh, who has commanded submarines, believes the sequence leading up to the attack was probably straightforward.

The US, he notes, tracks vessels across the world’s oceans. “They would have known exactly when the ship left and where it was heading,” he says. A fourth of America’s submarine fleet of 65-70 is at sea at any given time, according to analysts.

According to the Indian Navy, the Iranian warship had been operating about 20 nautical miles west of Galle – roughly 23 miles (37km) – in waters that fall under Sri Lanka’s designated search-and-rescue zone.

The attack, Singh says, appears to have involved a single Mark-48 torpedo, a heavyweight weapon carrying about 650 pounds of high explosive, capable of snapping a ship in two. Video footage suggests the submarine may have fired from 3-4km away, around 05:30 local time.

The aftermath was grim and swift.

The warship reportedly sank within two to three minutes, leaving little time for rescue. “It’s a miracle they managed to send an SOS,” Singh says, which was picked up by the Sri Lanka Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Colombo.

According to the Indian Navy, a distress call from the Iranian warship was picked up by Colombo in the early hours of 4 March, triggering a regional search-and-rescue effort.

The navy said in a statement that Sri Lanka’s navy began rescue operations first, while India moved to assist later.

The Indian Navy deployed a long-range maritime patrol aircraft to support the search and kept another aircraft with air-droppable life rafts on standby.

A naval vessel already operating nearby reached the area by late afternoon. Another ship, which sailed from the southern Indian port city of Kochi to join the effort, continues to comb the waters for survivors and debris.

Reuters An Iranian Embassy official (R) reacts while standing in front of Galle National Hospital, where injured sailors are receiving treatment, following a submarine attack on the Iranian military ship, IRIS Dena, off the coast of Sri Lanka, in Galle, Sri Lanka, March 5, 2026. REUTERS/Thilina Kaluthotage
An Iranian embassy official (right) in front of Galle National Hospital, where injured sailors are receiving treatment [BBC]

Under the Second Geneva Convention, countries at war are required to take “all possible measures” to rescue wounded or shipwrecked sailors after a naval attack. In practice, however, this duty applies only if a rescue can be attempted without putting the attacking vessel in serious danger.

Singh says submarines are rarely able to help.

“Submarines don’t surface,” he says. “If you surface and give up your position, someone else can sink you.”

Singh suspects the speed of the sinking – and possibly sparse shipping in the area at the time – meant few nearby vessels could respond. “A ship breaking up that fast leaves almost no chance,” he says.

In a shooting war, Singh says, the legal position is blunt.

Fighting between the United States and Iran had been under way since 28 February, with claims that 17 Iranian naval vessels had already been destroyed.

“When a shooting war is on, any ship of a belligerent country becomes fair game,” he says.

Many questions remain. Why was the Iranian warship still in waters near Sri Lanka nearly two weeks after leaving India’s naval exercise? Was it heading home, or on another mission? And how long had the US submarine been tracking it before firing?

For Delhi, the episode is diplomatically awkward.

India has drawn closer to Washington on defence while maintaining long-standing political and economic ties with Tehran – a balancing act the war has made harder.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called broadly for “dialogue and diplomacy” to resolve conflicts, but has neither addressed the sinking of the Iranian vessel directly nor criticised the American strike.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the attack as “an atrocity at sea” and stressed that the frigate had been “a guest of India’s Navy”. Meanwhile Sri Lanka has taken control of another Iranian naval vessel off its coast after an engine failure forced it to seek port, a day after the US attack.

The episode has nonetheless sparked debate within India’s strategic community.

Kanwal Sibal, a veteran diplomat, argued that India’s responsibility may not be legal, but it is moral.

REUTERS A man checks the local newspaper, follwoing a submarine attack on the Iranian military ship, IRIS Dena, off the coast of Sri Lanka, in Galle, Sri Lanka, March 5, 2026. REUTERS/Thilina Kaluthotage
The sinking of the ship made front page news in Sri Lanka [BBC]

“The Iranian ship would not have been where it was had India not invited it to the Milan exercise,” he wrote on X.  “A word of condolence at the loss of lives of those who were our invitees would be in order.”

Others like Chellaney have framed the issue in more strategic terms.

He described the strike as a blow to India’s maritime diplomacy. The torpedoing of the frigate in “India’s maritime backyard”, he argued, punctured Delhi’s carefully cultivated image as a “preferred security partner” in the Indian Ocean.

“In one torpedo strike, American hard power has punctured India’s carefully cultivated soft power,” says Chellaney.

As the debate gathered pace in strategic circles, India’s official response remained cautious.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on X that he had held a telephone conversation with Araghchi, and also posted a photograph of a meeting with Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh at a foreign policy summit in Delhi.

For military historian Srinath Raghavan, the legal position is clear: once the Iranian vessel left India’s shores, Delhi had no formal responsibility.

The strategic message, however, is harder to ignore.

“First, the spreading geography of this war. Second, India’s limited ability to manage its fallout,” says Raghavan.

“Indeed, the US Navy has fired a shot across the bow aimed at all regional players, including India.”

[BBC]

 

Continue Reading

Features

End of ‘Western Civilisation’?

Published

on

Carney at Davos

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” ––George Orwell, Animal Farm

When I wrote in this column an essay on 4th February 2026 titled, the ‘Beginning of Another ‘White Supremacist’ World Order?’, my focus was on the hypocrisy of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos address on 20 January 2026 to the World Economic Forum. It was embraced like the gospel by liberal types and the naïve international relations ‘experts’ in our country and elsewhere. My suspicion of Carney’s words stemmed from the consistent role played by countries like Canada and others which he called ‘middle powers’ or ‘intermediate powers’ in the world order he critiqued in Davos. He wanted such countries, particularly Canada, “to live the truth?” which meant “naming reality” as it exists; “acting consistently” towards all in the world; “applying the same standards to allies and rivals” and “building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored.” These are some memorable pieces of Carney’s mantra.

Yet unsurprisingly, it only took the Trump-Netanyahu illegal war against Iran to prove the hollowness in Carney’s words. If he placed any premium on his own words, he should have at least voiced his concern against the continuing atrocities in the Middle East unilaterally initiated by the US and Israel. But his concern is only about Iran’s seemingly indiscriminate attacks across the region targeting US and Israeli installations and even civilian locations in countries allied with the Us-Israel coalition.

Issuing a statement on 3 March 2026 from Sydney he noted, “Canada has long seen Iran as the principal source of instability and terror in the Middle East” and “despite more than two decades of negotiations and diplomatic efforts, Iran has not dismantled its nuclear programme, nor halted its enrichment activities.” A sensible observer would note how the same statement would also apply to Israel. In fact, Israel has been the bigger force of instability in the Middle East surpassing Iran. After all, it has exiled an entire population of people — the Palestinians — from their country to absolute statelessness has not halted its genocide of the same people unfortunate enough to find themselves in Gaza after their homeland was taken over to create Israel in 1948 and their properties to build illegal Jewish settlements in more recent times. And then there is the matter of nuclear weapons. Israel has never been hounded to stop its nuclear programme unlike Iran. There is, in the world order Carney criticixed and the one in his fantasy, a fundamental difference between a ‘Jewish bomb’ and a ‘Muslim bomb’ in the ‘clash of civilisations’ as imagined by Samuel P. Huntington and put into practice by the likes of Messers Trump, Netanyahu, and Carney. That is, the Jewish bomb is legitimate, and the Muslim one is not, which to me evokes the commandments in the dystopian novella Animal Farm.

But Carney, in his new rhetoric closely echoing those of the leaders of Germany, UK and France, did not completely forget his Davos words too. He noted, in the same statement, “we take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.” But in reality, it is not the failure of the current international order, but its reinforcement by the likes of Mr Carney, reiterating why it will not change.

Coming back to the US-Israel attack on Iran, anyone even remotely versatile in the craft of warfare should have known, sooner or later, the rapidly expanding theatre of devastation in the Middle East was likely to happen for two obvious reasons. One, Iran had warned of this outcome if attacked as it considered those countries hosting US and Israeli bases or facilities as enemies. This is military common sense. Two, this was also likely because it is the only option available for a country under attack when faced with superior technology, firepower and the silence of much of the world. I cannot but feel deep shame about the lukewarm and generic statements urging restraint issued by our political leaders notwithstanding the support of Iran to our country in many times of difficulty at the hands of this very same world order.

When I say this, I am not naïvely embracing Iran as a shining example of democracy. I am cognizant of the Iranian regime’s maltreatment of some of its own citizens, stifling of dissent within the country and its proxy support for armed groups in the region. But in real terms, this is no different from similar actions of Israel and the US. The difference is, the actions of these countries, particularly of the US, have been far more devastating for the world than anything Iran has done or could do. US’s misadventures in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan come to mind — to take only a handful of examples.

But it is no longer about Carney and the hollowness of his liberal verbal diarrhoea in Davos. What is of concern now is twofold. One is the unravelling fiction of what he called the ‘new world order’ in which he located countries like Canada at the helm. And the second is the reality of continuing to live in the same old world order where countries like Canada and other middle and intermediate powers will continue to do the bidding of powerful aggressors like the US and Israel as they have done since the 20th century.

Yet, one must certainly thank Trump and Mr Natenyahu for one thing. That is, they have effectively exposed the myth of what used to be euphemistically called the ‘western civilisation.’ Despite its euphemism, the notion and its reality were omnipresent and omnipotent, because of the devastating long term and lingering consequences of its tools of operation, which were initially colonialism and later postcolonial and neocolonial forms of control to which all of us continue to be subjected.

One thing that was clearly lacking in the long and devastating history of the ‘western civilisation’ in so far as it affected the lives of people like us is its lack of ‘civilisation’ and civility at all times. Therefore, Trump and Mr Netanyahu must be credited for exposing this reality in no uncertain terms.

But what does illegal and unprovoked military action and the absence so far of accountability mean in real terms? It simply means that rules no longer matter. If Israel and the US can bomb and murder heads of state of a sovereign country, its citizens including children, cause massive destruction claiming a non-existent imminent threat violating both domestic and international law, it opens a wide playing field for the powerful and the greedy. Hypothetically, in this free-for-all, China can invade India through Arunachal Pradesh and occupy that Indian state which it calls Zangnan simply because it has been claiming the territory of itself for a very long time and also simply because it can. India can invade and occupy Sri Lanka, if it so wishes because this can so easily be done and also because it is part of the extended neighbourhood of the Ramayana and India’s ‘Akhand Bharat’ political logic. Sri Lanka can perhaps invade and occupy the Maldives if it wants a free and perennial supply of Maldive Fish. Incidentally, the Sri Lankan Tamil guerrilla group, People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam nearly succeeded in doing so 1988.

Sarcasm aside, even more dangerous is the very real possibility of this situation opening the doors for small, violent and mobile militant groups to target citizens of these aggressor countries and their allies as we saw in the late 1960s and 1970s. This will occur because in this kind of situation, many people would likely believe this form of asymmetric warfare is the only avenue of resistance open to them. It is precisely under similar conditions that the many Palestinian armed factions and Lebanese militia groups emerged in the first place. If this happens, the victims will not be the fathers and the vociferous supporters of the present aggression but all of us including those who had nothing to do with the atrocities or even opposed it in their weak and inaudible voices.

If I may go back to Carney’s Davos words, what would “to live the truth?”, “naming reality”, “acting consistently” and “applying the same standards to allies and rivals” mean in the emerging situation in the Middle East? Would this kind of hypocrisy, hyperbole, choreographed silence and selective accusations only end if a US invasion of Greenland, an integral part of the ‘White Supremacist’ World Order’ takes place? By then, however, all of us would have been well-trained in the art of feeling numb. By that time, we too would have forgotten yet another important line in Animal Farm: “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.”

Continue Reading

Features

Silence is not protection: Rethinking sexual education in Sri Lanka

Published

on

Sexual education is a vital component of holistic education, contributing to physical health, emotional well-being, gender equality, and social responsibility. Despite its importance, sexual education remains a sensitive and often controversial subject in many societies, particularly in culturally conservative contexts. In Sri Lanka, discussions around sexuality are frequently avoided in formal and informal settings, leaving young people to rely on peers, social media, or misinformation. This silence creates serious social, health, and psychological consequences. By examining the Sri Lankan context alongside international examples, the importance of comprehensive and age-appropriate sexual education becomes clear.

Understanding Sexual Education

Sexual education goes beyond biological explanations of reproduction. Comprehensive sexual education includes knowledge about human anatomy, puberty, consent, relationships, emotional health, gender identity, sexual orientation, reproductive rights, contraception, prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and personal safety. Importantly, it also promotes values such as respect, responsibility, dignity, and mutual understanding. When delivered appropriately, sexual education empowers individuals to make informed decisions rather than encouraging early or risky sexual behavior.

The Sri Lankan Context: Silence and Its Consequences

In Sri Lanka, sexual education is included in school curricula mainly through subjects such as Health Science and Life Competencies, however the content is often limited and taught with hesitation. Many teachers feel uncomfortable discussing sexual topics openly due to cultural norms, religious sensitivities, and fear of parental backlash. As a result, lessons are rushed, skipped, or delivered in a purely biological manner without addressing emotional, social, or ethical dimensions.

This lack of open education has led to several social challenges. Teenage pregnancies, although less visible, remain a significant issue, particularly in rural and estate sectors. Young girls who become pregnant often face school dropouts, social stigma, and limited future opportunities. Many of these pregnancies occur due to lack of knowledge about contraception, consent, and bodily autonomy.

Another serious concern in Sri Lanka is child sexual abuse. Numerous reports indicate that many children do not recognize abusive behaviour or lack the confidence and language to report it. Proper sexual education, especially lessons on body boundaries and consent, can help children identify inappropriate behavior and seek help early. In the Sri Lankan context, where respect for elders often discourages questioning authority, this knowledge is especially crucial.

Furthermore, misinformation about menstruation, nocturnal emissions, and bodily changes during puberty causes anxiety and shame among adolescents. Many Sri Lankan girls experience menarche without prior knowledge, leading to fear and confusion. Similarly, boys often receive no guidance about emotional or physical changes, reinforcing unhealthy notions of masculinity and silence around mental health.

Cultural Resistance and Misconceptions

Opposition to sexual education in Sri Lanka often stems from the belief that it promotes immoral behaviour or encourages premarital sex. However, international research consistently shows the opposite: young people who receive comprehensive sexual education tend to delay sexual initiation and engage in safer behaviours. The resistance is therefore rooted more in cultural fear than empirical evidence.

Religious and cultural values are important, but they need not conflict with sexual education. In fact, sexual education can be framed within moral discussions about responsibility, respect, family values, and care for others principles shared across Sri Lanka’s major religious traditions. Ignoring sexuality does not protect cultural values; rather, it leaves young people vulnerable.

International Evidence: Lessons from Other Countries

Several countries demonstrate how effective sexual education contributes to positive social outcomes.

In the Netherlands, sexual education begins at an early age and is age-appropriate, focusing on respect, relationships, and communication rather than explicit sexual activity. As a result, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs in the world. Young people are encouraged to discuss feelings, boundaries, and consent openly, both in schools and at home.

Similarly, Sweden introduced compulsory sexual education as early as the 1950s. Swedish programs emphasise gender equality, reproductive rights, and sexual health. This long-term commitment has contributed to high levels of sexual health awareness, low maternal mortality among young mothers, and strong societal acceptance of gender diversity. Sexual education in Sweden is also closely linked to public health services, ensuring access to counseling and contraception.

In many developing contexts, international organisations have supported sexual education as a tool for social development. UNESCO promotes Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) globally, emphasising that it equips young people with knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that enable them to protect their health and dignity. Studies supported by UNESCO show that CSE reduces risky behaviours, improves academic outcomes, and supports gender equality.

In countries such as Rwanda and South Africa, sexual education has been integrated with HIV/AIDS prevention programs. These initiatives demonstrate that sexual education is not a luxury of developed nations but a necessity for public health and social stability.

Comparing Sri Lanka with International Models

When compared with international examples, Sri Lanka’s challenges are not due to lack of capacity but lack of open dialogue and political will. Sri Lanka has a strong education system, high literacy rates, and an extensive public health network. These strengths provide an excellent foundation for implementing comprehensive sexual education that is culturally sensitive yet scientifically accurate.

Unlike the Netherlands or Sweden, Sri Lanka may not adopt early-age sexuality discussions in the same manner, but age-appropriate education during late primary and secondary school is both feasible and necessary. Topics such as puberty, menstruation, consent, online safety, and respectful relationships can be introduced gradually without violating cultural norms.

Sexual Education in the Digital Era

The urgency of sexual education has increased in the digital age. Sri Lankan adolescents are exposed to sexual content through social media, films, and online platforms, often without guidance. Pornography frequently becomes a primary source of sexual knowledge, leading to unrealistic expectations, objectification, and distorted ideas about consent and relationships.

Sexual education can counter these influences by developing critical thinking, media literacy, and ethical understanding. Teaching young people how to navigate digital relationships, cyber harassment, and online exploitation is now an essential component of sexual education.

Gender Equality and Social Change

Sexual education also plays a crucial role in promoting gender equality. In Sri Lanka, traditional gender roles often limit open discussion about female sexuality while excusing male dominance. Comprehensive sexual education challenges these norms by emphasizing mutual respect, shared responsibility, and equality in relationships.

Educating boys about consent and emotional expression helps reduce gender-based violence, while educating girls about bodily autonomy strengthens empowerment. In the long term, this contributes to healthier families and more equitable social structures.

The Way Forward for Sri Lanka

For sexual education to be effective in Sri Lanka, several steps are necessary. Teachers must receive proper training to handle the subject confidently and sensitively. Parents should be engaged through awareness programs to reduce fear and misconceptions. Curriculum developers must ensure that content is age-appropriate, culturally grounded, and scientifically accurate.

Importantly, sexual education should not be treated as a one-time lesson but as a continuous process integrated into broader life skills education. Collaboration between schools, healthcare providers, religious leaders, and community organisations can help normalise discussions around sexual health while respecting cultural values.

Finally , sexual education is not merely about sex; it is about health, dignity, safety, and responsible citizenship. The Sri Lankan experience demonstrates how silence and taboo can lead to misinformation, vulnerability, and social harm. International examples from the Netherlands, Sweden, and global initiatives supported by UNESCO clearly show that comprehensive sexual education leads to positive individual and societal outcomes.

For Sri Lanka, embracing sexual education does not mean abandoning cultural values. Rather, it means equipping young people with knowledge and ethical understanding to navigate modern social realities responsibly. In an era of rapid social and technological change, sexual education is not optional it is essential for building a healthy, informed, and compassionate society.

by Milinda Mayadunna ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending