Opinion
Labour Reforms in Time of Great Crisis
Sri Lanka is in the middle of a dire economic crisis. We are a witness to the new depths of misery that the people have been plunged into. Working people are the hardest hit, who have had to grapple with precarious wages, job insecurity and the devastation of an economic depression. Despite this perilous situation, the government is proposing labour reforms that threaten to render the situation of the working classes even more precarious. In his Budget 2023 speech in November 2022, the President called for reforms “for an export-oriented economy”. Soon thereafter, Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and Foreign Employment Shan Yahampath elaborated on the impending proposals, pointing to the introduction of “a unified labour code which will seek to move away from the current employee-friendly labour law system to a system that strikes a balance between the rights of the employee and the employer.” At the May Day rally of the UNP, Ministry of Labour and Foreign Employment Manusha Nanayakkara presented a 11-point reform agenda, outlining the principles of the reforms, which proposes to tilt the balance of power further in favour of employers. Nanayakkara’s proposals, the most elaborate so far, is at best sketchy, and at worst is a calculated move to weaken the collective strength of the working population in the formal sector. The message is loud and clear, when
Nanayakkara prefaces his presentation with, “We still have archaic labour laws, a labour law which turns away investors.”
On June 14th, at a consultative meeting, Nanayakkara, reiterated the need for reforms, necessary, in his view, in some 20-odd areas of existing labour-law. While saying that reforms are needed in the plantation sector and in the provisions of EPF and ETF, he stresses the importance of casual labour and the need to turn much of formal labour into casual labour. Herein lie the dangers of the current reforms.
The proposals are in part framed in the language of social protection, advancing the rights of the worker in the informal sector. Protection from violence in the workplace for women and incorporating people with disabilities in the labour force mean little when the overall climate is steeped in job insecurity and economic precarity. Further, the mantra of increasing women’s participation in the labour force is designed to be extractive of the labour of women in the face of diminishing worker-protection.
Sri Lanka’s labour laws, though nothing to marvel at, have historically afforded the worker some protection from the blatant disregard of their rights. Yet, through fragmentation of the labour force, outsourcing and casualizing of formal contractual labour, and other disempowering measures, industrial management has been able to get around these laws. The bulk of our work force in the formal sector is composed of women. Vulnerable at the best of times to the vicissitudes of management practices, they had been one of the first casualties of economic crises. During the COVID pandemic we saw how vulnerable our workers were to shifting trends of the economy, locally and internationally. Labour laws were flouted; workers were both left stranded and deemed outcast. At the same time, they were compelled through coercive consent, to work under trying conditions. This scenario will be formalized through the proposed reforms. The threat is imminent.
Weakening the contractual bonds between worker and management leads to casualisation, greater job insecurity and greater exploitation of the worker. Laws surrounding hiring and termination need to be clear and protect the worker from precarity. At the moment, we have termination laws that do protect the worker. Relaxing them would pose a dire threat to the worker’s well-being. There is also talk of flexible working hours. This is most detrimental to the worker, who under pressure, will be trapped in a complex cycle of coercive and extractive labour within the casualization of their work; there will be little protection from working hours. Legal provisions for sick leave, maternity leave and stipulated periods of rest and leisure that the worker is entitled to will be eroded into. We know that while more than 10 days’ night work for women is not allowed at garment factories, in practice women are engaged in long hours of night work, with few safety measures in place.
The proposed reforms are designed to formalise the progressive weakening of labour laws and further disempower the worker through taking away whatever protection that is in place now. It is telling that when a meeting of the National Labour Advisory Council, which is composed of representatives of the state, the employers and trade union representatives of the workers, was called last month, four unions representing workers in the private sector and not affiliated to any political parties were left out of the composition. This is a clear indication of how the government is setting the stage for weakening the representative bodies of the workers, and thereby render them totally powerless, when reforms are initiated.
The economy of the plantations is on the cusp of change and the Malaiyaha worker is staring into a future of fragmentation of community, job insecurity, and lack of land. They have been long fighting for a living wage, and basic citizenship, namely, decent living conditions, safety at work, the right to land, decent housing and accessible schooling. Nanayakkaras 11-point proposals say that the government proposes to create “a plantation worker fit for the modern world of work,” ignoring the current state of gross injustice meted out to the worker in the plantation sector.
By undermining labour-laws the government hopes to attract investment and boost the economy. It is a road show put on for the sake of potential investors. But the regime is sadly out of touch with economic realities. There is a global economic recession. Our economy shrunk by 12.4% and by 11.5%, in the last quarter of 2022 and first quarter of 2023 respectively. As they stand, labour laws are not the cause of the economic crisis, and reforming them is not the solution. Rather, the economy is in a state of continued collapse, because of austerity, lack of job creation policies, and inadequate social protection and relief to the working people. In the end, we will be left with an irrevocable undermining of the worker’s Rights.
As academics, we are obliged to adopt an informed position on something as fundamental as labour relations. It affects us all. An informed, worker-oriented and people-oriented labour policy, a policy that provides security to all, and a policy that ensures stability and democratic practice in production and in the workplace is the need of the hour. Else, we would be looking to a future of suffering and instability. The already authoritarian government can only become more authoritarian in the face of imminent social unrest. We must join the forces of democracy to build a better future for all.
SIGNED BY
1. A.M. Navaratna Bandara, formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
2. Ahilan Kadirgamar, Univ. of Jaffna
3. A.M.J.H. Amandakoon, Univ. of Peradeniya
4. Amalka Wijesuriya, Univ. of Ruhuna
5. Anuruddha Karunarathna, Univ. of Peradeniya
6. Anushka Kahandagama, formerly Univ. of Colombo
7. Arjuna Aluwihare, formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
8. Arjuna Parakrama, Univ. of Peradeniya
9. Aruni Samarakoon, Univ. of Ruhuna
10. Athulasiri Samarkoon, The Open University of Sri Lanka
11. Avanka Fernando, Univ. of Colombo
12. B.P.B.W. Rathnayake, Univ. of Peradeniya
13. Barana Jayawardana, Univ. of Peradeniya
14. Bahirathy J.R, Univ. of Jaffna
15. Buddhima Padmasiri, The Open University of Sri Lanka
16. Camena Guneratne, The Open University of Sri Lanka
17. Chirath Jeewantha, Univ. of Ruhuna
18. Chulani Kodikara formely Univ. of Colombo
19. Crystal Baines, Univ. of Peradeniya
20. Dayapala Thiranagma, formerly Univ. of Kelaniya
21. Dhammika Gamage, Univ. of Peradeniya
22. Dhammika Herath, Univ. of Peradeniya
23. Dhammika Jayawardena Univ. of Sri Jayawardenepura
24. Dhanuka Bandara formerly Univ. Of Peradeniya
25. Dilini Hemachandra, Univ. of Peradeniya
26. Dinesha Samararatne Univ. of Colombo
27. Erandika de Silva, Univ. of Jaffna
28. Farzana Haniffa, Univ. of Colombo
29. Fazeeha Azmi, Univ of Peradeniya
30. Ganganee Chamdima Samaraweera, Univ. of Ruhuna
31. H.H.M.T.V.K. Jayasooriya, Univ. of Peradeniya
32. Harshana Rambukwella, formerly The Open University of Sri Lanka
33. Hasini Lecamwasam, Univ. of Peradeniya
34. Hasitha Pathirana Univ. of Kelaniya
35. Hettigamage Sriyananda, The Open University of Sri Lanka (Professor Emeritus)
36. Hiniduma Sunil Senevi, Univ. of Sabaragamuwa
37. Imani Bakmeedeniya, Univ. of Peradeniya
38. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Univ. of Colombo (Professor Emeritus)
39. Janith Wickramasinghe, Univ. of Colombo
40. Jennifer Edama, Univ. of Peradeniya
41. Jithmi Athukorale, Univ. of Peradeniya
42. K.M.Vihangi Semini, Univ. of Peradeniya
43. Kamani Sylva, Univ. of Peradeniya
44. Kanchuka Dharmasiri, Univ. of Peradeniya
45. Kasun Gajasinghe, Univ. of Peradeniya
46. Kaushalya Perera, Univ. of Colombo
47. Kethakie Nagahawatte Univ. of Colombo
48. Krishan Siriwadhana, Univ. of Colombo
49. Krishantha Fedricks, Uni. of Colombo
50. Krishmi Apsara, Univ. of Peradeniya
51. Kumudu Kusum Kumara, formerly Univ. of Colombo
52. L.A.M.Jayasinghe,Univ. Of Peradeniya
53. Liyanage Amarakeerthi, Univ. Of Peradeniya
54. Madhara Karunarathna, Univ. of Peradeniya
55. Maduranga Kalugampitiya, Univ. of Peradeniya
56. Mahendran Thiruvarangan, Univ. of Jaffna
57. Malika Perera, Univ. of Peradeniya
58. M. A. Nuhman. Formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
59. Muditha Dharmasiri: Univ. of Peradeniya
60. Nadeesh de Silva, The Open University of Sri Lanka
61. Nalika Ranathunge, Univ. of Ruhuna
62. Neavis Morais, The Open University of Sri Lanka
63. Nicola Perera, Univ. of Colombo
64. Nilantha Liyanage, Univ. of Ruhuna
65. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri, Univ. of Colombo
66. N.Sivakaran, Univ. of Jaffna
67. N. W. Prins, Univ. of Ruhuna
68. Paba Suraweera, Univ. of Peradeniya
69. Pavithra Jayawardena, Univ. of Colombo
70. P. M. Jayaweera Univ. of Peradeniya
71. Prabha Manuratne, Univ. of Kelaniya
72. Prabhath Jayasinghe, University of Colombo
73. Pradeepa Korale Gedara, Univ. of Peradeniya
74. Pradeep Peiris, Univ. of Colombo
75. Priyantha Fonseka Univ. of Peradeniya
76. R.T.Gamalath, Univ. of Peradeniya
77. Ramesh Ramasamy, Univ. of Peradeniya
78. Ramila Usoof, Univ. of Peradeniya
79. Ramindu Perera, The Open University of Sri Lanka
80. Ramya Kumar, Univ. of Jaffna
81. Ranjini Obeyesekere; formerly , Univ. of Peradeniya
82. Ranjit Wijekoon, formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
83. Rupika Rajakaruna, Univ. of Peradeniya
84. Ruth Surenthiraraj, Univ. of Colombo
85. Sabreena Niles, Univ. of Kelaniya
86. Sachithra Edirisinghe, formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
87. Sahan Wanniarachchi,Univ. of Peradeniya
88. Sahani Situbandara, Univ. of Peradeniya
89. Saman Pushpakumara, Univ. of Peradeniya
90. Sasanka Perera, Formerly Univ. of Colombo
91. Sasinindu Patabendige, Univ. of Jaffna
92. Savitri Goonesekere, Univ. of Colombo (Professor Emeritus)
93. Selvaraj Vishvika, Univ. of Peradeniya
94. Shalini Wijerathna,Univ. of Peradeniya
95. Shamala Kumar, Univ. of Peradeniya
96. Sitralega Maunaguru formerly Eastern Univ. Sri Lanka
97. Sivamohan Sumathy, Univ. of Peradeniya
98. Sudesh Mantillake, Univ. of Peradeniya
99. Sumith Chaaminda, Univ. of Colombo
100. Supoorna Kulatunga, Univ. of Peradeniya
101. Suranjith Gunasekara, Univ. of Ruhuna
102. Susantha Rasnayake, Univ. of Peradeniya
103. Susith Siriwardhana, Rajarata Univ. of Sri Lanka
104. Shyamani Hettiarachchi, Univ. of Kelaniya
105. Thiru Kandiah, formerly Univ. of Peradeniya
106. Thushara Kamalrathne, Univ of Peradeniya
107. Udara Rajapaksha, Univ. of Peradeniya
108. Udari Abeysinghe, Univ. of Peradeniya
109. Unnathi Samaraweera,Univ. of Colombo
110. Upul Abeyrathne, Univ. of Peradeniya
111. Varangana Ratwatta, Univ. of Peradeniya
112. Vijaya Kumar, Univ. of Peradeniya (Professor Emeritus)
113. Visakesa Chandrasekaram, Univ. of Colombo
114. Vivimarie Vanderpoorten Medawattegedera, The Open University of Sri Lanka
115. W.M. Rohan Laksiri, Univ. of Ruhuna
116. Yasas Kulasekara, Univ. of Peradeniya
Opinion
Can a punishment-free child become a threat to Sri Lankan society?
Children are the future of every nation, and the values they learn during childhood shape the society they will eventually lead. In Sri Lanka, where family traditions, respect for elders, and social responsibility have long been important cultural values, the way children are raised remains a topic of great interest. In recent years, many parents and educators have moved away from traditional forms of punishment and embraced more child-friendly approaches to discipline. While protecting children from physical and emotional harm is essential, an important question arises: can a child who grows up without any form of punishment or consequences become a threat to Sri Lankan society?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the difference between punishment and discipline. Punishment is often associated with penalties imposed for wrongdoing, while discipline refers to teaching children self-control, responsibility, and respect for rules. Modern child psychology generally discourages harsh physical punishment because it can cause fear, anxiety, and resentment. However, completely removing consequences for inappropriate behavior may create a different set of problems.
Sri Lankan society has traditionally emphasized discipline within the family. Parents, grandparents, and teachers have often played active roles in guiding children’s behavior. Respect for elders, obedience, and good manners have been considered important virtues. While some traditional disciplinary methods may no longer be acceptable, the underlying principle of teaching accountability remains relevant.
A child who never faces consequences for wrongdoing may struggle to understand the boundaries that exist in society. For example, if a child is allowed to insult others, damage property, or ignore rules without correction, they may develop the belief that their actions have no consequences. Such attitudes can become problematic when the child enters school, the workplace, or the wider community.
Sri Lankan schools already face challenges related to student discipline. Teachers often report difficulties in managing classrooms where some students refuse to follow instructions or respect school regulations. When children are not taught accountability at home, educational institutions may find it harder to maintain a productive learning environment. This can affect not only the individual student but also classmates whose education is disrupted.
Another concern is the development of entitlement. A child who is never told “no” may come to believe that personal desires should always be fulfilled. In a society where cooperation and mutual respect are essential, such attitudes can lead to conflicts with peers, teachers, employers, and even family members. Sri Lanka’s social fabric depends heavily on community relationships, and individuals who fail to respect others can weaken these bonds.
The influence of social media and modern technology has added another dimension to this issue. Today’s children have access to information and entertainment on an unprecedented scale. Without proper guidance and consequences, some may misuse technology, engage in cyberbullying, spread misinformation, or develop unhealthy habits. Parents who avoid setting limits may unintentionally expose children to risks that affect both personal development and social well-being.
The workplace offers another example of why accountability is important. Sri Lanka’s economic development depends on a workforce that is disciplined, responsible, and capable of working with others. Employers value punctuality, respect, and professionalism. Individuals who grow up without learning responsibility may find it difficult to meet these expectations, affecting both their personal success and the productivity of organizations.
However, it is equally important not to interpret this argument as support for harsh punishment. Research has shown that excessive physical or emotional punishment can have serious negative effects on children. Fear-based parenting may produce obedience in the short term but can damage confidence, trust, and mental health in the long term. Therefore, the solution is not stricter punishment but more effective discipline.
Positive discipline provides a balanced alternative. It involves setting clear rules, explaining expectations, and applying fair consequences when those rules are broken. For instance, if a child neglects schoolwork, they may lose certain privileges until responsibilities are fulfilled. If they damage property, they can be required to help repair or replace it. Such consequences teach accountability while preserving the child’s dignity.
Sri Lankan parents, teachers, and community leaders all have a role to play in nurturing responsible citizens. Families should create environments where children feel loved and supported but also understand that actions have consequences. Schools should encourage character development alongside academic achievement. Religious and community organizations can reinforce values such as honesty, compassion, and respect for others.
A balanced approach is especially important in a rapidly changing society. As Sri Lanka continues to modernize and integrate with the global community, young people must learn not only their rights but also their responsibilities. Freedom without responsibility can lead to selfishness, while discipline without compassion can lead to fear. The challenge is to find the middle ground.
A punishment-free child can become a concern for Sri Lankan society if the absence of punishment also means the absence of discipline and accountability. Children who never learn consequences may struggle to respect rules, authority, and the rights of others. However, harsh punishment is not the answer. The most effective approach combines love, guidance, clear boundaries, and fair consequences. By raising children who understand both freedom and responsibility, Sri Lanka can build a future generation that strengthens society rather than threatens it.
Saumya Aloysius
(An essayist, children’s writer and freelance writer who holds a Master’s Degree in Sociology from the University of Kelaniya)
Opinion
SriLankan Airbus struck by lightning
On Friday 12 June, 2026, a SriLankan Airlines Airbus 330 was en route from Colombo to Sydney, Australia was about 45 minutes into its flight when a loud bang was heard, accompanied by a blinding flash. In what was assumed to be a lightning strike, the airplane’s left (No. 1) engine was damaged, forcing the aircraft to return to BIA-Katunayake, where it landed safely.
Lightning travels from cloud to cloud or cloud to ground. Because the aircraft is not electrically ‘grounded’, or ‘earthed’, it must have been in the path of the thunder bolt purely by chance. There is also a phenomenon whereby the aircraft may travel through an electrically charged atmosphere (for example a cloud) where an electrical charge could build up and strike, or be emitted, as lightning. In such an instance, pilots hear electrical static in their headsets before the strike. Usually, when lightning strikes an aircraft in flight, the electrical charges remain on the outside, as on a ‘Faraday’s Cage’ apparatus, and the passengers and crew are perfectly safe.
To help the efficient and safe discharge of static electricity from the airplane’s structure, static wicks, or static dischargers, are fitted at the trailing (rearmost) edges of the wings and tail surfaces. When an airplane has landed after a lightning strike, ground engineers count the number of wicks that may have been burnt out to ensure that a minimum (recommended) number is available for a subsequent flight. Sometimes, there is minor damage, like pitting of the paintwork at the points where the charges left the aircraft.
The last instance in the USA of an airplane believed to have been lost due to a lightning strike was on December 8, 1963, when a Pan Am Boeing 707-121, en route from Baltimore, Maryland to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suffered a fuel tank explosion, later determined to have been the result of a lightning strike. Since then, aircraft have been rendered immune from lightning damage thanks to extensive research conducted by manufacturers using high-voltage currents.
Interestingly, modern airliners have electronic instrument displays which don’t even flicker when the aircraft is struck by lightning. By a process of connecting all the metallic parts, known as ‘bonding’, the entire fuselage effectively becomes a protective cocoon, so electrical charges caused by lightning will always reside on the outside of the aircraft.
What is unusual in the recent SriLankan Airlines incident is the extent of damage to the left engine. Did it encounter hail or ingest something?
Only a thorough, independent inquiry by aviation safety investigators will reveal the cause.
GUWAN SEEYA
Opinion
Beyond diagnosis: A strategic design for 7% growth by 2029 (Part I)
“Vision without execution is hallucination.” – Thomas Edison
Introduction: Stabilisation Is Not Transformation
Sri Lanka has come a long way since the economic collapse of 2022. Inflation has been brought under control. Foreign reserves have improved. Debt restructuring has advanced. Government revenue has increased significantly through taxation reforms. The exchange rate has stabilised, and confidence has gradually returned to financial markets.
These achievements deserve recognition.
However, stabilisation should not be confused with economic transformation. A patient discharged from intensive care is not necessarily healthy. Likewise, an economy that has escaped collapse has not necessarily achieved sustainable prosperity.
The central economic question facing Sri Lanka today is no longer how to avoid another crisis. Rather, it is how to achieve sustained economic growth of at least 7% per annum by 2029.
Unfortunately, much of the current policy debate remains trapped in economic diagnosis. Policymakers, economists, and commentators repeatedly identify familiar problems: (i) low productivity, (ii) weak exports, i(iii) Inadequate innovation, (iv) poor competitiveness, and (v) insufficient investment. While these diagnoses are correct, they are not new.
Sri Lanka now needs economic engineering.
The country requires a clear, measurable, and actionable National Growth Strategy for 2026-2029 that identifies (i) where growth will come from,(ii) what investments are required,(iii) which institutions will lead implementation, and (iv) how success will be measured.
The difference between diagnosis and engineering is the difference between describing a problem and solving it.
The Missing National Growth Target
One of the most striking weaknesses in Sri Lanka’s economic discourse is the absence of a publicly articulated growth target supported by a detailed implementation framework.
Successful economies establish measurable objectives.
Sri Lanka should adopt the following growth trajectory:
2026 – 4%
2027 – 5%
2028 – 6%
2029 – 7%
Such targets would provide direction to investors, public institutions, universities, exporters, and development partners. Without a destination, even the best policies risk becoming disconnected initiatives.
Today, many policy interventions appear fragmented—valuable in isolation but lacking integration into a broader national growth framework.
Growth Will Not Come From Consumption
For decades Sri Lanka relied heavily on consumption, imports, remittances, tourism, and external borrowing.
That model has reached its limits.
No country has achieved sustained prosperity through consumption-led growth alone.
The countries that transformed themselves—Singapore, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam, and China—generated growth through productive investment, exports, industrialisation, and integration into global markets.
Sri Lanka’s future growth must therefore be driven by investment and exports rather than domestic consumption.
The challenge is not increasing spending but increasing productive capacity.
Export-Led Growth: The First Pillar of Transformation
Every successful Asian growth story has one characteristic in common: exports.
Exports generate foreign exchange, create jobs, attract investment, encourage innovation, and improve productivity.
Sri Lanka should establish an ambitious target of doubling export earnings within the next decade.
This requires moving beyond traditional exports and expanding into:
High-value agriculture
Food processing
Information technology services
Logistics services
Advanced manufacturing
Professional services
Export growth must become a national mission comparable to post-war reconstruction efforts seen elsewhere in Asia.
Without a major expansion of exports, sustained 7% growth will remain elusive.
Manufacturing: The Forgotten Growth Engine
Manufacturing remains the single most important source of rapid economic transformation worldwide. Vietnam provides perhaps the best recent example.
Through (i) industrial zones, (ii) trade agreements, (iii) infrastructure development, and (iv) targeted investment attraction, Vietnam became deeply integrated into Asian production networks.
Sri Lanka possesses strategic advantages:
A prime Indian Ocean location
Strong port infrastructure
Educated labour force
Proximity to India
The country should establish specialised manufacturing clusters focusing on:
Electronics assembly
Medical devices
Processed food products
Boat building
Rubber-based products
Engineering components
Rather than attempting to compete with every country, Sri Lanka should specialise in selected niches where competitive advantages can be developed.
RCEP: The Strategic Door to Asia
Sri Lanka’s future lies increasingly in Asia.
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) represents the largest trading bloc in the world and includes many of the fastest-growing economies.
Membership or closer integration with RCEP supply chains could provide Sri Lankan exporters with access to markets, investment, technology, and production networks that are currently beyond reach.
Unfortunately, discussion on RCEP remains limited compared with its strategic significance.
A dedicated national roadmap for RCEP engagement should become a top economic priority.
The question is not whether Sri Lanka can afford to integrate more deeply into Asia.
The question is whether Sri Lanka can afford not to.
Knowledge Economy: Turning Universities Into Growth Institutions
Sri Lanka’s universities produce thousands of graduates annually, yet their contribution to commercial innovation remains limited.
Globally, universities have become engines of economic development.
Research institutions should not merely produce graduates; they should produce patents, technologies, startups, and commercial solutions.
A national innovation framework should:
Link universities with industry
Encourage commercialisation of research
Support technology transfer
Expand startup financing
Reward innovation and entrepreneurship
Knowledge must become an economic asset rather than an academic exercise.
Dairy, Agriculture, And Import Substitution
Export growth alone is insufficient.
Sri Lanka must also reduce unnecessary import dependence.
The dairy sector offers a compelling example.
For decades, billions of rupees have left the country through dairy imports despite favourable climatic conditions and substantial agricultural potential.
A comprehensive dairy development strategy should focus on:
Improved genetics
Feed production
Commercial farming
Processing investment
Farmer productivity
The objective should be import substitution combined with rural income growth.
The same principle can be applied selectively to other sectors where domestic production is economically viable.
Creating A National Investment Targeting Agency
Sri Lanka does not need another bureaucracy.
It needs a professional institution dedicated exclusively to investment targeting.
Instead of passively waiting for investors, this agency would actively identify and attract strategic investments aligned with national priorities.
Its mandate would include:
Identifying priority sectors
Marketing opportunities globally
Coordinating approvals
Monitoring outcomes
Facilitating technology transfer
Singapore’s Economic Development Board and Ireland’s Industrial Development Agency demonstrate how targeted investment institutions can transform national economies.
Sri Lanka requires a similar mechanism adapted to local realities.
From Economic Diagnosis To Economic Engineering
The next stage of Sri Lanka’s recovery requires a fundamental shift in thinking.
The policy debate must move beyond identifying problems. The country already knows its problems.The challenge is implementation.Every policy proposal should be evaluated against a simple question:
Will this contribute to achieving 7% growth by 2029?
If the answer is no, resources should be redirected.
Economic engineering requires focus, prioritisation, accountability, and measurable outcomes. The era of fragmented initiatives must give way to a coherent national growth strategy.
Summary
Sri Lanka has achieved significant macroeconomic stabilisation, but stabilisation is only the first step toward sustainable prosperity.
To move from recovery to transformation, Sri Lanka should adopt a National Growth Strategy for 2026-2029 built around five pillars:
Export-led growth
Investment-led growth
Manufacturing expansion
Knowledge-economy development
Regional integration through RCEP and Asian supply chains
Supporting sectors such as dairy, tourism, logistics, and information technology should be strategically developed within this framework.
Most importantly, investment must be targeted rather than scattered, supported by specialised institutions and measurable performance indicators.
Conclusion
History demonstrates that no nation has become prosperous by accident. Economic success is rarely the product of isolated policies or short-term political initiatives. It is the outcome of a deliberate strategy pursued consistently over many years.
Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads.
One path leads to modest growth, periodic crises, recurring debt challenges, and continued vulnerability. The other leads to transformation through investment, exports, innovation, manufacturing, and regional integration.
The choice is ultimately strategic.
The time has come for Sri Lanka to move from economic diagnosis to economic engineering.
The future will not be determined by how successfully the country stabilised after the crisis. It will be determined by how effectively it builds the foundations for sustained growth thereafter. If Sri Lanka can articulate and execute a coherent investment-led growth strategy today, achieving 7% growth by 2029 need not be an aspiration.
It can become a national objective—and a national achievement, economic Engineering
The writer, among many, served as the Special Advisor to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a Senior Consultant with the UNDP for 20 years. He was a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1993). He can be reached via asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com
-
News4 days agoRelease of 2025 O/L results likely to be delayed
-
Sports4 days agoTharanga set for high-profile javelin clash in Ostrava
-
Features5 days agoPolitics of protected species
-
News3 days agoBeijing Capital Airlines to resume flights to Colombo signalling boost to tourism
-
News4 days agoTheft of USD 2.5 mn from Treasury: CoPF accused of complicity in NPP cover-up
-
News6 days agoCommonwealth lawyers urge Lanka to uphold rule of law
-
Opinion4 days agoDecoding Trump’s 12.5% “Forced Labor Tariff” on Sri Lanka
-
Opinion4 days agoPalm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – Part V
