Opinion
Ranasighe Premadasa: Man of the Masses
I was struck by the article written by MDD Pieris in The Sunday Island, under the title, “Free school uniform decision taken in minutes on a platform in Bakamuna” by President Premadasa. I am penning this piece as a tribute to this remarkable visionary in social development and grassroots economic policy, who was tragically assassinated by an LTTE suicide bomber in Colombo exactly 33 years ago.
The term of Sri Lanka’s first Executive President, J. R. Jayewardene (JRJ), was ending in 1989. As the constitution required, JRJ decided to call a presidential election. After some uncertainty within the United National Party (UNP) about who should be the next candidate, then-Party Chairman Ranjan Wijeratne and JRJ’s security advisor Ravi Jayewardene (JRJ’s only son) thought the best candidate was Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa. They realised that the country was moving from elite-centred, Colombo-focused politics toward a more populist, grassroots and security-dominated phase.
They advised the President JRJ and party stalwarts accordingly.
At a UNP Parliamentary Group and Working Committee meeting, J. R. Jayewardene proposed Premadasa’s name. To maintain party unity and avoid an internal contest, he also arranged for Premadasa’s main political rivals from the UNP, Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake, to second the nomination. This move made Premadasa the unanimous party choice.
Premadasa played a key role in the UNP’s landslide victory in the 1977 parliamentary election, boosting its grassroots membership through his “Man of the Masses” image. He was then appointed deputy leader of the party.
The second Presidential Election took place on December 19, 1988, amid severe unrest. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) called for a boycott and staged a violent protest in the south.
Despite a low voter turnout and violence, the election went ahead, and Premadasa won a clear majority of valid votes, defeating main opposition candidate Sirimavo Bandaranaike from the SLFP. Ranasinghe Premadasa was sworn in on January 2, 1989, as Sri Lanka’s second executive president.
Premadasa was a strong nationalist who campaigned for the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), whose presence was unpopular among the Sinhalese majority. He saw the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), actively fighting the IPKF, as a potential ally in this effort.
His predecessor JRJ did argue that the Tamil issue was a very ancient problem and therefore external mediation might be necessary, which partly explains why he accepted Indian involvement leading to the 1987 accord.
In a pointed critique of India, Premadasa believed that the ethnic conflict could be resolved internally without foreign intervention.
He invited the LTTE and the JVP for talks as part of a strategy to end the prevailing dual insurrections, bring the groups into the democratic process, and secure the withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka. The LTTE accepted the offer and sent a delegation to Colombo for talks.
The LTTE delegation was transported by helicopter from the Mullaitivu jungles to Colombo. Premadasa arranged for LTTE ideologue Anton Balasingham and his wife, Adele, to fly to Colombo from London via Air Lanka at government expense. The LTTE team was provided with tight security managed by the Special Task Force (STF). During their stay in Colombo, LTTE cadres were permitted to retain their personal weapons as part of the security arrangements.
During the Premadasa–LTTE talks, the LTTE visited the homes of key traditional Tamil democratic leaders, such as A. Amirthalingam and V. Yogeswaran, for discussion and assassinated them, effectively destroying moderate Tamil parliamentary politics.
Both the JVP and Premadasa were opposed to the Indo-Lanka Accord and the IPKF presence, which provided a shared point of interest. He called an All Party Conference (APC) to resolve the problem through dialogue. JVP, however, refused to attend this conference. He then launched a brutal crackdown on the JVP using extreme counter-insurgency methods under the direct supervision of State Minister for Defence General Ranjan Wijeratne.
A period remembered for severe human-rights abuses and some opposition members even took the matter to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The crackdown ended with JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera being killed.
At the request of the President Premadasa, India withdrew the IPKF between September 1989 and March 1990.
Rural Unemployment and 200 Garment Factory Programme
Premadasa was from a humble, urban, working-class background, rose through grassroots politics in Colombo and had a better understanding of the grievances and aspirations of people of rural areas compared to JRJ. He knew the main problem was the unemployment of rural youth. He also knew that developing agriculture alone would not help solve this problem. He therefore decided to take industries to rural areas and embarked on the famous 200 garment factory programme.
He logically explained what his objective was when a prominent university professor of the time asked him what he was aiming to achieve through the programme.
He said one of the main problems Sri Lanka faced was rural unemployment, especially among the youth. Unless this issue was addressed, there would be no meaningful development in the country, as these youths would become pawns of political activists.
He identified unemployment as the root cause of political violence. Therefore, he wanted industrialisation to reach rural areas.
But he said there are obstacles. Sri Lanka, being an agriculture-based country, has most people not used to “industrial discipline.” It had been largely an Agricultural, Public-sector oriented and Plantation-based economy and society since colonial era and even after independence. The majority Sinhalese are accustomed to an easy life working in the paddy fields and practing Chena cultivation for thousands of years.
A common feature of the few factories established since Independence, both public and private, was the high absenteeism during the paddy harvesting periods, which left the management in a precarious situation.
Many rural youths had never worked in a factory environment with fixed working hours, meeting production targets, strict quality control and assembly-line work.
Without industrial discipline among the rural folks, no investor would risk his money setting up factories in rural areas. Some rural girls working in the Katunayake FTZ faced significant problems. They face isolation and lack of support, sexual risks and exploitation, language barriers, and more. When they work in a factory close to their homes, most of these issues could be resolved, Premadasa said.
On the other hand, garment manufacturing isn’t too complicated technology-wise. So, it was easy to train mechanics in preventive and break-down maintenance and operators in operational aspects.
He also knew it would help integrate rural areas into the export economy, and into a global value chain (GVC) moving beyond traditional free trade zones like Katunayake and Biyagama.
World Textile and Apparel (T&A) production went through three main phases, mostly based on production costs. First, in the 1970s in Hong Kong, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, and during 1985-1990, they (Factory owners) reduced production and moved operations to the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. The third phase involved shifting to countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nepal, and Vietnam during the early 1990s. Premadasa aimed to take advantage of this trend.
His target was to create about 100,000 jobs, with factories typically employing at least 500 workers and giving employment opportunities in rural areas. Preference was deliberately given to economically disadvantaged families, helping spread incomes beyond urban centres.
Structural changes initiated to facilitate 200 garment factory programme
The Greater Colombo Economic Commission (GCEC), established in 1978 under JRJ, was originally created to manage Free Trade Zones (FTZs) like Katunayake and attract export-oriented foreign direct investment (FDI) into specific zones.
Premadasa transformed the GCEC into a national-level investment facilitator and renamed it the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI). It was more of a functional transformation and expansion of the GCEC role. With BOI, he established a centralised decision-making structure to expedite project approvals and reduce bureaucracy.
BOI effectively served as a “one-stop shop”, which was crucial because garment investors required speed and predictability.
President Premadasa Meeting the Potential Investors
\Working out the strategy with his handpicked officials, President Premadasa convened a meeting of potential investors at BMICH. The first meeting played a key role in launching the garment factory programme and demonstrated his hands-on, interventionist approach to economic development.
There were many would-be investors, mainly locals and entrepreneurs from countries like South Korea, Singapore and other Newly Industrialised Countries (NICs).
Premadasa personally addressed attendees and explained his vision of moving investment into rural districts. He said there are tax holidays on offer (the length varies by location, especially for rural/”difficult” areas), duty-free import of machinery and raw materials would be allowed, and guaranteed access to U.S. garment quotas under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA). The quotas would be allocated based on location: 10,000 dozen for non-difficult areas, 25,000 dozen for difficult areas and 50,000 dozen for the most difficult areas.\
He also said land, electricity, water, roads, and telecommunication would be provided by the state through the Board of Investment (BOI), the government agency responsible for promoting and facilitating investment. On the finance side permission to open foreign currency accounts would be allowed, and access to loans (including foreign currency banking units) would be available.
Premadasa requested investors to set up their factories to employ around 500 workers per factory and prioritise recruitment from low-income rural families. He also requested to provide meals (or subsidised food) to workers. It was however not a formal legal requirement written into BOI agreements.
He also offered duty-free import of a luxury vehicle (e.g., Benz car) after project completion.
Premadasa then concluded the meeting, assuring them that he will meet in a month or so to assess the progress.
At the progress review meeting held at the same venue, Premadasa asked if anyone had problems. About 10% of the attendees raised their hands, and the president asked them to move to the side. Then he said, “I will work with those who don’t have problems,” and asked the others to leave the chamber. This was how Premadasa achieved his goals.
Opening of factories under the programme
Premadasa personally supervised the progress of the programme. All initial problems reported to him by investors through his officials were quickly resolved.
He often had a clock tower built near many factories opened under the “200 Garment Factories Programme.” He believed that factory workers—mostly young people who had previously worked in agriculture or informal jobs—needed to adapt to strict working hours and punctuality. The clock tower served as a visible public timekeeper for workers and the surrounding community and it symbolized the transition from a village lifestyle to an industrial work culture.
Although Sri Lankan youth initially lacked technical skills and industrial discipline, they were able to assimilate into the garment industry relatively quickly because training requirements were short, production systems simplified tasks and strong factory training programs were introduced with the public institutions like Sri Lanka Institute of Textile & Apparel (SLITA). Above all literacy levels among the Sri Lankan youths were high.
This adaptability is one reason why Sri Lanka became a major garment exporter in the 1990s.
He attended numerous factory opening ceremonies from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, especially in less underdeveloped areas like Matale, Polonnaruwa, and Monaragala. Some factories launched under this programme have now grown into large conglomerates with factories in many other countries.
Success of the garment factory programme The 200 Garment Factories Programme played a pivotal role in transforming Sri Lanka into a global hub for apparel manufacturing, while also introducing modern industrial employment to rural districts for the first time.
Today, the garment industry continues to be Sri Lanka’s largest export sector, underscoring the lasting impact of this initiative.
J.R. Jayewardene’s modernisation strategy
It was JRJ who attempted to modernise Sri Lanka after coming to power.
Although JRJ’s government (1977–1989) achieved many successes in modernising the country, leading to economic development and improved living standards through major economic liberalisation and constitutional changes, it also faced numerous failures.
The benefits of the open economy concentrated in urban and Western Province areas. Expansion of the private sector and open economy did not absorb educated youth from rural areas. As a result, there was a huge mismatch between the education system and job market contributing to youth frustration and radicalisation, especially in the south.
Premadasa, after coming to power as Executive President of Sri Lanka, attempted to correct many weaknesses under the previous president, while taking forward the “Modernisation Programme” launched by him. Through “200 Garment Factories Programme” he attempted to take “National Development” to rural areas.
Another area he attempted to rectify was the recruitment process in public employment, which was often based on political patronage and arbitrary appointments made based on party loyalty. He directed that vacancies—particularly for non-technical jobs in the public service and state institutions—be filled through competitive written examinations and interviews, rather than ministerial recommendations.
Unfortunately, Premadasa’s main failure was underestimating the LTTE’s long-term goals. He only sought a political opening with the LTTE, mainly to achieve one objective: the withdrawal of the IPKF. Although he succeeded, the LTTE quickly turned against the government and launched the Second Elam War in June 1990 after attacking police and military targets.
Premadasa was assassinated in an LTTE suicide bomber attack in Colombo exactly 33 years ago.
The LTTE continued its insurgency until its defeat in 2009.
by Rohan Abeygunawardena
abeyrohan@gmail.com)
Opinion
Elementary, Dr. Watson!
by Usvatte
My friend, Sena Thoradeniya, has summoned up energy to raise two questions about my observations in your newspaper on 14 September, 2026. They both referred to comments I made about President Dissanayake and Prime Minister Amarasuriya.
I observed that President Dissanayake, having graduated in physics at Kelaniya, would be familiar with elementary calculus: differentiation and integration. It is a misapprehension to believe that one needs any knowledge of theoretical physics to be familiar with elementary calculus. Nor is it necessary that one needs to have published research for the same purpose. Those were the first lessons in calculus that our Mathematics Master and Principal, Mr. D. A. Devendra taught five of us in the first term 1952 at Hikkaduva Central School. Of the five, two still live and recall those lessons vividly. Dissanayake would surely have learnt them at his school in Anuradhapura. At Kelaniya his teachers probably included Dr. H. Somadasa, two years my junior at Hikkaduva, with a Ph.D. in number theory at Aberytswyth, Wales and Professor (physics) Charles Dahanayke, a renowned teacher of physics and my neighbour in Colombo. Dissanayake is unlikely to have been admitted to Physics at Kelaniya unless he had scored well in mathematics and physics with other subjects. Those elements of calculus have been learnt by millions of young men (and later women) since Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz. That Dissanayake from a school in Anuradhapura scored high enough to gain admission to Kelaniya to study physics is commendation enough for his intellectual capacity.
All of us know, some personally, the barriers to learning in places like Anuradhapura and Kuliyapitiya, compared to the facilities in Colombo, Galle. Jaffna and Kandy. I used that information to press the point that he was, in learning, entirely different from his predecessors and present competitors. One does not need to research in theoretical physics to know something as simple as the first lesson in calculus. Dirac made his momentous discovery sometime in the 1930s and by 1950 it must have been solidly in the teaching material in schools and universities. Dissanayake graduated in 1995 and, at least, must have heard of Dirac and the ‘God Particle’.
Paul Dirac was a legendary figure among graduate students when I was at Cambridge. He had written the shortest Fellowship and Ph.D. theses. He had had an interesting relationship with his father who was a French speaking Swiss and had insisted that he speaks French at table. Amrtya Sen, who was in 1965 a young Fellow of Trinity College and a teacher in the Economics and Politics Faculty at that time, had also written very short theses and not several volumes as many do.
I read about Higgs Boson in a wonderful book Inward Bound written by physicist Abraham Pais and, in The Science Times (Tuesdays) edited by Gina Kolata of the New York Times, and occasionally in Nature and other popular writings.
I was on the editorial board of Samskrti for some time. Amaradasa Virasinghe and Gananath Obeysekera had started that literary review in 1953 when I was in school and many of us read it avidly. Together with Susil Sirivardana, we decided to expand the scope of the journal to include social studies and science, which effort Sena knew well. The probable readership had increased manifold. In order to help prospective writers to pick up themes to write on, we held a popular lecture, one Saturday a month. I invited Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, then teaching at the Open University, Nawala, to speak to us on the scope and nature of sociology. She made a short fine introduction. That is where I learnt of August Compte. She was invited to a Seminar in Britain on the sociology of education, where I had strayed into from 1971. I did not read her paper, although she had promised to let me have it. I had good reason to respect her scholarship. It would be shocking had she not read Le`vy-Strauss. Many besides anthropologists read Le`vy-Strauss.
Sena stressed the obvious when he said that in public speeches made by these two politicians, there was no evidence of their expertise in physics and sociology. It would have been completely out of place to speak about elementary particles to a crowd in Beruvala or Anuradhapura. But one’s education, in subtle ways, informs the material and the ways that the material is presented in public speeches. Simply listen to Members of Parliament speak and you can guess roughly the level of education each had achieved: grade 2 in primary school or Quondam Professor of Law at Oxford.
I am sorry that Sena identified ‘an exaggerated parade of claims and sheer implausible boasts’ in what I wrote. It is entirely plausible, indeed certain, that an undergraduate in the Department of Physics in any university would be familiar with differentiation and integration.
An unprejudiced reading of my text will demonstrate that it contained no such claims and boasts. Mine was a pretty simple statement of the nature of differences between the present lot in government and the lots that were in power earlier. I related those differences to help understand the line up for and against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. and not to build false images of any politician, man or woman. I am too old to set out, even in the formidable company of Sena, on the ‘long march’ to Mao.
Opinion
Illusion of recovery: Three fault lines threatening Sri Lanka’s future
By Chandre Dharmawardana
chandre.dharma@yahoo.ca)
The official narrative surrounding Sri Lanka’s economic recovery is optimistic and up-beat. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has repeatedly assured the public that the nation, which faced catastrophic bankruptcy in 2022, is finally entering “safe waters.” This political optimism is backed by data from the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL [1]), which projects an annual economic growth rate of approximately 5%, bolstered by the country’s recent structural upgrade to “middle-income” status. On paper, the macroeconomic indicators suggest a remarkable turnaround.
However, this statistics-based triumph masks a much darker, systemic reality. Below the surface of stabilised foreign reserves and GDP growth lie at least three dystopian structural fault lines: massive capital flight, an unprecedented brain drain, and a severe demographic inversion. Together, these factors form a quiet crisis that threatens to rapidly destabilise Sri Lanka, rendering its current economic recovery fragile and potentially unsustainable. In addition, we must factor in the devastating effects of climate change and sea-level rise that will play out unabated.
Independent economists note that “safe waters” at the state level have yet to translate to ordinary citizens. The 5% growth and upgraded income status have been achieved through aggressive taxation (VAT hikes) and high energy costs, meaning that while the state’s coffers are recovering, real household poverty remains painfully high and becoming worse, while the rich-poor gap is widening.
Fault Line 1: Corporate betrayal and unchecked capital flight
While the government actively pursues high-profile political figures for historical financial crimes, the most devastating drainage of Sri Lanka’s wealth is happening legally and semi-legally through the corporate elite. Capital flight has severely hollowed out the state’s financial foundation.
Research from global watchdogs like Global Financial Integrity (GFI) reveals that trade mis-invoicing, i.e., the practice of under-invoicing exports and over-invoicing imports to illicitly park profits in offshore accounts, has stripped Sri Lanka of billions of dollars annually (GFI, 2024, [2]).
This is compounded by massive migration within the garment and manufacturing sectors. Facing exorbitant domestic energy tariffs and steep Value Added Tax (VAT) hikes, major conglomerates have steadily relocated production capacities or established vital subsidiaries in more cost-effective hubs, including Kenya, Jordan, and Oman (National Chamber of Exporters, 2025, [3]).
The state’s recent investigation into over $1 billion in “phantom imports”, where advance payments were sent abroad via Telegraphic Transfers without any goods ever entering the country, demonstrates that the private sector continues to drain the country of the very foreign exchange required to sustain its recovery.
While big capital has systematically flown out of the country, exploiting critical financial loopholes intentionally created during the Yahapalanaya (Maithripala-Ranil) era, successive administrations have persistently attempted to deflect blame for Sri Lanka’s financial collapse onto external or secondary factors. A glaring example of this misdirection occurred when major international media outlets, most notably The New York Times, claimed that Chinese infrastructure loans and “debt-trap diplomacy” were primarily responsible for the country’s economic insolvency—a narrative that independent economic data has since thoroughly debunked. Similarly, a favourite rhetorical theme among all political leaders is that bribery and state-level corruption by their rivals were the singular drivers of the crisis.
Neither geopolitical debt nor political corruption has been as structurally catastrophic as the quiet, massive flight of private investment capital. This exodus was critically accelerated when the Yahapalanaya administration, under Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, systematically dismantled the nation’s regulatory guardrails by repealing the robust Exchange Control Act No. 24 of 1953 and replacing it with the highly liberalised Foreign Exchange Act No. 12 of 2017. This legislative shift effectively decriminalised unauthorised foreign currency retention, removed stringent tracking mechanisms on export proceeds, and opened the floodgates for legal and semi-legal capital flight in the critical years leading up to the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration and its financial collapse. By prioritising the convenience of the corporate elite over national reserve security, these policy manoeuvers permanently starved Sri Lanka of vital foreign liquidity at the exact moment it was in dire need of retaining and attracting stable investment capital.
The removal of these Exchange control and Foreign exchange acts would seem entirely destructive to Sri Lanka in hindsight today. However, both Ranil Wickremesinghe and Ravi Karunanayake are avowed neo-liberal ideologues who would have viewed the removal of those legislations as part of their idea of full free trade and over-arching globalisation. However, perhaps unknown to them, globalisation had hollowed out the Western manufacturing base; nationalist populism and tea-party politics had already raised its head in the West. Finally, the Covid epidemic drew the curtain on the era of neoliberalism, with even the more ardent “Ayn Randyan” opponent of state intervention conceding to massive state intervention to face Covid.
To evaluate which factor has a greater structural impact on Sri Lanka’s economic stability, we must look at data from international watchdog groups like Global Financial Integrity (GFI) alongside localized corruption cases since the beginning of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration (2015) up to 2026. We do this in Table 1.

MetricEstimated Amount (2015 – 2026)Primary Mechanics / Key Scandals
Total Outward Capital Flight (Corporate/Trade)US$20 Billion – $35 Billion+Systemic trade misinvoicing (averaging $1.5B to $4B annually); value gap representing 20.51% of total trade; and recent $715M to $1B “phantom import” telegraphic transfer loops.Speculated Political Corruption (State/Graft)US$1.5 Billion – $3 Billion total accumulated valueCentral Bank Bond Scam (~$11M+ direct loss, though disrupted billions in credit market impacts); Airbus Bribery scandal ($16.84M agreed bribes); state enterprise losses (e.g., SriLankan Airlines accumulated political mismanagement losses reaching over $2B equivalent).Table 1: Comparison of Capital flight versus corruption loss
The data reveals that corporate capital flight dwarfs political corruption by an order of magnitude, making it the far more critical structural threat to the country’s economic baseline. Ultimately, while the media and politicians focus on the theatre of political arrests, the quiet, systemic white-collar flight of capital by the country’s “Big Tycoons” acts as a far more lethal haemorrhage dragging Sri Lanka back down into financial collapse.
Fault Line 2: The catastrophic brain drain
An economy cannot expand at a sustained 5% rate without human capital. Yet, Sri Lanka is currently experiencing an unprecedented exodus of its professional class. The economic collapse of 2022, followed by the subsequent imposition of heavy income taxes, soaring inflation, and a diminished quality of life, triggered a massive wave of migration.
Unlike the labour migration of previous decades, which consisted primarily of low-skilled workers sending back remittances, the current “brain drain” consists of the nation’s intellectual bedrock: doctors, software engineers, university professors, accountants, and aviation technicians. According to data from the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE, [4]), record numbers of professionals have left the island for Europe, the Middle East, and Australia. The impact on critical infrastructure is already dystopian. Government hospitals frequently report a severe shortage of specialized consultants and anesthetists, while the domestic tech sector faces a crippling deficit of senior developers. Sri Lanka is effectively funding the free education of its youth, only for foreign economies to reap the productivity and tax revenues of those graduates.
The articles by (i) Hasini Lecamwasam entitled “The emptying university: why are academics leaving? (Island, 15th September 2026) [5], and Prof. Amarasiri de Silva’s article entitled Sri Lanka’s university crisis: Brain drain and union action demand urgent reform (Island, 14th September 2026) [6], specifically expose the dire situation faced by the existing 17 Sri Lankan Universities today, even though President AKD hopes to open 50 more universities shortly. Realistically, the available resources completely rule out the President’s proposal. Sri Lanka spends roughly 1.5% to 2% of its Gross Domestic Product on public education, one of the lowest in the world. Meanwhile many degree-certificate granting institutions (“private universities”) that have commodified higher education have sprung up to fill the need.
In any case, as we explain in the next section, the population is Sri Lanka has peaked, and its population pyramid has inverted, with fewer youth than older adults. There will be closure of schools as rural areas become hollowed out, and decreased enrolment in regional universities.
Fault Line 3: Demographic Inversion and the Aging Crisis
Perhaps, the most irreversible threat to Sri Lanka’s long-term stability is its rapidly changing demographic profile. Sri Lanka is currently undergoing a severe population inversion, transitioning into an aging society at a much faster rate than its regional peers.
Due to a combination of declining fertility rates, increased life expectancy, and the mass migration of reproductive-age young professionals, the demographic pyramid has flipped. For the first time in modern history, the population of elderly citizens (aged 60 and above) is growing faster than the younger demographic required to support them. According to United Nations and World Bank demographic assessments, Sri Lanka is projected to have one of the oldest populations in South Asia within the coming decade (World Bank, 2025 [7]).
This inversion creates a devastating double-bind for the state:
· Shrinking Tax Base: As young people leave or age out of the workforce, the pool of taxable income contracts.
· Exploding Welfare Costs:
The state faces ballooning expenditure requirements for geriatric healthcare, social safety nets, and pensions.
· The flight of businesses seeking cheap labour:
As the young workforce shrinks, manufacturing and businesses leave the country to relocate in other countries where labour is cheap. This flight of capital was discussed by us as “fault line number 1”.
Unlike Western nations that grew wealthy before they grew old, Sri Lanka is facing a demographic crisis while still trying to climb out of bankruptcy. According to recent data from the Sri Lankan Census and demographic researchers (De Silva 2025 [8]), Sri Lanka’s population peaked at 22.1 million in 2022 and has already entered a structural contraction. Sri Lanka’s total Fertility Rate (TFR) has collapsed to an ultra-low 1.3 children per woman—a rate lower than many highly developed Western nations, and well below the 2.1 needed for sustaining the population from extinction.
Sri Lanka had a rapid population increase after WWII, thanks to its adoption of modern agriculture (Green Revolution), control of infectious diseases such as malaria. However, Sri Lanka could not profit from the potential of its demographic bulge as a labour force. It moved towards a sluggish Marxist economy that sought state control and dismantled its plantation sector, placed draconian control over foreign exchange and investments.
Right after Independence, Sri Lanka prioritised universal free education and extensive reproductive health literacy. Meanwhile, free education led to exceptionally high female literacy rates early on. Historically, whenever female education rises, birth rates plummet—even if the nation’s GDP per capita remains relatively low.
From 1956 to 1977, Sri Lanka implemented economic policies directed towards increasing state control every aspect of the economy with foreign exchange controls. A stagnant economy led to youth uprisings that took the form of intra- and inter-ethnic conflicts that took a toll of youth populations. While an open economy was heralded in 1977 youth uprisings had already established themselves. Even children were mercilessly recruited as child soldiers by the LTTE and forced into an unwinnable conflict where about 7% of the population in the North and East (Tamils) were pitted against the government that drew strength from some 80% (Sinhalese and Muslims) of the remaining population.
Furthermore, many in the local work pool found it more lucrative to go to the Gulf countries as migrant workers, depleting the local availability of labour.
When Sri Lanka opened its economy in 1977 it succeeded in using its cheap labour pool to establish a world-class industrial base in clothes and similar industries. However, the rate of population growth slackened with increased literacy and today the population pyramid has completely inverted, with its labour pool shrinking and implying a demographic nightmare of ethnic extinction for Sri Lankans.
Countries such as Sri Lanka that do not have the financial power of countries such as South Korea or Japan (which are able to resort to robotics and AI agents) may have to turn to sperm and ova banks, in-vitro fertilisation, as well as state sponsored group parenting to sustain its population or simply face extinction. The need for such technologies was anticipated by scientists such as J. B. S. Haldane in 1924 [9], with corresponding themes were built into fictional works such as Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. (To be concluded)
Opinion
From gratitude to better individuals, stronger communities and a better nation
World Gratitude Day
by Lalith de Silva
Senior Advisor for Governance and Transformation
As we commemorate World Gratitude Day on 21 September, perhaps it is an appropriate time for all of us to pause and ask ourselves a few simple but profound questions:
What have I received? Who contributed to what I have become? What is my responsibility in return? And what can I give back?
We live in a world where we are constantly encouraged to seek “more”—more income, a better career, a higher standard of living, greater recognition, greater comfort and greater success.
There is nothing wrong with aspiration. Individuals need aspirations, and nations need progress.
However, while constantly pursuing what we do not yet have, we can easily overlook something equally important: recognising and appreciating what we already have and what we have already received.
That is where gratitude begins.
Gratitude is much more than simply saying “thank you”. It is recognising the good we have received, appreciating the people, institutions, society and natural environment that have contributed to our lives, and allowing that appreciation to influence our behaviour, responsibilities and actions.
An Ancient and Universal Human Virtue
Gratitude does not belong to any one religion, nation or culture. The world’s major religious and philosophical traditions have recognised its importance for thousands of years.
For Sri Lanka, a particularly meaningful illustration comes from the Buddhist tradition.
Following his Enlightenment, before beginning his great teaching mission, the Buddha is traditionally described as spending the second week gazing at the Bodhi tree in appreciation and gratitude for the shelter it had provided him.
There is a profound message in this simple act.
Even after attaining Enlightenment, the Buddha did not take for granted the benefit received from a tree. Buddhist teachings also associate gratitude and thankfulness with the qualities of a good and virtuous person.
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religious traditions similarly emphasise thanksgiving, appreciation, duty, compassion and service in different forms.
The underlying human message is universal:
Do not take the goodness we receive in life for granted. Recognise it. Appreciate it. And respond to it through positive action.
None of us succeeds alone
If we look honestly at our lives, none of us can truly claim to be entirely “self-made”.
Before we could walk, someone carried us. Before we could read, someone taught us. Before we could earn, someone fed, protected and supported us.
Parents and caregivers made sacrifices. Teachers gave us knowledge. Friends encouraged us. Organisations gave us opportunities. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals cared for us. Farmers produced our food. Thousands of workers and service providers make our everyday lives possible.
Our lives also depend upon air, water, sunlight, soil, trees and complex natural ecosystems.
Our country provides education, infrastructure, institutions, security, cultural heritage and opportunities through which we build our lives.
Gratitude begins when we stop treating all these contributions as things to which we are automatically entitled.
It reminds us of a fundamental truth: we are interconnected and interdependent.
Gratitude and Happiness
Modern research in psychology and wellbeing has examined the relationship between gratitude and subjective wellbeing, life satisfaction, positive emotions, stronger relationships and behaviours that benefit others.
This is particularly relevant because many of us unconsciously postpone happiness.
“I will be happy when I earn more.”
“I will be happy when I receive that promotion.”
“I will be happy when this problem is over.”
Yet when one goal is achieved, another often appears.
Gratitude does not tell us to abandon ambition. Instead, it teaches us to build tomorrow without becoming blind to the goodness that exists today.
Gratitude may not change what we have, but it can change how we see what we have.
This does not mean that gratitude is a cure for illness, psychological distress, poverty or injustice. Such problems require appropriate professional, social, economic and institutional responses.
Gratitude does not ask us to deny suffering. Rather, it can help us recognise that even during difficult periods there may still be people, relationships, opportunities and sources of support worth appreciating.
From gratitude to compassion and responsibility
The wider social value of gratitude emerges when we move beyond the feeling of “I am grateful” and ask:
“If I am grateful, what is my responsibility?”
If I appreciate the sacrifices my parents made for me, what is my responsibility towards them?
If teachers and educational institutions contributed to my development, what can I contribute to the next generation?
If an organisation gave me opportunities, am I serving that organisation honestly and responsibly?
If my country provided education, infrastructure, opportunities and rights, what am I giving back to my country?
This changes our thinking from:
“What more can I get?”
to:
“What have I received, and what can I contribute?”
Recognising the contributions of others can encourage humility. Understanding their sacrifices can deepen empathy and compassion. Recognising how much we have received can encourage generosity, service and a greater sense of responsibility.
Gratitude therefore has the potential to move beyond personal wellbeing and become a foundation for responsible citizenship.
What Does This Mean for Our National Challenges?
Sri Lanka, like many countries, must address serious social and national challenges, including corruption, fraud, crime, substance and alcohol misuse, violence, misuse of public property and waste of public resources.
Gratitude is not a single solution to these complex problems.
We need strong laws, effective and independent institutions, transparency, accountability, education, appropriate treatment and rehabilitation, economic opportunities and good governance.
But alongside all of these, there is another important dimension:
Human character.
Laws are essential, but laws alone cannot create an ethical society.
Law seeks to control wrongdoing from outside. Good character can help prevent wrongdoing from within.
Consider a public official who genuinely thinks:
“This authority has been entrusted to me by the people.”
That mindset can influence how authority is exercised.
Consider a leader who thinks:
“This position is not merely a privilege; it is a responsibility.”
That can influence leadership behaviour.
Consider a citizen who understands:
“Public resources do not belong to somebody else. They belong collectively to all of us.”
That can influence how public property is treated.
Gratitude can therefore help encourage a movement from entitlement to responsibility, from selfishness to compassion, from exploitation to stewardship, and from merely receiving to giving back.
It cannot replace law, governance or accountability. But it can contribute to the character and values upon which good institutions ultimately depend.
Begin with Our Children
If we want to influence the future culture of our nation, we should begin with our children.
Teaching a child to say “thank you” is a good beginning. But we can go further.
“I am grateful to my parents.”
Then what is my responsibility towards them?
“I am grateful to my teachers and school.”
What is my responsibility as a student?
“I am grateful for my country.”
What kind of citizen should I become?
At this point gratitude becomes more than good manners.
It becomes character education.
Schools can help children connect gratitude with respect, responsibility, care for public property, kindness, service and good citizenship.
What Can We Do on 21 September?
World Gratitude Day should not become simply another commemorative day on the calendar. It can become a starting point for practical action.
Individuals can contact someone who has made a difference in their lives and sincerely thank them. A telephone call, letter or simple message of appreciation can be deeply meaningful. We can go further by doing something useful for another person or for our community.
Families can spend a few minutes together identifying what they appreciate about one another. We often assume that the people closest to us know how much we value them. Expressing it can strengthen relationships.
Schools, universities and Pirivenas can organise short discussions, essays, art, debates, gratitude letters and community-service activities around gratitude, responsibility and good citizenship.
Public and private organisations can recognise the contributions of employees, customers and communities and ask an important organisational question: What have we received from society, and what can we give back?
Religious and community organisations can highlight gratitude, compassion, service and responsibility through their own traditions while recognising gratitude as a universal human value.
A Simple National Initiative
The Government can also facilitate national awareness of World Gratitude Day on 21 September.
This need not require a large budget or elaborate celebrations.
A national awareness message could encourage citizens to reflect on gratitude. Schools and public institutions could be encouraged to undertake simple voluntary activities. Community service could be promoted. Public institutions could recognise people whose often-unnoticed work contributes to society.
Most importantly, World Gratitude Day could encourage a national conversation about gratitude, responsibility, service, integrity and good citizenship.
Such an initiative should be inclusive and non-sectarian, recognising gratitude as a universal human virtue shared across Sri Lanka’s religious, ethnic and cultural communities.
In future years, Sri Lanka might also consider developing the period around 21 September into a National Gratitude Week, allowing schools, government institutions, businesses, religious organisations, civil society and communities to develop activities appropriate to them.
The purpose should not be ceremony for ceremony’s sake. The objective should be to encourage reflection followed by action.
From One Day to a Way of Life
One day cannot transform Sri Lanka.
But one day can begin a practice.
Practice → Habit → Character → Culture → National Transformation
Repeated practice can become habit. Habits influence character. Character influences behaviour. When enough people practise similar values, they begin to influence the culture of families, organisations, communities and eventually society.
On 21 September, therefore, let us begin with four simple principles:
Pause. Recognise. Appreciate. Give Back.
Pause and look at our lives.
Recognise the people, opportunities, institutions, society and natural environment that have supported us.
Appreciate what we have received.
Then ask:
“If I am grateful, what is my responsibility—and what can I give back?”
Sri Lanka needs economic transformation. We need institutional and governance reform. We need technological progress and greater opportunities for our people.
But alongside all of these, we also need human transformation—a transformation that strengthens gratitude, compassion, responsibility, integrity and commitment to the common good.
The journey can be expressed simply:
Gratitude → Happiness → Compassion → Responsibility → Integrity → Good Character → Stronger Communities → A Better Nation
Let World Gratitude Day on 21 September become an opportunity to begin that journey.
Let us make gratitude not merely a feeling, but a practice; not merely a practice, but a habit; and ultimately a way of life.
Let us ignite a Gratitude Revolution—from the individual to the family, from the family to the community, and from the community to the nation.
-
News7 days agoUS embassy won’t comment on IGP’s probe into joint drug raid
-
News5 days agoShanakiyan urges urgent action over reported death sentence for Lankan in Saudi Arabia
-
News6 days agoBid for Basil’s extradition nears final stage: Police
-
News4 days agoNamal Rajapaksa Buddhist gambit fails, bail denied
-
Business7 days agoAll-new Bolero MaXX unveiled in Sri Lanka
-
Opinion7 days agoA journalist who wrote across the divide
-
Features4 days agoWhy the spelling Sri Lankan names in English vary
-
Features4 days agoThree bands, a new identity: Sri Lankan wolf snake recognised as distinct species
