Connect with us

Opinion

Ranasighe Premadasa: Man of the Masses

Published

on

Premadasa

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)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Opinion

Ginige Palitha Sirimal Harischandra de Silva Historian and Archivist

Published

on

Haris de Silva

by Geedreck Uswatte-aratchi,
B.A.(Cey.), Ph.D. (Cantab.)

In my first year at Peradeniya, I lived in Room 54 on the ground floor of the first quadrangle of Ramanathan Hall. In room 55 lived the prize-winning short story writer Somapala Wijesinghe, in his second year. On the first night, I walked a bit late to dinner to avoid the fierce raggers. As my luck would have it, there was a short man who barked out, ‘You fresher, what school do you come from?’ ‘From Kuliyapitiya Central School’, said I, meekly. The short man laughed loud derisively, ‘Where the hell is that? You have no business to come to this hallowed place. You look starved. Go and eat, I will deal with you in time.’ I was scared and hungry. So did I meet my first and long-lasting friend in Peradeniya. Haris read history under Ray Chaudhry, Sinha, G. C. Mendis and Lakshman Perera. The brilliant historians of Peradeniya were yet to come. I read Economics in the Takaran Shed School on the embankment across the road from the Arts Building.

Haris had an irresistible impish sense of humour. It did not spare friend or foe. When he came to Peradeniya, he brought his decrepit bicycle by rail. It had no bell, no lights, front or tail and no breaks but he never hurt himself or another except once and that grievously when he was very young in Panadura; he lost one eye in a road accident. The offending party was not Haris. That in no way spoiled the fun he had on his bicycle in Peradeniya or later. He was wildly popular and much admired. There was hardly any student in Peradeniya who did not know Haris. Among other things, I learnt from him to wear my shoe, making a slipper of it by beating down the heel.

There were several student’s societies in Peradeniya. It was usual for some of these societies to organise a bus tour to some place of interest. Usually, they came back late at night having shouted themselves hoarse and dead tired. One of our mutual friends joined a trip that year. In the evening, after dinner, Haris came to my room glistening with mischief. We both went in to our friend’s room and systematically dismantled his bed, put the mattress atop the closet, undid the springs and left them all over the floor. Our friend came back eager to hit the pillow but there was no bed. We came solicitously to help him re-assemble his bed and dismount the mattress. Our friend was furious with us till next morning. He bided his time. I joined a trip to Mahiyangana, mainly to go down the 18 bends. I came back dog tired fearing the worst. There might be a bucket of water ready to drench me as I opened my door. There wasn’t but my mattress was atop the closest. Never mind, mi pan rai, as I learnt to say in Bangkok, much later.

Vernugopal, who played hockey and later was a Certified Public Accountant in New Jersey, Haris and I nearly fell into serious trouble in our second year. Norman, son of Weerasuriya, QC, came to see Peradeniya, where he was scheduled to come into residence next year. I did not see him but he had come in a Mercedes Benz and had worn an expensive warm jacket that he had bought in London, earlier in the year. Vernu, for one reason or another, had lifted it and given it to Haris for safe keeping. Ever out for mischief, Haris rushed it to my room and asked me to keep it with me and, the next morning, move it out of the Campus, unobserved. He pressed me the next morning and I complied and forgot about it all. Not for long. One day the Warden knocked on my door; very unusual, I thought. ‘Do you have in your possession an expensive jacket belonging to a visitor to our Hall?’, he asked. ‘I have a jacket but I don’t know whom it belongs to. I will have to consult Haris who gave it to me a few days ago.’ ‘No matter all that. I want the jacket in my quarters before 6, this evening.’. I learnt about the episode later. Nicholas Attygalle had succeeded Ivor Jennings as Vice Chancellor. Attygalle and Weerasurya (Snr.) were pals. We all would have been in trouble if the jacket went missing. I was mighty relieved when all was settled.

Harris had a long string of cousins who lived mostly along Galle Road. They were his mother’s siblings’ children. I lived in a boarding house in Bambalpitiya to go to work. One Saturday morning Haris and I set out in his car to go to Hikkaduva (not the Hikkaduva of today) for the weekend. We visited one cousin in Moratuva, several in Panadura, another in Kalutara and so on and reached Ambalangoda about four in the afternoon. I declined the offer to ride back with him and took the 3.15 next day afternoon train to the Fort.

Haris’ hobby was carpentry. He parked his car on the lawn and the garage turned into a workshop. He had a good collection of tools. Some of the furniture in his house was made by him. He insisted on repairing his roof. One morning someone called from his home that Haris had fallen from the roof and we rushed much concerned. The turf had received him gently and he was none the worse for the accident. He kept on mending his roof.

Hema was a fitting companion to Haris: joyful and a perfect host. Mali and I spent many happy days with them, especially after the two children were born. Haris did a tremendous job bringing up the two of them by himself to be distinguished and highly productive citizens of this country. One of them lived with her family in the father’s house and Haris took great pleasure as the grandchildren went to good universities and eventually took up interesting work.

A hallmark of Haris’ life was the simplicity in which he lived it. The lives of Haris and family were almost stoic. Their home, the furniture in it, the clothes they wore and the occasions in life that they celebrated were all lessons in simplicity. One of the children, who was in a learned profession, once worked in Polonnaruva. She came to her home in Colombo, when she could, by bus. She later worked in Panadura and similarly often came back to Colombo by bus. Among a people who notoriously exhibit wealth they do not fully possess (read the ratio of household debt to household income), here was an oasis of serenity and simplicity. I respected him and his family very much.

Haris came to Peradeniya with some familiarity with research work. At Ananada Sastralaya, Kotte where Haris studied to enter university, young Amaradasa Virasinghe was a teacher. Virasinhge had been much inspired by Professor M.D.Ratnasuriya, who came from London University. The world of English literature was rocked by F.R.Leavis’ journal Scrutiny. Gananath Obeysekere had graduated from the English Department which was headed by E.F.C. Ludowyk who had graduated from Cambridge and was familiar with that work. The two young graduates decided to publish a quarterly Sinhala literary review and the first issue of Samskrti appeared in 1953. Haris had a hand in putting the first issue together in Obeysekere’s home in Lauries Road in Bambalapitiya. Virasinghe and his colleagues published Samskrti for about 20 years when Virasinghe decided to go to Pennsylvania. Amaradasa Gunewardena (Sinhala, Ramanathan, 1954) heroically carried on the journal for several years irregularly, until when it ceased publication. Virasinghe came back in 2000 or so and wanted to revive samskrti. With time, much had changed. The original enthusiasts all had moved, except two: Susil Siriwardena from Oxford and Usvatte-aratchi, who had come back after 25 years overseas.. They revived the journal to survive till 2015. Although the university population had multiplied several-fold and the Sinhala readding public even more, publishable material was scarce. And the journal spurted on for a year or two and died.

When Haris joined the Department of Government Archives under Amaravamsa Devaraja, the Department was in Nuvara Eliya. It had been moved from Colombo when there was a risk that Japanese might bomb the capital and the archives might be lost. Further, the cooler and slightly drier climate in Nuvara Eliya was likely to preserve the documents at lower cost. Peradeniya which turned out to be a major user of Archives was in the neighbourhood. However, Colombo had many users who could not afford the delays and the cost of driving to Nuvara Eliya. As time went on three universities had sprung up in and near Colombo and there emerged many users. President Jayewardene himself was a keen reader of Sri Lanka’s history. And there was an excellent site in Independence Square. It fell to Haris who was Deputy Director then to take care of the project to put up the new building and equip it. They could not have found a better person, had they searched the world for years. His integrity in the management of funds was rock solid. He had the cheque ready the day before payment was due and the builder had his first day of surprise when he was so informed. With many young students of history, law, economics and anthropology, there was a heightened interest in Archives and they found an excellent archivist in Haris.

Haris himself enjoyed the work immensely. As time permitted, he wrote two well-researched and data rich valuable works, as I recollect. He never lost interest in history and archives and we regularly chatted about what we were reading, thinking or writing. I dared not make a mistake in history. Haris’ red pen would find employment.

Haris was the first friend I made in Peradeniya and he is the last to whom I bid adieu. You made history and history will treat you splendidly.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Handcuffs without consequences: Why Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption drive keeps missing the target

Published

on

By Mahil Dole, SSP (Retd.)

Senior Security Analyst | Former Head of Counter-Terrorism, State Intelligence Service | Managing Director, Smart Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The daily procession of arrests has become one of the most familiar rituals of public life in Sri Lanka. Politicians, senior officials, state enterprise executives and private-sector figures are regularly produced in court. Some are remanded. Others walk free on bail. A number simply disappear beyond effective reach. The pattern is so constant that many now regard it as evidence of a deeper national failure. One recent comment captured the prevailing mood: corruption has become mind-boggling, damaging the country’s image and sending damaging signals to investors, international financial institutions and those who still provide aid.

That observation is not unfair. Visibility of wrongdoing is high. Yet Sri Lanka is not without formal safeguards. Stringent laws exist. Specialised agencies operate. Disciplinary procedures are written down. An often aggressive media continues to expose scandals. Religious and cultural traditions across communities teach honesty, selflessness and restraint of greed. Places of worship are numerous, and large numbers of citizens participate actively in religious life.

At this very moment, Parliament is engaged with further legislative efforts to strengthen the anti-corruption framework. The Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, already gazetted, seeks to tighten the 2023 Act by introducing heavier financial penalties (including a mandatory additional penalty of not less than three times the value of property gained through corruption), fuller recovery of losses caused to the State, and stricter bail provisions for serious offences. These moves are timely. They also make the questions raised in this discussion more urgent: will stronger laws on paper finally change outcomes, or will the same incentive problems and selective application continue to blunt their effect?

Why, then, does the country continue to be widely regarded, both at home and abroad, as significantly corrupt?

The answer does not lie in the absence of rules or moral instruction. It lies in the gap between formal architecture and lived outcomes.

As Lord Acton observed more than a century ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When power is weakly constrained by institutions, and when the practical incentives facing those who wield it reward extraction rather than stewardship, even the best-written laws struggle to hold.

The Limits of Formal Safeguards

Laws and procedures create the possibility of accountability. They do not automatically produce it. Enforcement is carried out by people and organisations that respond to the rewards, risks and constraints they actually face. When the expected benefit of corrupt behaviour remains high and the expected cost, legal, career, social or material, is low or selectively applied, formal rules lose force.

Detection and prosecution are frequently reactive. Media exposés and agency raids often occur after significant damage has already been done. Prevention, the reduction of opportunities and the raising of risks before the act, remains weaker. Court processes are slow. Asset recovery is incomplete. Absconding continues to be possible. The result is a cycle of arrest theatre that generates temporary political credit while leaving the underlying incentive structure largely intact.

It is essential, however, to state a foundational principle with clarity. Every person accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent until proven guilty through a proper judicial process. Sri Lanka maintains this position with utmost confidence. The presumption of innocence is not a technicality; it is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Any anti-corruption effort that abandons this principle, or appears to do so, risks transforming a legal process into something closer to political retribution. Transparency, not opacity, is therefore indispensable. The public must be able to see that investigations and prosecutions are conducted according to law, applied equally to every alleged wrongdoer, and free from the taint of selective targeting or “witch-hunting.” The new legislative proposals now before or approaching Parliament will be judged by precisely this standard: whether they strengthen genuine legal accountability or merely add new tools that can still be applied unevenly.

Religious and cultural values are sincerely held by many. Yet they are frequently compartmentalised. Ethical teachings against greed can coexist with different standards of behaviour in political and bureaucratic life. When public office is widely perceived as a platform for resource allocation rather than stewardship, personal devotion does not automatically translate into institutional integrity.

How Incentives Shape Enforcement

Enforcement agencies and the individuals within them operate under multiple, often conflicting, incentives.

Career progression in many public institutions has historically depended more on political reliability or bureaucratic loyalty than on the successful pursuit of complex, high-value cases. Investigating powerful figures can bring transfer, sidelining or delayed promotion. Pursuing lower-level or politically convenient targets is safer and still produces visible statistics. Performance metrics that prioritise the number of arrests or cases filed over the quality of convictions and the recovery of proceeds encourage quantity over substance.

Political incentives cut both ways

Governments gain short-term popularity from high-profile actions, especially against previous regimes or opponents. The same governments face strong incentives to shield their own networks. Selective enforcement therefore becomes rational from a political-survival perspective. Long-term institutional credibility is a public good that individual political actors may undervalue when their time horizon is short.

As the saying reminds us, “Laws are like cobwebs: they catch the weak and small, but the strong and powerful break through.” When the powerful face different practical consequences from ordinary citizens, the deterrent effect of even the most severe punishments collapses. The same danger arises when enforcement appears driven by political convenience rather than consistent application of the law. Opacity in process fuels precisely this suspicion. Transparency in investigation, charging decisions and court proceedings is the surest way to demonstrate that the system is engaged in a legal anti-corruption effort, not a campaign of selective persecution.

Personal risk also matters. Investigators and judges who pursue well-connected targets can face threats, legal harassment or professional isolation. Where institutional protection is weak, rational self-preservation leads to caution. Material conditions reinforce the problem: relatively modest public-sector salaries alongside large discretionary powers create opportunities for compromise.

The Critical Role of Whistleblowers

In this environment, whistleblowers become especially important. Most serious corruption is not visible from the outside. It occurs inside procurement processes, regulatory decisions, financial flows and internal communications. Insiders who see the documents, attend the meetings or handle the payments are often the only people positioned to raise the alarm early enough for evidence to be preserved.

Whistleblowers supply leads and evidence that agencies may lack the incentive or capacity to generate independently. Credible tips can shorten investigations, strengthen cases and raise the political cost of inaction. The mere possibility that an insider may speak alters the risk calculation of potential wrongdoers.

Sri Lanka’s Anti-Corruption Act contains explicit protections for informers, whistleblowers and witnesses. These include confidentiality of identity, immunity from civil and criminal liability when information is provided in good faith, protection from disciplinary action and reprisal, and criminal penalties for those who retaliate. Such provisions are necessary. Their effectiveness depends on consistent implementation: rapid response to threats, genuine confidentiality in practice, accessible reporting channels, and visible consequences for those who punish disclosures.

Without credible protection, the rational calculation for most potential whistleblowers remains silence. Strong protection changes that calculation and thereby improves the information environment in which enforcement agencies operate.

Principal Contributors to Persistent Corruption

Corrupt political leadership is often decisive. When those at the apex of power treat public office as a vehicle for personal or factional enrichment, they set the tone for the system. Leadership that tolerates, participates in or protects corruption signals that rules are optional for the powerful. It also tends to appoint loyalists rather than professionals to sensitive posts, further politicising the institutions charged with enforcement.

Politicisation of government agencies follows. When appointments, transfers, promotions and operational priorities in the police, revenue departments, regulatory bodies, state-owned enterprises and anti-corruption agencies are driven by political loyalty rather than competence and integrity, professional incentives collapse. Officers who resist improper pressure face retaliation; those who comply advance.

Politicisation of the media weakens an important external check. When significant sections of the media become aligned with political or commercial interests, coverage becomes selective. Scandals involving favoured actors are downplayed; those involving opponents are amplified. This distorts public information and reduces the reputational cost of misconduct for the protected.

Politicisation of religious platforms and organisations can compromise their moral authority. Religious traditions teach restraint and honesty. When those platforms become vehicles for political mobilisation or the defence of partisan interests, their capacity to uphold ethical standards against corruption is reduced.

Poverty amplifies vulnerability. Low relative salaries and economic insecurity create material pressure on officials and make ordinary citizens more susceptible to paying bribes for basic services. Competition and demand for scarce opportunities, licences, contracts, regulatory approvals, jobs, land, school places, combined with discretionary decision-making create intense pressure for preferential treatment. Where formal processes are slow or opaque, people and firms compete by offering inducements.

These factors reinforce one another. Corrupt leadership accelerates the politicisation of agencies and media. Politicised institutions reduce the risk of detection and punishment. Poverty and scarcity increase both the supply of and demand for corrupt exchanges. Together they create a self-reinforcing system in which formal laws and ethical teachings struggle to gain traction.

Consequences Beyond Reputation

The costs are not merely reputational. Investor risk perception rises, increasing the cost of capital and deterring higher-quality foreign direct investment. International financial institutions and aid partners attach governance conditions that become harder to meet when enforcement appears selective or incomplete. Public trust in institutions erodes, weakening the social cooperation necessary for effective policing, intelligence and community resilience.

Corruption is also a national-security vulnerability. It hollows out the integrity of the institutions that protect the state and the public. When police, customs, prisons or regulatory bodies become permeable to illicit money, organised crime and narcotics networks gain operational space. Parallel power structures emerge. In a country that has experienced prolonged conflict and remains exposed to hybrid and transnational threats, the loss of institutional legitimacy carries strategic risk.

Prevention

: Changing the Incentive Structure

Arrests and court productions are necessary. They are not sufficient. Lasting progress requires shifting the practical risk-reward calculation that public officials, political actors and private intermediaries face every day.

C.S. Lewis captured an essential truth when he wrote that “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” Systems that make integrity the safer and more rewarding path are the only ones that endure

First , reduce opportunities. Transparent digital procurement systems with automatic red flags, real-time beneficial-ownership verification, meaningful sanctions for non-declaration of assets, and clearer limits on discretionary power lower the returns to corruption. The expansion of digital asset declarations covering a large cadre of officials is a step in this direction; verification and enforcement must follow.

Second , realign incentives inside enforcement agencies. Successful high-quality prosecutions and asset recovery should be the clearest path to career advancement. Institutional independence and protection for investigators must be strengthened so that pursuing powerful targets carries lower personal risk.

Third , protect and encourage whistleblowers in practice, not only on paper. Accessible, confidential reporting channels, rapid response to threats, and visible punishment of retaliators change the calculation for potential insiders.

Fourth , reduce politicisation of key institutions. to anti-corruption bodies, regulatory agencies and senior investigative posts should be insulated from partisan control to the greatest extent possible.

Fifth , address the demand side where feasible. Streamlining and digitalising routine citizen-facing services reduces the points at which ordinary people feel compelled to pay. Greater transparency in the allocation of scarce opportunities narrows the space for preferential treatment.

Sixth , and critically, the entire process must remain transparent and firmly anchored in due process. Every accused person is entitled to the presumption of innocence until guilt is established in a court of law. Sri Lanka upholds this principle with confidence, and it must be seen to do so. Opacity breeds suspicion of political motive. Transparency, clear procedures, reasoned decisions, equal application of the law, and open judicial proceedings, demonstrates that the effort is a genuine legal anti-corruption process applied to wrongdoers regardless of status or affiliation, and not a campaign of selective targeting.

The new amendment proposals now moving through the legislative process will succeed or fail by this measure: whether they reinforce even-handed legal accountability or simply add sharper tools that can still be used selectively.

Sustained political commitment beyond electoral cycles remains indispensable. Short bursts of visible action generate headlines. Durable change requires consistency across governments and a willingness to accept that effective, even-handed enforcement will sometimes inconvenience allies as well as opponents

Conclusion

Sri Lanka possesses many of the formal and cultural instruments that theory suggests should restrain corruption. The persistence of the problem demonstrates that instruments alone are not enough. The decisive variables are the incentives that shape behaviour inside political, bureaucratic and enforcement institutions, the opportunities created by discretionary power and opaque processes, and the degree of politicisation of the bodies meant to uphold the rules.

The current intensity of arrests and investigations, together with the latest legislative efforts to tighten the Anti-Corruption Act, is preferable to previous patterns of near-impunity. It is not yet a sufficient condition for lasting improvement. Moving from reactive enforcement to systemic prevention requires changing the risk-reward calculation that makes corruption rational for too many actors. It also requires that the process itself remain visibly fair, transparent, and faithful to the presumption of innocence. Only then can the public, and the wider world, be confident that what is underway is a serious legal effort against corruption, and not a politicised exercise in selective retribution.

Until these deeper shifts become visible and sustained in outcomes, fewer large-scale leakages, higher rates of asset recovery, reduced absconding, consistent due process, and rising public and investor confidence, the perception that Sri Lanka remains a high-corruption environment will continue to be a reasonable reading of the evidence. The daily drama of arrests will remain a symptom rather than a cure. The harder, quieter work of realigning incentives, protecting institutional integrity, and conducting the fight against corruption with both firmness and fairness is the only reliable path beyond it.

(This analysis is offered in the interest of national security, institutional reform, and public safety)

Writer – Mahil Dole
Senior Superintendent of Police (Retd.)

Former Head of (Counter Terrorism), State Intelligence Service, Former Director, Police Special Branch and former First Secretary (defense) Sri Lanka Embassy – Thailand and former investigation consultant of the Sri Lanka Police Financial Investigation Division.

Handcuffs without consequences: Why Sri Lanka’s corruption fight keeps missing the target

By Mahil Dole, SSP (Retd.)

Senior Security Analyst | Former Head of Counter-Terrorism, State Intelligence Service | Managing Director, Smart Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Sri Lanka cannot afford to remain silent on its demographic crisis

Published

on

I venture to make this appeal because I am increasingly concerned about what appears to be an inexplicable silence surrounding one of the most consequential challenges confronting Sri Lanka, the country’s emerging demographic crisis.

Nearly a year has elapsed since the official release of the latest Census population findings by the Department of Census and Statistics. The demographic signals revealed by the Census deserve far greater public scrutiny than they have received. An ageing population, declining fertility and a contraction of the working-age population are not merely statistical observations. Together, they have profound implications for the future economic, social and institutional sustainability of the country.

Yet, remarkably, the subject has not generated the level of informed public debate one would reasonably expect from a matter of such national importance.

What concerns me even more is the apparent reticence of those who are best placed to enlighten the public, the planners, demographers, academics and scholars attached to our universities and other institutions of national importance. Their silence is difficult to understand when the demographic trajectory of a country can influence virtually every aspect of its future: economic growth, labour-force availability, pension obligations, healthcare expenditure, education planning, family structures and the sustainability of social protection systems.

This is not an issue that can safely be postponed until the consequences become unmistakable. Demographic change is notoriously slow to reverse. By the time its consequences become visible in the form of labour shortages, an excessive dependency burden or an unsustainable ageing population, the policy options available to governments may already have narrowed considerably.

The public therefore has a legitimate right to ask some fundamental questions.

Where is the national demographic strategy? What are the projections for the next 20, 30 and 50 years? How rapidly is the working-age population expected to decline? What will be the implications for economic growth and productivity? How will Sri Lanka finance the needs of an ageing population? What measures are contemplated to address declining fertility? And, perhaps most importantly, has the country begun preparing now for a demographic reality that is already taking shape?

These are not questions that should be confined to academic journals or government reports. They deserve to be debated openly in the national press and explained to the ordinary citizen in language that everyone can understand.

At the same time, I would urge our demographers, economists, planners and scholars to come forward with evidence-based assessments rather than remain silent. If my interpretation of the demographic trends is misplaced, I would welcome a scholarly rebuttal. If the situation is more serious than is generally recognized, the public deserves to know that as well.

Silence is not a demographic policy.

Sri Lanka has already experienced the consequences of failing to anticipate several national crises. We should not allow demographic change, which operates quietly but relentlessly, to become another crisis that we recognise only when it is too late to manage.

The time to discuss Sri Lanka’s demographic future is not when the crisis arrives. The time is now.

Athula Ranasinghe

Continue Reading

Trending