Opinion
Ranasinghe Premadasa: The man who would not take ‘No’ for an answer
Had former Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa lived to celebrate his 102nd birthday, it would have fallen on June 23, 2026. Premadasa, a politically self-made leader from humble beginnings, served as the second Executive President of Sri Lanka from 1989 until his assassination in 1993. He was the first non-aristocratic “commoner” to rise to the nation’s highest office, breaking the long-standing dominance of the landed elite, high-caste aristocracy, and wealthy political families. Emerging from modest social origins, Premadasa represented a rare example of social mobility in Sri Lankan politics. He often marked his birthdays in remote villages through the “Gam Udawa” (Village Reawakening) programme.
It is fitting to begin this column with an anecdote connected to Gam Udawa. Following the Gam Udawa ceremony in Buttala, Premadasa took a helicopter ride with several officials and identified a site in Mahiyangana for the next programme. He instructed the Director of Town and Country Planning to prepare a sketch plan for the location.
When the Director later returned to Colombo and met the President, Premadasa asked, “Where is the sketch plan?” Instead of producing a plan, the Director handed over a small piece of paper and said, “Sir, when I stepped out of the vehicle, a youth handed me this note.”
Premadasa brought the note to a meeting at Sethsiripaya attended by nearly one hundred officials and read it aloud. The message stated: “If you visit again, you will not leave alive.”
Holding up the note before the gathering, Premadasa asked sharply: “If a mere threat is enough to stop an officer from carrying out his duty, what use are such officers to the country?”
Ascendency to the Presidency
Premadasa assumed office during one of the most turbulent periods in the country’s post-independence history. Sri Lanka was engulfed in twin civil conflicts while still grappling with the consequences of the sweeping economic and constitutional changes introduced through the open economy reforms and the 1978 Constitution. Poverty had deepened, export growth had slowed, balance-of-payments pressures persisted, and external debt continued to mount. The nation stood politically divided, economically strained, and socially unsettled.
At a public meeting, Premadasa once remarked that the Presidency was not “a crown placed upon my head, but a melting pot.” He believed governance should not remain the preserve of a privileged few. Ordinary people, in his view, had to participate in every aspect of governance — from policymaking to implementation. Citizens should share both the responsibility and the benefits of development.
Premadasa often argued that the root cause of unrest was the reduction of people into “mere voting machines operating once in five years.” It was within this philosophy that he introduced the concept of poverty alleviation into Sri Lanka’s national development agenda. He frequently observed that while institutions existed for every crop, few truly existed for the people themselves.
Janasaviya (People’s Strength) Programme
Out of this thinking emerged the people-centred programme Janasaviya, which combined welfare with production-oriented development. Its objective was not merely to help the poor survive, but to enable them to rebuild their lives with dignity and self-reliance. Purpose was alleviating poverty and empowering low-income households. Initially, Janasaviya beneficiaries received baskets of essential goods, many of which consisted of inexpensive imported utensils and crockery purchased through cooperative channels. Premadasa quickly recognised the contradiction and directed that the baskets instead contain locally produced items such as brooms, pottery, serviettes, and other village products. In this way, he envisioned the village not only as a marketplace, but also as a centre of production and economic self-sufficiency. Approach was to combine welfare assistance with credit, livelihood support, and production-oriented activities aimed at self-reliance.
Landmark 200 Garment Factory Programme
Thereafter, he launched the 200 Garment Factory Programme with the purpose of decentralising industrialisation and create rural employment. Approach was to Utilize U.S. garment quotas while offering incentives and infrastructure support for investors willing to establish factories outside major urban centres. Transformed apparel into a major foreign exchange earner while creating employment opportunities, particularly for rural women. At the time, many mocked the idea, questioning whether the country could survive by “selling underwear to Western markets.” Premadasa, however, remained undeterred. Within a few years, garment factories emerged across rural Sri Lanka, bringing investment, employment, and economic activity to regions long neglected. For the first time, investors moved decisively beyond Colombo into the country’s remote periphery.
Those who attended his weekly review meetings at the BMICH would remember the relentless follow-up that characterized his leadership. Secretaries and heads of institutions responsible for urban development, housing, electricity, telecommunications, water supply, and roads rushed from office to office to ensure they could report back to the President with a simple answer: “Yes, Sir, it is done.”
One incident became emblematic of his problem-solving style. A Ceylon Electricity Board official informed an investor that electricity could not be supplied because there were no poles available in the area. Premadasa summoned the official and asked a single question: “Are there coconut trees in the area?” When the answer was yes, he immediately ordered that the lines be drawn using the coconut trees until proper poles could be installed. The issue was resolved within minutes.
Premadasa personally inspected garment factory construction sites and monitored even the smallest details. During one visit, he noticed that several roofs in the adjoining village remained uncovered. Turning to the factory manager, he instructed that by the time he returned to declare the factory open, every roof must be properly covered.
Other Key Programmes
Gam Udawa (Village Reawakening) Movement
Purpose: To provide housing for the poor and improve rural living conditions.
Focus: Development of model villages with housing, roads, schools, water supply, and health facilities. The programme was Sri Lanka’s most ambitious rural housing initiative that drew international recognition leading to the United Nations’ declaration of International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
Presidential Mobile Service
Purpose: To reduce bureaucratic delays and bring government services directly to the people.
Method: Ministers, secretaries, and senior officials travelled to the provinces to resolve public grievances on the spot creating direct engagement between the state and rural communities.
Industrial, Educational, and Cultural Initiatives
Established the Koggala Free Trade Zone and transformed the Greater Colombo Economic Commission into the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI), helping attract export-oriented investment.
Introduced free school uniforms to ease the burden on low-income families.
Established the Tower Hall Foundation to support theatre and music and introduced pension schemes for elderly artists.
Job Bank
On a concept introduced by President Premadasa, the Government established a “Job Bank” with the objective of eliminating arbitrary recruitment practices and political patronage in public sector appointments. Unemployed youth were invited to register with the Job Bank, and President Premadasa directed that vacancies in the public sector be filled from among those registered candidates through competitive written examinations and interviews rather than through ministerial recommendations or political influence.
Resource Profile
On the instructions of President Premadasa, a Resource Profile for every Divisional Secretary’s Division (DSD) was also prepared. These profiles contained detailed information on the resources, development potential, issues, and opportunities within each DS Division. The system became an important planning and development tool and continues to be updated and maintained in DSDs across the country.
Independent Verification of Information
He was also known for independently verifying information rather than relying on a single source. Soon after assuming office, a tragic accident occurred at an unprotected railway crossing in Ahangama, where a train collided with a school bus, killing and injuring students. Deeply disturbed, Premadasa ordered the General Manager of Railways (GMR) to ensure that within two weeks no unprotected railway crossing remained in the country.
When the GMR later submitted a report confirming completion, Premadasa sought independent verification from police stations around the country. One station confirmed that a crossing still remained unprotected. The GMR then faced his day of reckoning.
On another occasion, Premadasa invited opposition political parties for discussions on proposals relating to District Development and Coordination. Arriving early for the meeting, I quietly peeped into the room and saw a man rearranging furniture and shifting chairs. As he turned, smiling, he said, “Ah, you have come.” It was President Premadasa himself.
Impatience with Negativity
His impatience with bureaucratic negativity was legendary. During a discussion on land alienation and ownership, officials repeatedly explained why his proposals could not be implemented. Finally, in visible frustration, he remarked: “I have asked you to do 101 things. Is there not even one thing that all of you can do?” The officials understood the message immediately.
On another occasion, he promised every local authority a set of maintenance machinery before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. Procurement was entrusted to a senior minister, who failed to secure the equipment in time. Yet once the President fixed the date for the handing-over ceremony, “No” was not considered an acceptable answer.
At the time, I had imported several maintenance machines for distribution among Divisional Secretariats. The minister contacted me urgently and requested that I lend him the machinery for one week. Trusting his assurance, I agreed. The following day itself, the machines appeared at Galle Face Green, where an elaborate ceremony was held with local authority chairmen from across the country. President Premadasa commended the minister for the “prompt completion” of the task and ceremonially handed over the equipment. The following day, the relieved minister telephoned me and said gratefully: “Mr. Maliyadde, you saved my neck.”
Visionary Driven by Action
Premadasa was a visionary driven by action. Under his leadership, garments emerged as Sri Lanka’s first major industrial export, transforming an export economy that for more than a century had depended overwhelmingly on tea, rubber, and coconut. Even decades later, apparel remains the country’s principal industrial export sector.
Though not formally trained as an economist, Premadasa instinctively understood concepts that economists often confined to seminars — growth nodes, export diversification, value addition and forward and backward linkages. He transformed these concepts into practice.
He believed the economy could not depend solely on garment assembly. Garment factories, in his view, had to become centres of wider economic activity that stimulated industrial and social development. He encouraged textile production for local supply to garment factories, while also seeking to integrate Janasaviya beneficiaries into these expanding economic networks. For Premadasa, the garment factory programme was not merely an export initiative; it was a bridge linking the village poor, local entrepreneurs, and international markets within a single chain of opportunity.
Right Man for the Right Job
He also possessed a remarkable ability to identify the right man (not the right-hand man) for the right job. Political loyalty, caste, or creed mattered less to him than competence and commitment. That was why he appointed Susil Siriwardane, a prominent JVP activist who was involved in 1971 insurrection, for which he was detained and convicted by the courts, as the first Commissioner of Janasaviya. Many individuals chosen to lead his programmes came not from his own party, but from outside it.
President Premadasa held office for only four years. Yet within that brief period, he launched programmes with the scale and impact of decades of development.
Leadership Style
Premadasa’s leadership style was defined by relentless follow-up, strict monitoring, and an uncompromising belief that obstacles existed to be overcome. Officials knew they had to be prepared for action at any hour of the day. He cultivated a reputation as a leader who refused to accept the words “cannot” or “impossible.”
His vision sought to combine social welfare with a regulated market economy, pursuing what many viewed as a distinctly Sri Lankan “third path” of development. He remains remembered as a determined and action-oriented leader whose policies left a lasting imprint on Sri Lanka’s social and economic landscape.
(Chandrasena Maliyadde is a former Secretary, Ministry of Plan Implementation. He can be reached at chandra.maliyadde@gmail.com)
by Chandrasena Maliyadde
Opinion
Ginige Palitha Sirimal Harischandra de Silva Historian and Archivist
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.
Opinion
Handcuffs without consequences: Why Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption drive 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.
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.
Opinion
Sri Lanka cannot afford to remain silent on its demographic crisis
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
-
News5 days agoMissing doctor’s body found in Mahiyanganaya
-
News5 days agoAustralia declines to release Finance Secy Suriyapperuma’s citizenship details
-
News5 days ago22A: BASL suggests CJ recuse himself from hearing petitions
-
News2 days agoEight politicians in drug kingpin probe
-
Editorial6 days agoGovts. drag feet as undergrads age
-
Features4 days agoInsights from Chieftains of Uva: Genealogy of two Kandyan Families – Part II
-
Features4 days agoExport diversification: Missing the wood for the trees – Part I
-
Business2 days agoSri Lanka opens up: A new season of direct connectivity
