Connect with us

Features

Relations with US authorities and with gentleman-Minister Gamani Jayasuriya

Published

on

Irritable minister was trying to give up smoking

Now I turn briefly to the overall relationship that we had developed with the United States Department of Agriculture and other US governmental and non governmental authorities on the important aspect of ensuring wheat shipments to Sri Lanka, under aid programs. During the course of handling my responsibilities as Secretary Food, I had to travel to Washington many times. During these visits I was able to establish valuable personal contacts, in the relevant US departments and agencies. It helps both sides to know whom they are dealing with. If the relationship develops, it usually evolves towards a considerable degree of friendship, understanding and trust.

The foundation and basis is always mutual respect. When you deal with people at high levels of government in other countries, your own designation however impressive it may be is only of limited value, unless it is backed by uptodate and relevant knowledge on your subject area, experience, communication skills, wide interests and the ability to talk about them, and above all, credibility. It is only on these bases that you could establish relationships with able and sophisticated people.

I have had meetings and discussions with relevant persons in the State Department, Agency for International Development (AID), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and above all, with several officials in the Department of Agriculture (USDA.) There was an occasion where I had to go right up to the White House, about which I will write later. During these meetings, it was possible to establish considerable personal rapport, which in turn led to benefits for the country.

We received enhanced allocations of aid to purchase wheat under PL 480. This took pressure off our foreign exchange resources, and assisted the process of ensuring food security. Some of our Ambassadors in Washington during this time such as Ernest Corea and Susantha de Alwis, who served for a fairly long period were consistently helpful. The fact that they were able people who knew a wide circle of important persons, and enjoyed credibility and respect was immensely helpful.

The fact that during that period our teams to Washington which included officials from the Food Ministry, Food Department and the External Resources Department of the Treasury were all carefully chosen and consisted of able people gave us a great advantage. US officials have told us as well as our Ambassadors and on at least one occasion, I know of, the State Minister for Food that they regarded the way we conducted business as a model which they hoped other countries would emulate. All this led to the creation of a fund of goodwill and considerable respect.

There were many occasions therefore that US officials went out of their way to be helpful. I would like as an example to refer to just one such instance. This also illustrates how developing personal relationships matter. Over a couple of years I had developed a degree of friendship with a high official of the Department of Agriculture. During our meetings, we discovered that we had an intellectual interest in history. We enjoyed spending some time, both officially and socially, when we had dinner together, discussing various eras, aspects and trends in history.

This led to our exchanging books on history. He sent me a book dealing with historical trends and I sent him two paper back books Professor E.H. Carr’s “What is History?” and Professor Herbert Butterfields “The WhigInterpretation of History.” We had also talked about our families, children and so on. On one occasion when I was in Washington and called on him in his office, after the preliminary exchange of pleasantries, he announced that he had something like an extra 12 million dollars left over under the PL 480 program, due mainly to the delay in some countries acting on the allocations given to them. “Everyone is not as efficient as you are,” he said. I thanked him and quickly asked “Don’t you think it would be fair to reward efficiency?”

He said “I take your point. But naturally I can’t give you the entire amount. I will have to deal with some other countries too.” I said “Look, I am very grateful that you told me of this availability. You need not have done so at all. You know all about us. I will therefore leave it entirely to you to give us whatever you could. It will be a great help.” He thought for sometime and said “I will give you the maximum I can – US dollars 5 million.”

I thanked him most sincerely. I was indeed grateful. I kept in touch with him whenever I could even after I left the Ministry. On one occasion, when I was Secretary to the Ministry of Education and Higher Education, I had to travel to another country, and I discovered by accident that my friend was working in the US Embassy there. I telephoned the Embassy to talk to him and also see whether we could get together to have a meal. But unfortunately he was out of the country, and I had to make do with leaving a message.

We had also built excellent relations with the US Wheat Associates, the influential apex body of US wheat farmers. They had been extremely helpful in trying to obtain for us the maximum possible allocation under PL480. Our relations were so good that they invited me to attend one of their special Board meetings in Honolulu, Hawaii and deliver one of the keynote addresses at the convention of National Wheat Growers.

The authorities at the time took an enlightened approach to this kind of invitation, not regarding it as a mere trip abroad, but as an honour which should be accepted. They had the wisdom to see that the relationships built at these high levels would prove to be very useful to the country. I particularly say this because many are the times I have seen Ministers merely engaging in simple arithmetic just counting the number of times a public servant had gone abroad, instead of seriously pondering issues of relevance and value. This is not to say that public servants do not try to go abroad whenever a chance appears. Some of them certainly do. What I am commenting on is trivial bean counting and the absence of mature judgment.

Wider exposure

These visits to the United States also gave me a wider exposure, because our Ambassadors and other senior embassy officials generally, all of whom I knew very well, often discussed many issues with me and sought my views. Sometimes, if I had a free slot which coincided with one of their important meetings with high US officials, they invited me to go along with them. I remember one such occasion where Ambassador Corea took me to a luncheon meeting with some senior State Department officials, which included a previous Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Ambassador Ben Fonseka, our Permanent Representative at the UN, flew in from New York for this meeting.

When we met at the International Club in Washington, I could see that the atmosphere was warm, informal and friendly. During the introductions and the bantering before we sat down, I too entered into the spirit of the occasion and told the Americans, “Gentlemen, the Portuguese delegation has arrived.” There was loud laughter, because the three on our side were Corea, Fonseka and Pieris. Once the bantering was over, we got down to lunch and serious discussions. I saw that this was a professional discussion by experienced professionals. Much ground was covered during a relatively short period of time without visible or felt strain. An underlying thread of good humour permeated the whole proceedings. The place where the lunch was held, the International Club, was a very exclusive place. Membership usually cost around US Dollars 19,000. Fortunately, Ambassadors accredited to Washington were given honorary membership.

On some of these visits to Washington I also had the pleasure of meeting Ambassador Chris Van Hollen and his wife Eliza. I had a standing order from Chris that I was not to come to Washington and go without contacting him. Once I had lunch with them at their home in Virginia. But most times Chris used to take me to the Cosmos Club on Massachusetts Avenue, another one of those exclusive clubs in the area. At the time it was a club exclusively for men, although the process was on to admit women. Membership was strictly confined to professionals of a certain intellectual calibre holding positions in various areas such as administration and management; diplomacy; other professions such as law; medicine; etc., and academia.

I was taken round the club by Chris. The library devoted a special section to books written by members of the club, and a corridor contained the portraits of Nobel Prize winning members of the club. It was that kind of exclusive club. It was elitist. But it was an elitism not based on an aristocracy of birth, but an aristocracy of achievement. The club also ran an excellent restaurant, and at one of these lunches I was introduced by Chris to Jim Spain, Ambassador designate to Sri Lanka, who was awaiting confirmation by the Senate. These extra experiences were very enriching and added both to knowledge and perspective.

Relations with Minister Gamani Jayasuriya

The relationship of senior officials to ministers is a subject much talked of as well as written about. I propose to deal with this important area analytically, amongst other important issues of governance in a concluding chapter. At this point however, I wish to refer to my relationship with Minister Gamani Jayasuriya. He was a man of principle and a gentleman. At the time I worked with him, he held two portfolios, the one of Agricultural Development and Research, and Food and Co-operatives. I was his Secretary in the latter Ministry, whilst Mr. N.V.K.K. Weragoda was Secretary in the former. The Minister worked from both Ministries, although at times, for the sake of convenience, he used to get down relevant officials from one Ministry to the other.

Mr. Jayasuriya was responsible and conscientious in his approach to his duties, and made certain that he understood everything of importance, in the same manner as one of his outstanding predecessors, Mr. M. D. Banda. Like Mr. Banda and Mr. S.B. Herat, he did not interfere in appointments or disciplinary matters. He had confidence in his officials and expected them to do the right thing. Just to cite an example, there was once heavy pressure on him from Members of Parliament of his party to intervene in the appointment of Co-operative Inspectors. They wanted him to interfere in the results of the examination and appoint their favourites, based on the argument that they possessed the basic qualifications.

Mr. Jayasuriya steadfastly refused to interfere. After one meeting with him, angry MPs were seen leaving his room in Parliament severely criticizing him. One of them was overheard to say “How can we work with Bodhisatvas?!” He obviously wanted to safeguard basic principles. I recall walking into his room when he was with his constituents and hearing him say that he was prepared to recommend someone if deserving, but that he was not prepared to go further and exert pressure on the appointing authorities to take the person.

An argument

Temperamentally, Mr. Jayasuriya differed somewhat from my previous Minister, Mr. Herat. Mr. Herat had a very equable temperament, and found it difficult to get angry. Mr. Jayasuriya, on the contrary demonstrated at times, a peculiar mixture of affability and irritability. He was jovial at one moment, and quite testy at another. Unfortunately one day, I ran into him when he was in one of his testier moods. I happened to walk into his room in the Food Ministry one evening at about 5.30 p.m. because I had something important to discuss. As I entered, he half glared at me, and before I could say anything, proceeded to give me an order on some matter, in a peremptory tone.

His tone and manner caught me by surprise and irritated me. But more than that I saw several harmful implications in carrying out his order. Straightaway, I could think of at least two other options that were safer and better. There could have been more, if only there was time for reflection. I started to politely tell him that there were some better options, but he interrupted me halfway and with suppressed anger said “You carry out my order,” and muttered something about “bureaucracy,” under his breath.

Now I am afraid, I lost my temper. I was as an official and a person, diligent, responsible and hardworking. I was a senior Secretary. I believed that whatever appointments I got in government was due to nothing else but my own record of performance. I was beholden to nobody. Mr. Jayasuriya’s tone and manner therefore hurt, upset and angered me. I was quite charged up by now. The last time I lost my temper with a Minister was with Mrs. Bandaranaike, an event which I have recorded in an earlier chapter.

I sat down, facing him. I told him that with every passing day, I saw very little difference between Ministers and bureaucrats, because Ministers were usurping the powers and doing the work of bureaucrats; that I had a duty as his Secretary to advice him; that a duty could be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral , that on this occasion although it was unpleasant, I was still going to discharge it and say that there were much better options, two of which I quickly mentioned. The Minister was red in face gritting his teeth and speechless. I then got up and began walking towards the door saying “Now that I have discharged my duty, I will go and carry out your order.”

As I opened the door, he bellowed “Do any damned thing you want.” This of course meant that the force of what I had said had struck him and that he was prepared to reconsider. But he was very angry. By the time I came to my room, my anger had gone, because I have had my say. But I was feeling deeply upset, and guilty that I had lost my temper, which I had no business to do. There was no question, I had lost control and I was now more upset at this failure on my part, than the Minister’s tone and manner, which had triggered off this unfortunate incident.

There was nothing one could do now. What was past was past. The Commissioner of Co-operative Development, Mr. Austin Fernando was waiting for me in my room to discuss some matters. Shortly after I started talking to him, the Minister’s office-aide came in and said that the Minister had left. This was standard practice. The Secretary is usually informed when the Minister comes in, and goes out. I continued my discussion with the C.C.D, when towards 6.45 p.m. my “Hot line,” or the security telephone hooked up to a special exchange rang. It was the Minister.

“I say, Dharmasiri, I lost my temper. I am sorry,” he said. I said, “Sir, I lost mine too, and I am very sorry.” “You know, I have been trying to give up smoking over the last few days, and it is making me irritable,” Mr. Jayasuriya went on. I promptly replied “Sir, if it would help you to stop smoking, you could blackguard me everyday.”

He laughed, and the day ended on this note of amity, but not before I related the story to a curious Mr. Austin Fernando, who overheard this telephone conversation. This happened to be a Monday, and the next day Tuesday, we as usual had the Secretaries meeting at 8.30 a.m. in the Cabinet office. Dr. Malinga Fernando, who was Secretary to the Ministry of Health, walked up to me and said “So, your Minister apologized to you yesterday.” I was mystified as to how he knew. But it turned out that both of them had been at dinner together that night, where the Minister had related this story. That was the gentleman that Mr. Jayasuriya was.

(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, autobigraphy of MDD Pieris)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Sri Lanka’s vanishing wetlands put elusive otter under growing threat

Published

on

International Eurasian Otter Workshop-Colchester, United Kingdom

The world marked World Otter Day 2026 recently. Conservationists are warning that Sri Lanka’s rapidly disappearing wetlands, polluted waterways and unplanned development are placing increasing pressure on one of the island’s most elusive freshwater predators, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra).

The species, locally known as “Diya Balla”, is the only otter found in Sri Lanka and is regarded as a key indicator of healthy freshwater ecosystems. Yet despite its ecological importance, experts say the animal remains poorly studied and largely overlooked in national conservation planning.

Naturalist and conservationist Chaminda Jayasekara, who has spent years documenting otters in Sri Lanka, said the species is facing mounting environmental pressures across the island.

Speaking to The Island, Jayasekara said habitat destruction, chemical pollution, road kills, sand mining, and increasing human disturbance are fragmenting the waterways on which otters depend.

“Otters are extremely sensitive animals. When wetlands are degraded or rivers become polluted, they disappear very quickly. Their survival is directly linked to the health of freshwater ecosystems,” he said.

Jayasekara, who specialised in MSc Environmental Management at the University of Hertfordshire, noted that while the species has been recorded across Sri Lanka’s wet zone, dry zone and coastal wetlands, scientific data on population numbers and distribution remain limited.

According to him, the decline of wetlands has become one of the most serious environmental issues facing Sri Lanka. Marshes, mangroves, irrigation tanks and riverine habitats are increasingly being altered by urban expansion, tourism infrastructure, encroachment and agricultural runoff.

He warns that the loss of these habitats not only threatens otters, but also weakens flood control systems, freshwater security and biodiversity resilience at a time when climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent.

Jayasekara said otters play a vital ecological role by helping maintain balanced fish populations and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

“When otters thrive, it tells us the river system is functioning properly. Their presence is a sign that water quality, fish diversity and habitat conditions remain healthy,” he explained.

One of the best-known locations for otter sightings in Sri Lanka is Aranga Pond, within the Horton Plains National Park, where the species has adapted to the island’s cold montane ecosystem.

However, conservationists stress that even protected areas are not immune to broader environmental degradation occurring outside park boundaries.

Jayasekara’s own work on otters gained prominence through long-term conservation efforts at Jetwing Vil Uyana, where a former degraded chena landscape was restored into a functioning wetland ecosystem.

The restored habitat eventually attracted Eurasian otters, fishing cats, grey slender lorises and numerous wetland bird species.

Over 14 years, Jayasekara carried out field observations, camera trapping and awareness programmes involving hotel staff, surrounding schools and local communities.

“What happened at Vil Uyana clearly showed that habitat restoration works. If degraded ecosystems are given time to recover, wildlife can return naturally,” he said.

He added that wetland restoration should become a central component of Sri Lanka’s environmental policy, particularly as climate change intensifies droughts, floods and biodiversity loss.

Chaminda collecting scat for research purposes in Sigiriya

He says wetlands are among the planet’s most productive ecosystems, functioning as natural water filters and carbon sinks while providing breeding grounds for fish, amphibians and aquatic mammals.

Yet globally, wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate, and Sri Lanka is no exception.

Conservation groups have repeatedly warned that illegal waste disposal, pesticide contamination and poorly planned infrastructure projects are severely affecting freshwater ecosystems throughout the country.

Jayasekara also highlighted the importance of stronger environmental education and community participation in conservation.

“Awareness is still very limited. Many people living close to wetlands do not realise the ecological importance of otters or the threats they face,” he said.

According to him, involving local communities in conservation monitoring is essential if Sri Lanka hopes to safeguard the species in the long term.

He also pointed to the growing international interest in otter conservation.

In November 2025, Jayasekara represented Sri Lanka at the International Eurasian Otter Conservation Workshop held at Colchester Zoo and organised by the International Otter Survival Fund.

The workshop brought together nearly 100 researchers, conservationists and wildlife experts from 33 countries to discuss emerging threats facing Eurasian otter populations.

Jayasekara presented Sri Lanka’s experience under the theme Rewilding Through Hospitality, focusing on how habitat restoration and sustainable tourism practices at Vil Uyana contributed to otter conservation.

“The international response was extremely encouraging. Many delegates were surprised that a tourism property in Sri Lanka had quietly carried out wetland conservation work for more than a decade,” he said.

Discussions at the workshop also examined wider environmental concerns including river pollution, declining fish stocks, illegal killings and habitat fragmentation affecting otter populations across Europe and Asia.

New conservation technologies such as AI-assisted wildlife tracking and environmental DNA surveys were also highlighted as emerging tools for monitoring elusive species.

Jayasekara said Sri Lanka urgently requires more scientific surveys, stronger environmental law enforcement and greater investment in freshwater conservation research.

He warned that unless wetlands and waterways are protected, several lesser-known freshwater species could face severe decline in the coming decades.

Environmentalists say otter conservation should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader effort to protect entire freshwater ecosystems that millions of Sri Lankans depend on for drinking water, irrigation and livelihoods.

He further noted that healthy wetlands also strengthen climate resilience by absorbing floodwaters, reducing soil erosion and supporting groundwater recharge.

As Sri Lanka experiences increasingly erratic weather patterns linked to climate change, conservationists argue that protecting wetlands is becoming both an ecological and economic necessity.

Jayasekara believes Sri Lanka still has an opportunity to become a regional example in balancing tourism, biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration.

“The otter teaches us an important lesson,” he said. “If rivers are protected and wetlands are respected, nature has an incredible ability to recover.”

This year’s observance of World Otter Day 2026 is, therefore, serving not only as a celebration of one of the world’s most charismatic mammals, but also as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the fragile freshwater ecosystems upon which both wildlife and human communities ultimately depend.

Eurasian otter

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Malaiyaha Tamil people: Healing the Oldest Wound of Independence

Published

on

Hands of a Maliayaha tea estate worker

In their Vesak messages this year, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya highlighted the values of reconciliation, coexistence and justice as essential to Sri Lanka’s future. President Dissanayake emphasised that Buddhism’s teachings remain deeply relevant to contemporary society and described Vesak as a symbol of “mutual understanding, unity and coexistence among all communities” and of reconciliation itself. Prime Minister Amarasuriya similarly called for the building of a society in which justice is assured to all irrespective of caste, race or religion. These messages were not merely religious aspirations, they were a direct challenge to the most serious failures in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history. These include the three-decade-long war, its human rights violations and the inability to implement a political solution.

These have been and continue to be the challenges that have prevented Sri Lanka from reaching its full potential. Added to this have been the persistence of social and economic inequalities that continue to marginalise communities at the bottom of the social hierarchy. One of the most enduring examples of such injustice is the experience of the Malaiyaha Tamil community. The scale of the original exclusion is worth understanding clearly. According to the 1946 Census, the Malaiyaha Tamil community numbered approximately 780,600 persons and constituted 11.73 percent of the country’s population making them the second largest ethnic community, larger than the Sri Lankan Tamil community who numbered 733,700 or 11.02 percent of the population at the time

The denial of citizenship and voting rights to the Malaiyaha Tamil community was the first major injustice inflicted on an ethnic minority in post-independence Sri Lanka. The consequences were devastating and long-lasting. A community that had contributed enormously to the country’s economy through its labour on the plantations was excluded from political participation and denied basic rights. This was a political and moral failure that cast a long shadow over the country’s post-independence history. Responsibility for that injustice needs to be shared widely. Political leaders across ethnic lines failed to resist it. The result was the marginalisation of a community whose contribution to national prosperity far exceeded the recognition it received. Today, nearly eight decades later, Sri Lanka has an opportunity to correct that historic wrong but only if economic reform is matched by genuine social inclusion.

Longstanding Grievances

The NPP government has repeatedly acknowledged the need to address the longstanding grievances of the Malaiyaha Tamil people. In its election manifesto, the NPP pledged to improve living conditions in plantation areas, strengthen land and housing rights, ensure equal access to education and public services, and integrate plantation communities more fully into national development. The NPP’s Nuwara Eliya Declaration of 2023 similarly recognised that the plantation community had suffered generations of exclusion and promised measures to address disparities in housing, land ownership, infrastructure, education and economic opportunity. The need for such action is plain to see. While citizenship issues have largely been resolved over time, the socio-economic consequences of decades of exclusion remain deeply entrenched and continue to shape daily life in plantation communities.  A conference organised by the Institute of Social Development to mark International Tea Day on May 21 at the BMICH brought out this and many other salient issues.  Headed by P Muthulingam the organisation has advocated for the rights of the Malaiyaha Tamil people for the past 35 years to be equal citizens who enjoy social and economic justice.

The central problem facing many plantation workers is the low level of income they receive. Daily wages remain among the lowest in the country relative to the difficulty and intensity of the work. Plantation labour continues to depend heavily on methods that have changed little over generations. Productivity remains low compared to competing tea-producing countries — not because workers lack capability, but because sustained investment in their welfare, skills and economic mobility has been withheld. Workers consequently remain trapped in a cycle of low wages and limited economic mobility. Their housing situation compounds these difficulties. Many plantation families continue to live in housing owned either by plantation companies or the state. Lack of secure ownership limits their ability to accumulate assets, access credit or make independent decisions regarding their future. When Cyclone Ditwah damaged plantation housing, it exposed the inability of those living in that housing to access state compensation as they did not own the housing in which they lived.

The problems extend beyond the central highlands. Plantation workers living in private estates and smallholdings in other parts of the country face similar challenges. A recent Amnesty International report documented serious abuses affecting Malaiyaha Tamil workers in private tea estates in the Southern Province.  These include wage withholding, debt dependency, restrictions on movement and intimidation and practices the report argued correspond to internationally recognised indicators of forced labour. These findings are not peripheral. They reveal that the structural exclusion of the Malaiyaha Tamil community is not a relic of the past but an active, ongoing condition. Economic vulnerability and social marginalisation continue to leave many plantation workers without effective protection or access to justice. It is against this backdrop that the government’s recent plantation reform initiative assumes special significance.

Second Phase

The government has announced the second phase of a programme to make underutilised plantation lands and assets available for investment. The objective is to transform underperforming assets into productive enterprises capable of generating employment, attracting investment and revitalising regional economies. The programme seeks to modernise the plantation sector, improve productivity and create new opportunities in tourism, renewable energy and export-oriented industries. These objectives are necessary and welcome. However, economic reform alone will not be sufficient and Sri Lanka’s own history provides the warning. Previous rounds of plantation modernisation pursued productivity gains without addressing the structural disempowerment of the people at the centre of the industry. The result was investment that generated wealth without distributing it.  The workers who produced the wealth were once again treated as labour inputs rather than as beneficiaries. If the current reform follows the same logic, it risks reproducing the same failure.

For reform to succeed, plantation workers must be recognised not merely as a labour force but as stakeholders with rights, aspirations and a legitimate claim to share in the benefits of development. Housing ownership, secure land tenure, quality education, vocational training and entrepreneurship need to be built into the reform process from the outset. The government’s commitments to the Malaiyaha Tamil community therefore need to be incorporated into every stage of the reform process. On the contentious question of land, the government should consider establishing an independent national land commission. Such a body should include respected government officials, professionals and representatives from all ethnic and religious communities. It should review land policy comprehensively, develop transparent principles for allocation and use, ensure fairness in decision making and provide a trusted mechanism for resolving disputes. A credible land commission would help build public confidence that land reforms are being undertaken in the national interest rather than for the benefit of particular groups.

The correction of historic injustices should not be viewed as a concession to one community. It should be understood as an investment in national unity, because societies do not become stronger by maintaining the exclusion of those they have wronged.  On the contrary, they become stronger by ending it. The first great injustice committed against an ethnic minority after independence cannot be undone. But its consequences can be addressed, and doing so would strengthen reconciliation, enhance social cohesion and bring Sri Lanka closer to the vision of a country in which all communities live with equal dignity and equal hope. This is what the Vesak messages of the President and Prime Minister promised. The plantation reform now underway is the moment to make good on that promise not in words alone, but in sustained policy that endures beyond any single government and reaches the people who have waited longest for it.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

IMF relief is not economic recovery: Sri Lanka’s real test begins now

Published

on

The IMF’s latest decision to release approximately US$695 million to Sri Lanka provides an important measure of financial relief, but it should not be mistaken for full economic recovery. While the approval reflects progress in stabilisation, fiscal discipline, and reform implementation, the country still faces deep structural weaknesses, social pressures, and external risks. The real test begins now: whether Sri Lanka can convert this temporary breathing space into lasting reform, productive growth, stronger institutions, and national resilience. This moment should not be used for political celebration, but for serious national reflection and responsible action. Sri Lanka must now resolve to support a clear policy direction, a practical reform programme, and a long-term national development path — not merely an individual, a party, or a political camp.

1. IMF Relief: A Necessary Step, but Not a Final Solution

The IMF Executive Board recently completed the combined Fifth and Sixth Reviews under Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility, allowing the country immediate access to SDR 508 million, approximately US$695 million. This decision represents an important step in Sri Lanka’s ongoing economic recovery process following the severe crisis that led to sovereign debt default, shortages of essential goods, high inflation, and the collapse of foreign reserves in 2022.

However, this decision must be understood with great sensitivity. IMF relief is not the same as full economic recovery. It gives Sri Lanka temporary breathing space, helps rebuild a certain level of international confidence, and supports the continuation of the reform programme. However, this relief is not a magic solution that can automatically resolve the country’s deep-rooted economic problems. Fundamental challenges such as the debt burden, weak productive capacity, low export earnings, poor public revenue performance, weak fiscal management, excessive dependence on imports, corruption, and inefficient state-owned enterprises still remain unresolved. Addressing these challenges requires domestic reforms, disciplined policies, stronger production and export capacity, and a long-term national development programme. Therefore, the IMF decision should not be treated as a political victory or as proof of complete economic success. Rather, it should be seen as a reminder that Sri Lanka still has a long and difficult journey ahead.

2. Sri Lanka’s Progress Recognised by the IMF and Its Limits

The IMF’s approval indicates that Sri Lanka has made progress in several important areas. Inflation has been brought under control compared to the extreme levels experienced during the crisis. Foreign reserves have improved, the exchange rate has shown greater stability, and fiscal management has become more disciplined. The government has also continued to implement reforms in taxation, public finance, energy pricing, and debt restructuring.

According to the IMF assessment, performance under the programme has generally been strong. Several quantitative performance targets have been met, while many structural benchmarks have either been achieved or implemented with some delay. This shows that Sri Lanka has remained broadly committed to the reform path agreed under the IMF-supported programme.

Yet this progress remains fragile. Stability achieved through external support must now be converted into genuine economic strength.

3. Conditions and Responsibilities Attached to the IMF Programme

IMF support does not come merely as financial relief; it comes with a set of important reform conditions and responsibilities that Sri Lanka must fulfil. Key among them are maintaining fiscal discipline, improving government revenue, continuing cost-reflective pricing for fuel and electricity, strengthening public financial management, restructuring state-owned enterprises, protecting institutional independence, and preventing the accumulation of new external payment arrears.

The main objective of these conditions is to restore macroeconomic stability, strengthen fiscal credibility, and rebuild international confidence in Sri Lanka. However, these reforms also carry social and political consequences. Higher taxes, market-based utility pricing, and strict expenditure controls can place a heavy burden on ordinary citizens, especially low-income families, small businesses, pensioners, and salaried workers. Therefore, in implementing reforms, economic discipline alone is not enough. Fairness, transparency, and social sensitivity towards vulnerable groups must also be treated as essential priorities.

4.The Impact of IMF Conditions on People and the Economy

One major social consequence of the IMF programme is the increased pressure it can place on household incomes and living standards. When electricity, fuel, and other essential services are priced on a cost-recovery basis, people may have to face a higher cost of living. Although such reforms are necessary to reduce the losses of state-owned enterprises and maintain fiscal discipline, they can weaken the purchasing power of ordinary citizens if strong social protection programmes are not in place.

Another important consequence is the pressure placed on the operating costs and stability of small and medium-sized enterprises. Higher taxes, increased utility costs, fuel and electricity expenses, and the rising cost of borrowing can affect business survival, job creation, and new investment decisions. If reforms are implemented without sufficient attention to production, exports, and small businesses, the country may achieve short-term fiscal stability, but long-term economic growth could remain weak.

There is also a political risk that cannot be ignored. If people feel that the burden of reform is not being shared fairly, reform fatigue and public frustration may emerge. If ordinary citizens are expected to make sacrifices while corruption, waste, and political privileges continue, public confidence in the reform process will decline. Therefore, for IMF-supported reforms to succeed, fairness, transparency, and social sensitivity must be firmly ensured alongside economic discipline.

5. The Real Test Before Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s real test begins now. Beyond temporary financial relief, the country must now prove that it can build a strong economy that generates income and can withstand external shocks. Therefore, our objective should not be limited to securing the next IMF tranche. While an IMF tranche may provide short-term breathing space, it does not guarantee long-term economic independence or stability. The real objective should be to create an economy that does not have to return to the IMF repeatedly during every crisis, but can stand on its own productive strength, export earnings, and fiscal discipline.

This requires fiscal discipline. However, discipline alone is not enough; economic growth is also necessary. Taxation is necessary. But increasing taxes alone is not a solution; production, investment, and exports must also be expanded. Debt restructuring is necessary. But beyond reducing the debt burden, Sri Lanka must also build an economic foundation that does not depend excessively on borrowing in the future. Sacrifices may be asked of the people. But for those sacrifices to be fair, accountability, transparency, and exemplary conduct from leaders are also essential.

Economic recovery cannot be sustained in the long term through financial assistance alone. Such support can provide breathing space during a crisis, but a country is rebuilt on the strength of its own institutions, productive capacity, export competitiveness, and public trust. Therefore, what Sri Lanka needs today is strong institutions, income-generating industries, a broader export base, food security, energy security, and a system of governance that people can trust.

6. Policy Priorities for Sustainable Recovery

Sri Lanka must now move from crisis management to national transformation. First, fiscal discipline should continue, but it must be fair. Revenue mobilisation should not rely only on increasing taxes on the same groups of people. The tax base must be broadened, tax administration must be improved, and tax evasion must be reduced.

Second, social protection must be strengthened. The most vulnerable groups should be protected through well-targeted assistance. Reforms will be more acceptable if people feel that the poor, elderly, disabled, and low-income families are not abandoned.

Third, state-owned enterprise reform should be carried out with transparency and public accountability. The objective should not merely be privatisation, but efficiency, professionalism, financial discipline, and better service delivery.

Fourth, Sri Lanka must prioritise export-led growth. The country cannot build a stable future by depending mainly on borrowing, remittances, and consumption. Agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, IT services, logistics, education, and value-added exports must become central pillars of national development.

Fifth, governance reform is essential. Without reducing corruption, political interference, wasteful expenditure, and weak implementation, no IMF programme can create lasting recovery. Economic reform and governance reform must move together.

7. From Temporary Relief to Lasting Recovery

The IMF decision gives Sri Lanka an important opportunity. It provides the country with space to strengthen economic stability, rebuild international confidence, and move forward with essential reforms. However, it is not a guarantee of success. It is only a step that gives the country some breathing space. It is now Sri Lanka’s responsibility to use that space wisely, with discipline and accountability to the people.

The country must now decide whether it will continue the old cycle of crises, debt, temporary relief, and political blame, or whether it will build a new national programme based on discipline, productive capacity, fairness, and accountability.

At this moment, true success cannot be measured by the amount of money received. It must be measured by whether Sri Lanka can build an economy that produces more, exports more, saves more, is governed better, and protects its people more effectively. The real victory is not receiving IMF relief, but building a strong national economy that will not depend excessively on such relief in the future.

Public Appeal: Let Us Choose a Programme, Not a Personality

This US$695 million will not solve every problem in our country. It may provide temporary financial relief and support the continuation of reforms, but it cannot replace the hard work required to build a productive, disciplined, inclusive, and self-reliant economy.

Therefore, this is the right time for all Sri Lankans to rise above narrow political loyalties and support a clear policy direction, a practical reform programme, and a long-term national development agenda — not merely an individual, a party, or a political camp. What Sri Lanka needs today is not the victory of a personality, but the victory of a responsible national programme that can restore confidence, protect the vulnerable, promote production, strengthen exports, ensure accountability, and secure a better future for the next generation. The question before us is simple but decisive: are we ready to make that choice?

by Prof. Ranjith Bandara,
PhD (Qld.,)

Continue Reading

Trending