Connect with us

Features

The SJB unveils its Economic Blueprint

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

Given the scale of the crisis, it’s natural that political parties in Sri Lanka are focusing on the economy. Even if the March elections will theoretically not impact parliamentary numbers, there is bound to be a massive electoral backlash against the current government, which is led by an unelected President on the backing of a party headed by a much-reviled political dynasty. Against such a backdrop, the Opposition, especially the more left-wing and radical sections, is bound to bring about some pressure on the government to shift from its current economic policies. However, whether these tactics succeed will depend on the policies that these outfits parade as alternatives to the current setup.

The Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) is Sri Lanka’s main Opposition party. Its leader, Sajith Premadasa, is the country’s Leader of the Opposition. As such what the party says and what its party MPs say in public, on the business of governance and on economic policy, is rather important. The SJB can be described as an offshoot of the United National Party (UNP), but this would be to overlook the many convulsions, not to mention ideological disagreements, within the party. These divisions have surfaced in recent months, particularly over issues like IMF reforms and financial austerity, with the party’s neoliberal right-wing flank arguing that there is no alternative to them, and its centrist and populist flanks – the latter hosting none less than the party leader – advocating a reassessment of such policies.

Weeks after the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) held an Economic Forum at the Galadari, the SJB unveiled what it calls an Economic Blueprint at the Hilton. Titled “Out of the Debt Trap and towards Sustainable, Inclusive Development”, the document, which was part of a wider Economic Summit that saw the participation of diplomats and policymakers, and academics, is self-explanatory: it focuses on the ways and means by which the SJB intends to salvage the economy from the present debt crisis. It focuses on 10 areas: these include not just economic policies like revenue collection, energy and utilities reform, and factor market reform, but also political issues like transparency and accountability. The Summit was basically a roadmap put together by the SJB’s Economic Policy Unit (EPU), led by its economic troika: Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickramaratne, Kabir Hashim.

The Summit began by laying the blame for the current crisis on two things: “leftism” and “popularism.” I am not sure whether they meant to say “populism.” It then went on to laud the economic reforms of the J. R. Jayewardene regime and the reforms proposed by Ranil Wickremesinghe at the 2004 election, implicitly bemoaning the latter’s defeat to populist forces. Speaking at a press conference days after the NPP unveiled its Summit, Kabir Hashim had argued that the JVP, in urging Mahinda Rajapaksa to reverse these policies, contributed to the present debt situation. At the Summit these points were reiterated, defiantly, with Harsha de Silva advocating an IMF-centric solution. Whatever election posturing that SJB MPs indulged in over the last few weeks, including Eran Wickramaratne’s proposal to up the taxable income from Rs 100,000 to Rs 250,000, were forgotten.

The event won praise from those who are broadly supportive of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s economic reforms, even if they do not like Ranil Wickremesinghe. Economic commentators and academics who had earlier castigated the SJB’s populist posturing applauded the EPU on the grounds that a mainstream party had finally given them the solutions they wanted to hear. They had reason to be jubilant. From beginning to end, the Economic Blueprint carries forward the yahapalanist rhetoric of a social market economy and advocates liberalisation, while criticising tax holidays and calling for the restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises and greater flexibility in factor markets. On all these issues the party’s EPU toes a neoliberal line: for instance, it notes that the country’s labour market is notoriously inefficient, in large part because “public sector recruitment is excessive.”

The audience at the Economic Summit, as I wrote above, consisted of those who support the President’s reforms though they oppose the President politically. These are the people who claim that the President has to go, but his policies have to remain, because, to bring up that oft-quoted neoliberal quip, “there is no alternative.” The Economic Blueprint does not, hence, dwell on manufacturing and industrialisation, but instead contents itself on linking Sri Lanka to what it calls Global Production Networks. To its credit, it also dwells on graphite and the importance of securing it as a crucial foreign exchange earner. Indeed, three years ago Harsha de Silva contended that, should the SJB be the party in power, he would “bring in a bill” to protect its supply. Yet such proposals are few and far between, and for the most are consigned to boxes, footnotes, and endnotes.

Talking of footnotes and endnotes, the document makes absolutely no mention of the development paradigms pursued, and put into effect, by Ranasinghe Premadasa: what Dayan Jayatilleka describes as “growth with equity.” It was in Premadasa’s presidency that Sri Lanka embarked on a radical garment factories programme, implementing policies that Communist Vietnam was implementing at the same time. Today Vietnam has gone beyond being a manufacturer for Global Production Networks, and we have lagged. The document does not mention why this was so, but the facts speak for themselves: after Premadasa’s assassination, the government which succeeded him went on liberalising and foreignizing, reversing four years of development and promoting a policy of capitulation to global finance that every government since 1994 have been unreservedly pursuing.

If the SJB has not forgotten the Ranasinghe Premadasa factor, it is only because its leader happens to be Ranasinghe Premadasa’s son. At one point in the Summit the moderator, the ever-eloquent Kusum Wijetilleke, queried Sajith on what his party would do vis-à-vis IMF reforms. Sajith was blunt: he invoked his father, and correctly pointed out that negotiations are a two-way street. This is in stark contrast to those who tout IMF reforms as the only way forward and imply that the present administration, far from enforcing IMF dicta on SOEs and public sector recruitment, is not enforcing them enough. However, though Kusum’s question was posed to clear doubts about the SJB’s contradictory rhetoric on economic reforms, Sajith’s response only reinforced those contradictions: between his “negotiating better” approach and the EPU’s “IMF-centrism”, there is a palpable gap.

The reforms that the SJB’s Economic Blueprint advocates also raises important, thought-provoking questions about the practicality of the SJB’s programme. Against a backdrop of widespread discontent at the present regime’s policies,

how pragmatic would it be for the Opposition to blame the country’s problems on public sector recruitment, and how well received would policies aimed at making the labour market more “flexible” – doublespeak for making workers easier to fire and hire – be? Trade unionisation in this country is centred in the public sector, and unions are important ideological levers as far as the bureaucracy in Sri Lanka is concerned. No party here won power, or stayed in power, by alienating them. Besides, the SJB faces a strong opponent in the JVP-NPP. From a practical perspective, does it make sense to antagonise the latter’s most powerful urban constituency?

The SJB’s response to the JVP-NPP has been to conduct a McCarthyite campaign against their policies on social media. Prominent SJB activists, who were seen as progressive once upon a time, have wholeheartedly joined these efforts: one of them has gone as far as to imply that a vote for the JVP-NPP would be a vote for socialism and thereby a vote for the destruction of the economy. Such logic befuddles me, not least because it begs the question as to how exactly the economy has benefited from decades of divestment, privatisation, and untrammelled capitulation to global finance. The SJB probably knows that it cannot in all good faith answer these questions. Fear is a convenient ploy for a political party when there’s nothing else to resort to. The SLPP lavishly indulged in it against the UNP four years ago: that a section of the SJB is indulging in it speaks volumes about its values.

The tragedy in all this is that the SJB, as the country’s main Opposition, does have an answer to these issues: Ranasinghe Premadasa’s policies. Those policies, as Dayan Jayatilleka pointed out many years ago, need not be the preserve of the Premadasa family or parties associated with them. It can be enforced by anyone, by any outfit.

The Premadasa government was linked to some of the most respectable economic minds of the day, and many of them found a home at the Institute of Policy Studies: an organisation that, once upon a time, concerned itself with industrialisation-led development strategies. These economists and academics included Howard Nicholas, who has never even once been consulted by the SJB’s “Brains Trust.” This is not to say that the Premadasa administration was perfect, because it was not. Yet Jana Saviya, the 200 Garment Factories Programme, the peoplisation of the bus service, and the pragmatic, gradual privatisation of the plantations, all formed part of a wider strategy to combine growth with equity. It is this philosophy that the SJB must imbibe. But perhaps this is asking for too much.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Disaster-proofing paradise: Sri Lanka’s new path to global resilience

Published

on

iyadasa Advisor to the Ministry of Science & Technology and a Board of Directors of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Council A value chain management consultant to www.vivonta.lk

As climate shocks multiply worldwide from unseasonal droughts and flash floods to cyclones that now carry unpredictable fury Sri Lanka, long known for its lush biodiversity and heritage, stands at a crossroads. We can either remain locked in a reactive cycle of warnings and recovery, or boldly transform into the world’s first disaster-proof tropical nation — a secure haven for citizens and a trusted destination for global travelers.

The Presidential declaration to transition within one year from a limited, rainfall-and-cyclone-dependent warning system to a full-spectrum, science-enabled resilience model is not only historic — it’s urgent. This policy shift marks the beginning of a new era: one where nature, technology, ancient wisdom, and community preparedness work in harmony to protect every Sri Lankan village and every visiting tourist.

The Current System’s Fatal Gaps

Today, Sri Lanka’s disaster management system is dangerously underpowered for the accelerating climate era. Our primary reliance is on monsoon rainfall tracking and cyclone alerts — helpful, but inadequate in the face of multi-hazard threats such as flash floods, landslides, droughts, lightning storms, and urban inundation.

Institutions are fragmented; responsibilities crisscross between agencies, often with unclear mandates and slow decision cycles. Community-level preparedness is minimal — nearly half of households lack basic knowledge on what to do when a disaster strikes. Infrastructure in key regions is outdated, with urban drains, tank sluices, and bunds built for rainfall patterns of the 1960s, not today’s intense cloudbursts or sea-level rise.

Critically, Sri Lanka is not yet integrated with global planetary systems — solar winds, El Niño cycles, Indian Ocean Dipole shifts — despite clear evidence that these invisible climate forces shape our rainfall, storm intensity, and drought rhythms. Worse, we have lost touch with our ancestral systems of environmental management — from tank cascades to forest sanctuaries — that sustained this island for over two millennia.

This system, in short, is outdated, siloed, and reactive. And it must change.

A New Vision for Disaster-Proof Sri Lanka

Under the new policy shift, Sri Lanka will adopt a complete resilience architecture that transforms climate disaster prevention into a national development strategy. This system rests on five interlinked pillars:

Science and Predictive Intelligence

We will move beyond surface-level forecasting. A new national climate intelligence platform will integrate:

AI-driven pattern recognition of rainfall and flood events

Global data from solar activity, ocean oscillations (ENSO, MJO, IOD)

High-resolution digital twins of floodplains and cities

Real-time satellite feeds on cyclone trajectory and ocean heat

The adverse impacts of global warming—such as sea-level rise, the proliferation of pests and diseases affecting human health and food production, and the change of functionality of chlorophyll—must be systematically captured, rigorously analysed, and addressed through proactive, advance decision-making.

This fusion of local and global data will allow days to weeks of anticipatory action, rather than hours of late alerts.

Advanced Technology and Early Warning Infrastructure

Cell-broadcast alerts in all three national languages, expanded weather radar, flood-sensing drones, and tsunami-resilient siren networks will be deployed. Community-level sensors in key river basins and tanks will monitor and report in real-time. Infrastructure projects will now embed climate-risk metrics — from cyclone-proof buildings to sea-level-ready roads.

Governance Overhaul

A new centralised authority — Sri Lanka Climate & Earth Systems Resilience Authority — will consolidate environmental, meteorological, Geological, hydrological, and disaster functions. It will report directly to the Cabinet with a real-time national dashboard. District Disaster Units will be upgraded with GN-level digital coordination. Climate literacy will be declared a national priority.

People Power and Community Preparedness

We will train 25,000 village-level disaster wardens and first responders. Schools will run annual drills for floods, cyclones, tsunamis and landslides. Every community will map its local hazard zones and co-create its own resilience plan. A national climate citizenship programme will reward youth and civil organisations contributing to early warning systems, reforestation (riverbank, slopy land and catchment areas) , or tech solutions.

Reviving Ancient Ecological Wisdom

Sri Lanka’s ancestors engineered tank cascades that regulated floods, stored water, and cooled microclimates. Forest belts protected valleys; sacred groves were biodiversity reservoirs. This policy revives those systems:

Restoring 10,000 hectares of tank ecosystems

Conserving coastal mangroves and reintroducing stone spillways

Integrating traditional seasonal calendars with AI forecasts

Recognising Vedda knowledge of climate shifts as part of national risk strategy

Our past and future must align, or both will be lost.

A Global Destination for Resilient Tourism

Climate-conscious travelers increasingly seek safe, secure, and sustainable destinations. Under this policy, Sri Lanka will position itself as the world’s first “climate-safe sanctuary island” — a place where:

Resorts are cyclone- and tsunami-resilient

Tourists receive live hazard updates via mobile apps

World Heritage Sites are protected by environmental buffers

Visitors can witness tank restoration, ancient climate engineering, and modern AI in action

Sri Lanka will invite scientists, startups, and resilience investors to join our innovation ecosystem — building eco-tourism that’s disaster-proof by design.

Resilience as a National Identity

This shift is not just about floods or cyclones. It is about redefining our identity. To be Sri Lankan must mean to live in harmony with nature and to be ready for its changes. Our ancestors did it. The science now supports it. The time has come.

Let us turn Sri Lanka into the world’s first climate-resilient heritage island — where ancient wisdom meets cutting-edge science, and every citizen stands protected under one shield: a disaster-proof nation.

Continue Reading

Features

The minstrel monk and Rafiki the old mandrill in The Lion King – I

Published

on

Why is national identity so important for a people? AI provides us with an answer worth understanding critically (Caveat: Even AI wisdom should be subjected to the Buddha’s advice to the young Kalamas):

‘A strong sense of identity is crucial for a people as it fosters belonging, builds self-worth, guides behaviour, and provides resilience, allowing individuals to feel connected, make meaningful choices aligned with their values, and maintain mental well-being even amidst societal changes or challenges, acting as a foundation for individual and collective strength. It defines “who we are” culturally and personally, driving shared narratives, pride, political action, and healthier relationships by grounding people in common values, traditions, and a sense of purpose.’

Ethnic Sinhalese who form about 75% of the Sri Lankan population have such a unique identity secured by the binding medium of their Buddhist faith. It is significant that 93% of them still remain Buddhist (according to 2024 statistics/wikipedia), professing Theravada Buddhism, after four and a half centuries of coercive Christianising European occupation that ended in 1948. The Sinhalese are a unique ancient island people with a 2500 year long recorded history, their own language and country, and their deeply evolved Buddhist cultural identity.

Buddhism can be defined, rather paradoxically, as a non-religious religion, an eminently practical ethical-philosophy based on mind cultivation, wisdom and universal compassion. It is  an ethico-spiritual value system that prioritises human reason and unaided (i.e., unassisted by any divine or supernatural intervention) escape from suffering through self-realisation. Sri Lanka’s benignly dominant Buddhist socio-cultural background naturally allows unrestricted freedom of religion, belief or non-belief for all its citizens, and makes the country a safe spiritual haven for them. The island’s Buddha Sasana (Dispensation of the Buddha) is the inalienable civilisational treasure that our ancestors of two and a half millennia have bequeathed to us. It is this enduring basis of our identity as a nation which bestows on us the personal and societal benefits of inestimable value mentioned in the AI summary given at the beginning of  this essay.

It was this inherent national identity that the Sri Lankan contestant at the 72nd Miss World 2025 pageant held in Hyderabad, India, in May last year, Anudi Gunasekera, proudly showcased before the world, during her initial self-introduction. She started off with a verse from the Dhammapada (a Pali Buddhist text), which she explained as meaning “Refrain from all evil and cultivate good”. She declared, “And I believe that’s my purpose in life”. Anudi also mentioned that Sri Lanka had gone through a lot “from conflicts to natural disasters, pandemics, economic crises….”, adding, “and yet, my people remain hopeful, strong, and resilient….”.

 “Ayubowan! I am Anudi Gunasekera from Sri Lanka. It is with immense pride that I represent my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka.

“I come from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka’s first capital, and UNESCO World Heritage site, with its history and its legacy of sacred monuments and stupas…….”.

The “inspiring words” that Anudi quoted are from the Dhammapada (Verse 183), which runs, in English translation: “To avoid all evil/To cultivate good/and to cleanse one’s mind -/this is the teaching of the Buddhas”. That verse is so significant because it defines the basic ‘teaching of the Buddhas’ (i.e., Buddha Sasana; this is how Walpole Rahula Thera defines Buddha Sasana in his celebrated introduction to Buddhism ‘What the Buddha Taught’ first published in1959).

Twenty-five year old Anudi Gunasekera is an alumna of the University of Kelaniya, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in International Studies. She is planning to do a Master’s in the same field. Her ambition is to join the foreign service in Sri Lanka. Gen Z’er Anudi is already actively engaged in social service. The Saheli Foundation is her own initiative launched to address period poverty (i.e., lack of access to proper sanitation facilities, hygiene and health education, etc.) especially  among women and post-puberty girls of low-income classes in rural and urban Sri Lanka.

Young Anudi is primarily inspired by her patriotic devotion to ‘my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka’. In post-independence Sri Lanka, thousands of young men and women of her age have constantly dedicated themselves, oftentimes making the supreme sacrifice, motivated by a sense of national identity, by the thought ‘This is our beloved Motherland, these are our beloved people’.

The rescue and recovery of Sri Lanka from the evil aftermath of a decade of subversive ‘Aragalaya’ mayhem is waiting to be achieved, in every sphere of national engagement, including, for example, economics, communications, culture and politics, by the enlightened Anudi Gunasekeras and their male counterparts of the Gen Z, but not by the demented old stragglers lingering in the political arena listening to the unnerving rattle of “Time’s winged chariot hurrying near”, nor by the baila blaring monks at propaganda rallies.

Politically active monks (Buddhist bhikkhus) are only a handful out of  the Maha Sangha (the general body of Buddhist bhikkhus) in Sri  Lanka, who numbered just over 42,000  in 2024. The vast majority of monks spend their time quietly attending to their monastic duties. Buddhism upholds social and emotional virtues such as universal compassion, empathy, tolerance and forgiveness that protect a society from the evils of tribalism, religious bigotry and death-dealing religious piety.

Not all monks who express or promote political opinions should be censured. I choose to condemn only those few monks who abuse the yellow robe as a shield in their narrow partisan politics. I cannot bring myself to disapprove of the many socially active monks, who are articulating the genuine problems that the Buddha Sasana is facing today. The two bhikkhus who are the most despised monks in the commercial media these days are Galaboda-aththe Gnanasara and Ampitiye Sumanaratana Theras.  They have a problem with their mood swings. They have long been whistleblowers trying to raise awareness respectively, about spreading religious fundamentalism, especially, violent Islamic Jihadism, in the country and about the vandalising of the Buddhist archaeological heritage sites of the north and east provinces. The two middle-aged monks (Gnanasara and Sumanaratana) belong to this respectable category. Though they are relentlessly attacked in the social media or hardly given any positive coverage of the service they are doing, they do nothing more than try to persuade the rulers to take appropriate action to resolve those problems while not trespassing on the rights of people of other faiths.

These monks have to rely on lay political leaders to do the needful, without themselves taking part in sectarian politics in the manner of ordinary members of the secular society. Their generally demonised social image is due, in my opinion, to  three main reasons among others: 1) spreading misinformation and disinformation about them by those who do not like what they are saying and doing, 2) their own lack of verbal restraint, and 3) their being virtually abandoned to the wolves by the temporal and spiritual authorities.

(To be continued)

By Rohana R. Wasala ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result of this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Trending