Features
Double Cab debacle – Soviet-style standardisation
The NPP government’s decision to procure 1,775 brand-new double cab pickup trucks, at a staggering cost exceeding Rs. 12,500 million, represents not merely a questionable procurement decision, but a dangerous convergence of fiscal irresponsibility, procedural irregularities, and a disturbing drift toward authoritarian governance. What the government presents as a solution to transport inefficiencies is, upon closer examination, a regressive policy that abandons proven private sector practices, multiplies taxpayer burdens, and signals an ominous shift in the political culture of our already fragile democracy.
During a TV debate last week, an NPP representative responded, saying that the LKR 12,500 million figure was merely a lease payment, when an Opposition member questioned how a brand-new double cab could cost only 7 million. Both arguments missed the mark. Yes, a vehicle can cost around 7 million when it’s duty-free, but it remains unclear whether these purchases were actually made through leasing arrangements. The real issue, however, is far more serious: if the government coffers are already overflowing with trillions, why resort to additional interest-bearing debt? This raises fundamental questions about fiscal discipline and transparency in public spending.
The Procurement Scandal: Built to Exclude
The irregularities surrounding this tender are brazen enough to warrant immediate investigation. The standard 42-day National Competitive Bidding (NCB) window was compressed into a mere 12 days, a manipulation that serves only one purpose: to limit competition and favour pre-selected bidders. When MP Dr. Harsha de Silva raised these concerns during the Budget debate, he wasn’t merely engaging in political theater; he was exposing what appears to be a textbook case of tender rigging.
The eligibility criteria look as tailored for one or two companies: 10 years of experience supplying specified vehicles, delivery of at least 1,000 similar vehicles in the past decade, 10 service centres nationwide (including five outside the Western Province), average annual turnover of Rs. 10 billion for 2017-2019, and Rs. 50 million security deposit. These requirements, combined with the compressed timeline, effectively eliminate genuine competition, a cardinal sin in public procurement.
The government’s silence on these allegations is deafening. When confronted, officials pass responsibility like a hot potato: the Ministry of Public Security claims no involvement, the Treasury points to the Department of Fiscal Policy, and Director General Dr. M.K.C. Senanayake remains unreachable. This bureaucratic shell game is precisely how corruption flourishes in broad daylight.
The Economics of Inefficiency: A Comparative Analysis
The irony of this policy becomes stark when examined through the lens of contemporary business practices and cost benefit analysis of Buy Vs Lease. The concept of “company-maintained car” has already moved toward employee car loans and allowances in many companies. This transition wasn’t ideological; it was driven by hard-nosed financial analysis. (Figure 1)

The numbers tell an unambiguous story. Under the permit system, the government bore only the cost of duty exemption, essentially foregone revenue on vehicles MPs would purchase anyway. Under the new fleet system also the government still have to bear the cost of duty exemption, in addition, taxpayers fund not just the purchase but every aspect of ownership: maintenance, insurance, fuel, depreciation, and bureaucratic overhead. This is fiscal masochism dressed as reform.
On the other hand, when employees own their vehicles, they maintain them better, use them more judiciously and carefully, and bear the consequences of their choices. The government is now racing backward toward a model that the business world rejected as inefficient and unaccountable.
The Permit “Problem” That Wasn’t
The government justifies this expensive reversal by claiming MPs exploit duty-free permits, selling them or importing luxury vehicles. This argument is intellectually dishonest on multiple levels.
First, if MPs sell their permits, so what? The permit represented the government’s contribution to their transportation needs. If an MP chose to monetize that benefit and use alternative transport, or a less expensive vehicle, that was their choice and potentially saved the government money on maintenance and fuel they would otherwise consume.
Second, the new system doesn’t eliminate the underlying incentive for personal gain; it merely socialises all costs. The “corruption” concern is a smokescreen. Under the permit system, any financial benefit accrued to the individual MP was visible. Under the fleet system, waste and corruption are diffused across bureaucratic processes, harder to trace, easier to perpetuate.
Third, and most damningly, the government now pays for everything the permit covered, plus the vehicle cost itself, plus all operating expenses. This is not reform; it’s fiscal suicide. We’ve moved from “MPs might profit from permits” to “taxpayers definitely pay for everything while MPs enjoy government-funded transport.”
The Authoritarian Creep: One Vehicle, One Choice, One System
Beyond financial stupidity there is a more frightening political motive. This policy represents a philosophical shift toward uniformity and state control that should alarm anyone who values democratic pluralism and individual autonomy, (Figure 2)

By mandating that all representatives, parliamentary as well as local government, use identical, government-issued vehicles, the regime is imposing a Soviet-style uniformity, reminiscent of the USSR’s infamous standardisation, where citizens could have any car they wanted, as long as it was a Lada. This isn’t merely about vehicles; it’s about control and conformity.
In a democracy, elected representatives should have the option to choose modes suited to their constituencies, personal circumstances, and preferences, within reasonable cost parameters. A representative from a mountainous district might need different transport than one from Colombo. An MP might prefer a more efficient sedan, such as EV, Hybrid or plug-in hybrid, over a diesel guzzler. These choices reflect democratic diversity.
The government’s “one vehicle fits all” approach betrays an authoritarian impulse: standardisation over choice, conformity over flexibility, central control over individual autonomy. When the state dictates even the vehicle you must drive, it signals a broader tendency toward control that extends beyond logistics into political culture.
The 1,775 Question: Who Benefits?
Here’s the uncomfortable arithmetic: Why 1,775 double cabs? The government’s vague explanations about “government institutions” don’t withstand scrutiny.
The timing is suspicious. With local government bodies now dominated by NPP/JVP cadres following recent electoral victories, this massive procurement looks less like rational fleet management and more like political patronage, a mechanism to reward party loyalists, strengthen party machinery, and entrench political power through material inducements.
This isn’t governance; it’s machine politics. The double cabs become instruments of political consolidation, distributed to party-faithful across the country, binding them to the regime through material dependence. The fiscal cost is borne by all citizens; the political benefit accrues exclusively to the ruling party.
Budget 2026: Short-Term Thinking, Long-Term Peril
This procurement debacle must be understood within the broader context of Budget 2026, a document that betrays alarming short-term thinking, precisely when Sri Lanka needs strategic, long-term fiscal discipline.
We face resumed debt repayments in 2028 requiring foreign reserves of at least USD 13 billion. The rupee crisis is not resolved; the revenue surge from vehicle import duties is a temporary bubble that will burst. In this precarious context, spending Rs. 12,500+ million on unnecessary vehicles while committing to billions more in recurring costs represents a dereliction of fiscal responsibility.
The NPP rode to power on promises of “system change” and exemplary governance. Instead, we’re witnessing the same old playbook: opaque tender processes, fiscal profligacy, bureaucratic obfuscation, and the use of state resources for political advantage. The party that once positioned itself “above suspicion like Caesar’s wife” now looks remarkably like Caesar himself, accumulating power, dispensing patronage, and showing contempt for democratic accountability.
The NPP government must decide: Will it honour its mandate for systemic reform, or will it become another iteration of the same corrupt, inefficient, authoritarian tendencies it once condemned? The double cab debacle is a test, and so far, the government is failing spectacularly.
The people who voted for change deserve better than a fleet of pickup trucks purchased through questionable procedures, financed by their taxes, and distributed as political favours. They deserve a government that respects democratic norms, fiscal responsibility, and the basic principle that public resources belong to the public, not to party machinery.
If the government proceeds with this procurement, despite overwhelming evidence of its folly, it will signal that we’ve moved from democracy to what the editorial of this newspaper on Tuesday 11th November, 2025, aptly termed “kleptokakistocracy”, (Klepto – from kleptocracy, meaning rule by thieves or those who exploit power for personal gain. Kakisto – from kakistocracy, meaning government by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous individuals; cracy – meaning a system of governance.
And that road leads only to ruin, fiscal, political, and moral.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)
Features
Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future
Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.
Strengthening economic growth and diversification
Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.
Job creation and social stability
The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.
Competitiveness and export expansion
Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.
Attracting domestic and foreign investment
Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.
Promoting innovation and technological upgrading
Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.
Strengthening supply chains and local linkages
Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.
Environmental sustainability and resilience
Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.
Institutional capacity and governance
Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.
Responding to global technological and trade shifts
The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.
Conclusion
Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.
(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)
BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti
Features
How to insult friends and intimidate people!
US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!
From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.
Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.
Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!
However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!
The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!
Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?
With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.
Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.
Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence
One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:
Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.
Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations. The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.
Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).
First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the economic decline, characterised by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.
If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.
Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.
Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).
It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.
Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.
Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025).
Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.
Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.
by N. A. de S. Amaratunga
-
Business4 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion3 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business2 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business2 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business2 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business1 day agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business1 day agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial2 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
