Features

Kumar David at 80: Engineer, Scholar, Socialist

Published

4 years ago

2021/07/25

by Rajan Philips

Professor Kumar David will be turning 80 later this week, on July 29. He is most familiar to readers of the Sunday Island as one of its regular columnists – trenchant, funny, irreverent, provocative, but always well informed and substantial. Most readers also know that Kumar David is a great deal more than a weekly columnist. More than occasionally, he has donned his academic cap as a Professor of Electrical Engineering to wade into Sri Lanka’s power and energy sector and its recurrent crises. At least on one occasion he turned his column into a public lecture to his former students at the Ceylon Electricity Board, reminding them of what he taught them at Peradeniya about electricity pricing and asking what on earth they were doing as practicing Engineers in determining consumer electricity tariffs to suit misguided government policy. Often, he uses his space to popularize science in the manner of a dedicated teacher bringing his students up to date with recent advances in science and technology, and revisiting old debates with the enthusiasm of yore but with new information and nuances.

As an Electrical Engineer, Kumar David has scaled the mountain height both in the world of academia and in the power supply and transmission industry. He graduated with First Class Honours in Electrical Engineering from the University of Ceylon in 1963. He was a Commonwealth Scholar for three years (1966-1969) at the Imperial College of Science & Technology, University of London, completing his PhD and DIC in 1969.

He is a Fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and the USA, receiving citations for his contributions to the restructuring of the electricity supply industry and transmission development, which has been his main research area in recent decades. In Sri Lanka, he was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Ceylon Electricity Board when he was 29. He has been an industry consultant in Asian and African countries. He has held visiting professorships and research positions in universities in the US and Sweden.

He taught at Peradeniya for over ten years until 1980, in Zimbabwe for three years (1980-1983), and from 1983 for over 25 years in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where he retired as Dean, Faculty of Engineering. He was the first non-European to become Dean of Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic, which is a centre of excellence for students from China and other neighbouring countries. Kumar David has navigated the rites of passage for generations of students in Sri Lanka, Africa and many Asian countries obtaining their undergraduate and graduate degrees in Engineering.

A Lifelong Sama Samajist

For all his extended sojourns overseas, Kumar David never totally left the country, and certainly not its politics. He remains a Sri Lankan citizen, he is not a (dual) citizen of any other country, and he carries only a Sri Lankan passport. When he began his weekly writings in the Sunday Island 15 years ago, he was beginning his retirement as Dean of Engineering in Hong Kong. To strike a nostalgic note, Kumar David and I belong to a group of Sri Lankans who would be happy to be identified as students of the Hector Abhyavardhana school of political writing. Other and more illustrious members of the group include Tissa Vitarana, Vijaya Kumar, Shantha de Alwis, Chris Rodrigo, Sumanasiri Liyanage, Jayampathy Wickremaratne, Jayantha Somasundaram, and the late Ajith Samaranayake.

Hector, an accomplished Marxist intellectual and LSSP theoretician, never wrote for the mainstream media. First in India (1945-1960) and later in Sri Lanka, he published his own political journals. We wrote for Hector in Sri Lanka. Our foray into mainstream media is a relatively recent development. Interestingly, if not coincidentally, Tissa Vitarana, Kumar David, and yours truly appear practically every week in the Sunday Island. Our political angles are different, but as Bala Tampoe said while appearing on the same platform, in Kandy, with his erstwhile mentor Dr. Colvin R de Silva, soon after Colvin became a United Front Government Minister in 1970, “Our positions may be different, but our priorities should remain the same.”

Kumar David, S. Balakrishnan and I might be the only people alive of the core group that included Fr. Paul Caspersz, Bala Tampoe, Upali Cooray, Jayaratne Maliyagoda, Prins Rajasooriya, Yohan Devananda, and Regi Siriwardena, who launched the Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality (MIRJE) in 1979. Silan Kadirgamar spearheaded the MIRJE Branch in Jaffna. MIRJE fact finding missions visited Jaffna and documented human rights violations during the 1979 Emergency and the burning of the Public Library in 1981. It is pathetic to see now spurious narratives being bandied to falsify the unfalsifiable truth about the burning of the Jaffna Public Library. Be that as it may.

Kumar has been a lifelong political activist. Indeed, a lifelong Sama Samajist. Inspired by the 1953 Hartal, he joined the LSSP Youth Movement at the age of 12. And 68 years on, he has not looked back, but marched on. He became a full Member of the LSSP as a first-year undergraduate in 1960, and functioned as Secretary of the LSSP University Local (Branch). He was one of the two youngest members (the other being Lal Wijeynaike, Lawyer and now of the NPP) at the historic 1964 Conference of the Party. It was a Special Conference held on June 6 and 7, to resolve the ‘coalition question.’ The majority resolution calling for an SLFP-LSSP government moved by NM Perera and 21 Central Committee Members prevailed.

Those who moved the defeated left-opposition resolution rejecting the SLFP-LSSP coalition, including stalwarts like Edmund Samarakoddy and Bala Tampoe, dramatically walked out of the conference and broke away from the Party. As the dust of drama settled, a devastated Kumar David had sunk to the floor below the stage, when a huge hand reaching from above tapped his head and a deep voice followed: “It’s not the end of the world, young man.” It was Colvin, who with Leslie Goonewardene and Bernard Soysa, had moved the “centrist resolution’ calling for a progressive SLFP-ULF government. That resolution was also defeated but they did not leave the Party.

In 1970, Kumar David was one of a triumvirate of young Sama Samajists who set up a secret internal left faction (Vaama Sama Samaja group) within the LSSP. The prime mover was Wickramabahu Karunaratne (Bahu), and the third member was Vasudeva Nanayakkara. All three were rising stars in the LSSP that had just won a massive electoral victory as a coalition partner of the United Front of the SLFP, the LSSP and the CP. Kumar was 29 and Bahu 27, and both were young lecturers in Engineering at Peradeniya. Vasudeva was 31 and the film star face of the future LSSP. Vasudeva and Bahu were members of the LSSP Central Committee and Kumar David was on the Board of Directors of the (Ceylon) Electricity Board. The aim of the secret faction was to restore the LSSP to its pre-1964 roots through an internal struggle from within the Party, without leaving the Party. By 1977, however, all three were outside the LSSP and had launched the new Nava Sama Samaja Party.

1977 also marked the electoral decimation of the Sri Lankan Left, and decimation, as well, of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary system. The terms of politics changed with the new presidential system, the opening of the economy, and the violent eruption of the national question. The end of the internal war in 2009 precipitated new challenges while old problems have kept pressing for new solutions. The base fundamentals have not changed but new superstructural issues have emerged and become dominant. The old generation of leaders, the old Left leaders in particular, who dominated post-independence politics are now gone, and the new generation of politicians who are filling the vacuum are neither well-grounded in the institutions they have inherited, nor are they particularly well equipped to adapt to new changes occurring locally and globally.

It is this new 21st century situation that provides the context for Kumar David’s current political writings. Often, Kumar David disparages what is left of the Old Left as dead Left, and berates and cajoles the JVP to rise above its past follies and seize the current moment and provide a new progressive, secular and pluralistic alternative. He was perhaps the first commentator to call for a single-issue (abolish the presidency) common presidential candidate in 2014, and he was the only observer to raise the alarm even before the 2015 January election (much to the chagrin of many that Kumar was as usual rocking the boat) – that the common candidacy of Maithripala Sirisena was being opportunistically diluted too much to be able to fulfill its historic purpose and potential. Unfortunately, his critical foresight has been proved to be correct. And worse was to follow and has followed. The country that was supposed to recuperate under a new President after the 2019 presidential election, is now in the worst dystopic spiral ever – doubly bound by a global pandemic and government incompetence.

The Intellectual and the Party

Kumar David was born on July 29, 1941, to Ceylon Tamil parents, Benedict and Amybelle David. Kumar credits his mother to have been the greatest influence in his life. He learnt his values from her – the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. His father was a Hulftsdorp Advocate who joined the Judicial Service, served in different parts of the island, and retired as Chief Magistrate Colombo. His maternal grandfather James Joseph was a District Judge, and his maternal uncle Andrew Joseph was a Sri Lankan and UN Diplomat, who retired as Deputy Director UNDP. Kumar’s paternal grandparents and maternal grandfather were Catholics, while his maternal grandmother was a strong Anglican. Kumar also traces his roots to Hinduism through his mother, whose paternal grandfather was a Hindu, who became a Catholic, changing his name from Murugesupillai to Joseph, to marry the young Catholic woman whom he besotted. Kumar’s Catholic forefathers were a well-established Catholic community in Jaffna town. They were benefactors of the local Church and custodians of Jaffna’s St. Mary’s Cathedral parish.

Kumar grew up in Colombo, living in Ratmalana and later in Thimbirigasaya. He went to school at St. Thomas’s College, Mount Lavinia. His university education in Engineering was also in Colombo, as the Engineering Faculty was then located in Colombo until its relocation to Peradeniya in 1964. Kumar’s fascination for Marxism and Left politics and his path to the LSSP were influenced by his stepfather, Lloyd de Silva, who his mother married in 1953. An LSSPer, Lloyd de Silva had a good library of Marxist texts, open to be devoured by someone young, curious and necessarily intelligent. Kumar also became introduced to almost all of the LSSP leaders. Colvin, Bernard and Hector were frequent visitors to their house. Kumar recalls the day after SWRD Bandaranaike’s election victory in 1956, when Colvin R de Silva walked into their house like a huge giant and booming out “Lloyd, tomorrow we are going to have a new government.”

Political organizations play a socializing role in facilitating shared responses to social situations. A revolutionary workers’ party is set up to play, in Leninist terms, a vanguard role and spearhead the cause of social revolution. The party invariably draws on two contradictory segments of society: the social elites from the upper echelons of society carrying the ‘political consciousness’, and dispossessed workers from the bottom drawers of society carrying the ‘psychological consciousness.’ The resulting fusion is what Georg Lukacs called the “imputed consciousness” of the political party. There is also a process of cultural transformation in which, as Hector once described, the worker “enlarges his vision and understanding and acquires the attributes of the highest contemporary human culture; and the elite member “liberates intelligence and knowledge from the vanity of mere intellectual prowess and mellows it with identification and belonging to society as a whole.”

The Lanka Sama Samaja Party, founded in December 1935, was Sri Lanka’s first political party. Its founding leaders, Philip Gunawardena, NM Perera, SA Wickremasinghe, Colvin R de Silva, Leslie Goonewardene – were all young men in their twenties and thirties. Almost all of them were drawn from the highest echelons of Sri Lankan society, but based more on their educational qualifications and accomplishments than by possession of property or any other form of wealth. They were the bearers of a new political consciousness not just for the nascent party but for an entire politically dormant country. For the psychological or experiential consciousness, they turned to the island’s “toiling masses.”

The inaugural manifesto of the Party identified the establishment of a socialist society as “the primary aim” of the Party, the prevailing imperialist rule as the biggest obstacle to political independence and socialist emancipation, and “the toiling masses” as the sole agency to carry out the struggle against imperialism. Thus, the LSSP was born as a bi-modal party, articulating a disciplined cadre component and a positively populist mass base. The founding of the LSSP lit a fire among the island’s intelligentsia and for at least three decades some of the brightest and the best in Sri Lanka were drawn to politics initially because of the LSSP, and later because of both the LSSP and the CP.

The recruitment, or the calling, certainly diminished and dried up presumably after 1964. But during the 1940s, 1950, and even a good part of the 1960s, young pre-university and university students in not insignificant numbers felt inspired to join either of the two Left parties. Kumar David answered his calling when he was twelve inspired by the 1953 Hartal. He was also drawn from the elitist segment of Sri Lankan society, but like many others of his ilk and thanks to the Party he joined, he was able to make a bonfire of inherited vanities and identify his many abilities and attributes with the society as a whole.

Politics without Power

Kumar David and those of his generation joined the LSSP or the CP when the two parties were at the height of their powers. But already in the 1940s, there were developments that would hamstring the Left in general, and the LSSP in particular, in the years after independence. From the very inception of the LSSP, the conservative social and political forces imposed a permanent electoral handicap on the Party by characterizing it as a low-caste, anti-religious, and pro-Indian Party. Another handicap, involving language, would be added after independence.

The proscription (1940-1945) of the LSSP by the colonial government and the attendant expulsion (1940-1947) of NM Perera and Philip Gunawardena from the State Council precluded the Party from open political activity. In their four years in State Council NM and Philip, even without ministerial powers, laid the bedrock foundation for Sri Lanka’s social welfarism. The years of proscription and the expulsion were lost years for the LSSP, which could never be fully recuperated.

Even so, the LSSP resumed politics with a bang and independence arrived in 1948, earlier than anyone expected and accelerated by the 1947 strike. The 12 August 1953 Hartal was certainly the highest point of mass activity in Sri Lanka’s history. The Hartal which began with strike action by workers was soon overtaken by the protesting energy of the “toiling masses.” The Hartal enhanced the political muscle of the Left, but not its electoral fortunes. Its ultimate outcome was the defeat of the UNP government in 1956, and the election of the MEP-SLFP coalition under SWRD Bandaranaike that included the Philip Gunawardena (MEP) faction of the old LSSP.

The SLFP that reaped the rewards in 1956 had stood on the sidelines in 1953. It may not be widely known now, but the only other party in parliament to fully join the Left Parties in the Hartal was the Tamil Federal Party. As well, the victory of the MEP-SLFP coalition was ensured by the no-contest agreement it had with the LSSP and the CP to avoid inter-party vote splitting. In March 1960, the LSSP made an all-out but unsuccessful attempt to form a government on its own. The 1960 failure was the beginning of formal coalition politics that led to the formation of the United Front government in 1970.

The years and decades after 1953 and 1964 have seen recurrent questions and criticisms about the alleged failure of the two Left Parties to seize the apparently revolutionary opportunity that emerged at the height of the 1953 Hartal, and their drift to coalition politics after 1960. In his “Revolutionary Idealism and Parliamentary Politics,” the late Ranjith Amerasinghe has provided a committedly scholarly assessment of the LSSP’s role both in 1953 and 1964, and locates them in a historical perspective while focusing on the Party’s “ideological and organizational adaptation to a Westminster–model parliamentary system.” But these weighty questions will perennially persist, even though in Sri Lanka’s current situation, when corrupt charlatanism is in the saddle and running (rather ruining) the country, it would be both a tragedy and a farce to raise them even esoterically.

As I noted at the outset, Bahu, Vasu and Kumar attempted to address these questions critically from within the LSSP beginning in 1970. The course of events after 1977 within Sri Lanka and outside have exposed the global forces that have been at play, and over which no Left Party anywhere in the world has been able to have any sway within the traditional revolutionary perspective that Left Parties have been functioning until then. Kumar David has consistently drawn attention to these global changes, principally the collapse of the socialist second world and its integration in the global market, and tried to redefine the terms of engagement for the Left in Sri Lanka. Kumar and Bahu have also been consistent in their criticisms of the LSSP leadership for the 1972 Constitution that was a total repudiation of everything that the LSSP stood for on the national question, in 1956, and dearly paid for.

In fairness, the two Left Parties and anyone and everyone ever associated with the Left in Sri Lanka have rallied to support the Thirteenth Amendment as a constitutional solution to the national question. In addition, the two founding leaders of the LSSP, NM and Colvin, have left behind a powerful legacy of opposition to the wholly abominable albatross created by the 1978 Constitution. It will not be an exaggeration to say that in his own way Kumar David has been carrying the same torch of opposition for nearly 15 years, and constantly reminding those in parliament that it is their business to operationalize this opposition in a practical way.

The LSSP has been a quintessentially opposition party, and it is this characteristic that has made the pursuit of politics worthwhile even when it does not lead to its ultimate consummation with power. At 80, Kumar David is possessed of the same passion for positive opposition as he was when he was 12, at the time of the Great Hartal. Over the years, he has scaled academic mountains, fought the good political fight, kept the socialist faith, but is not ready to call off the race. He deserves a break, at least, to celebrate his 80th birthday with his wife Rohini, son Amrit, his grandchildren, and his extended family. We say: Many Happy Returns!

All News Advertisement

Features

2025 Budget: Challenges, hopes and concerns

Published

22 hours ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka’s recent government budget has sparked both hope and concern. While some see it as a positive step toward improving the country’s economy, others worry about whether the government’s proposals can be successfully implemented. This analysis explores the budget’s approach and what it could mean for the country’s financial future.

Credit Rating Improvement and What It Means

Fitch Ratings recently upgraded Sri Lanka’s credit rating, moving it from a risky “Restricted Default” (RD) to a “CCC+” rating. This shows that the country’s financial situation is improving, though it still faces a high risk of default. The government aims to increase its revenue, especially through trade taxes and income tax, but experts warn that the success of these plans is uncertain, particularly when it comes to lifting restrictions on imports.

Economic Democracy and Market Regulation

The government claims that this budget is based on the idea of “economic democracy,” aiming to balance market forces with government control. While it promises fairer distribution of wealth, critics argue that it still relies on market-driven policies that may not bring the desired changes. The budget seems to follow similar strategies to past administrations, despite the government’s claim of pursuing a new direction.

The current government, led by a Marxist-influenced party, has shifted its approach by aligning with global economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This represents a departure from its previous, more radical stance. The government’s vision focuses on rural development, support for small businesses, and an export-driven economy, continuing strategies from previous administrations rather than implementing drastic changes.

Stability and Continuity in Policy

One of the more positive aspects of the budget is its consistency with the fiscal policies of the past government. Sri Lanka’s economy has suffered from sudden policy changes in the past, often triggered by political transitions. By maintaining a steady course, the current government seeks to ensure stability in the recovery process, despite criticisms from political opponents.

Sri Lanka continues to face significant financial challenges, including a large budget deficit. The government’s spending in 2025 is expected to exceed its revenue by about LKR 2.2 trillion, leading to a deficit of around 6.7% of GDP. To cover this gap, the government plans to borrow both locally and internationally. However, debt repayment remains a major concern, with billions needed to settle existing obligations.

Tax Revenue and Public Spending Issues

Sri Lanka’s tax collection remains critically low, which worsens the country’s financial troubles. Tax evasion, exemptions, and inefficient administration make it hard to collect sufficient revenue. The government has raised VAT to 18% to boost income, but this could increase inflation, further harming families’ ability to afford basic goods. Additionally, corruption in public institutions continues to drain state resources, preventing effective use of funds for national development.

The Auditor General’s Department recently uncovered financial irregularities in several ministries, reinforcing concerns over systemic corruption.

Sectoral Allocations, Budget Inequities and Falures

Despite claims of prioritizing social welfare, the government’s budget allocation for key sectors remains insufficient. For example, while the government allocated LKR 500 million to improve 379 childcare centers nationwide, this amount pales in comparison to regional standards. In neighboring Bangladesh, the government spends around USD 60 per child annually, while Sri Lanka spends less than USD 25. It’s unclear whether this allocation represents an increase in funding or just a reshuffling of existing resources.

One of the biggest criticisms of the budget is its failure to address the high cost of essential goods, going against promises made during the election. Prices for basic items like rice and coconut are still high, due to supply chain issues, rising fuel costs, and tax policies. The absence of targeted subsidies or price controls has led to growing public dissatisfaction.

Public sector salary adjustments are also a point of contention. The government plans to introduce salary increases in three phases, with the full benefits expected by 2027. However, much of this increase was already granted in previous years through allowances, meaning the adjustment is more about restructuring existing funds than providing real pay increases. This slow approach raises concerns about whether employees’ purchasing power will improve, especially with inflation still a pressing issue.

The government has also urged the private sector to raise wages, but past experiences suggest that private companies often resist such requests. Without formal agreements or laws to enforce wage hikes, there is uncertainty over whether employees will see real wage growth that matches the rising cost of living.

Neglecting Vulnerable Workers and Obstinate Behaviour

Another group left out of the budget’s plans is casual and contract workers, who were expecting improvements in job security and wages, particularly those earning below LKR 1,800 per day. Despite promises made during the election, these workers have not seen any significant changes, which raises doubts about the government’s commitment to improving labor rights and income equality.

The government’s handling of private sector wage increases has also been criticized for a lack of transparency. In a televised discussion, A government representative became visibly agitated when questioned about the date of the agreement with employers, displaying obstinate behavior and refusing to answer the opposition MP’s inquiry.

Review of the Banking Sector’s Role in Govt. Revenue and Economic Growth

The banking sector helps generate national revenue through taxes such as corporate income tax, value-added tax (VAT), and financial transaction levies. However, the claim that it contributed 10% to government revenue in 2024 needs to be understood in context. Past figures have shown fluctuations in financial sector taxes, influenced by economic conditions and fiscal policies. The government’s growing reliance on the banking sector for tax revenue could signal financial stress, and this situation warrants further analysis to understand its long-term sustainability.

While the Sri Lanka Bankers Association (SLBA) emphasizes banks’ support for implementing the government’s budget proposals, their ability to do so effectively depends on broader economic conditions, regulations, and financial stability. Sri Lanka has faced persistent economic issues like high public debt and inflation, which could hamper the ability of banks to help implement fiscal policies effectively. The real impact of the banking sector in driving economic growth remains uncertain, especially given factors like currency instability and a lack of foreign investment.

Digitization and Financial Transparency

The proposal to introduce Point-of-Sale (POS) machines at VAT-registered businesses aligns with global trends in digital financial integration. This move is expected to improve transparency, reduce tax evasion, and increase banking efficiency. Research has shown that digital payments can boost financial inclusion and reduce informal economic activities. However, Sri Lanka faces challenges such as limited digital infrastructure, cybersecurity concerns, and resistance from businesses that still prefer cash transactions.

More digital services could strengthen anti-money laundering (AML) controls, improve transaction monitoring, and reduce cyber threats. However, shifting to a fully digital banking system requires substantial investments in technology, regulatory alignment, and digital literacy among consumers.

Support for SMEs and Development Banking Initiatives

The creation of a Credit Guarantee Institute for SMEs is a significant step. Research shows that credit guarantees can reduce lending risks and improve SME access to financing. However, past state-managed financial programs in Sri Lanka have been inefficient, often involving politicized lending practices.

For these new initiatives to succeed, they will need transparent governance, careful credit risk management, and strong regulations….

Conclusion

Sri Lanka’s banking sector is crucial for economic stability and revenue generation, but the increasing fiscal demands and the push for digital transformation present both significant opportunities and risks. Policymakers need to avoid over-taxation that could stifle credit expansion and investment while addressing digital finance challenges like cybersecurity and infrastructure gaps. The 2025 budget underscores the nation’s vulnerable fiscal situation, where efforts for economic stabilization are hampered by public debt, corruption, and welfare constraints. Achieving sustainability requires comprehensive tax reforms, better public expenditure management, and stronger anti-corruption measures. Without these reforms, Sri Lanka faces prolonged economic hardship, rising inequalities, and diminishing trust in governance. The budget also reflects a blend of ideological transformation and economic pragmatism, with policies largely aligning with past approaches. Fitch Ratings’ cautious optimism signals the potential for recovery, contingent on successful policy implementation. Ultimately, policy continuity is seen as Sri Lanka’s best bet for navigating fiscal uncertainty and achieving economic stability.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

Features

Rethinking cities – Sustainable urban innovation

Published

23 hours ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Chandrasena

by Ifham Nizam

Dr. Nadeesha Chandrasena is an urban innovator reshaping the landscape of sustainable development. With a background that spans journalism, banking, and military engineering, she brings a unique perspective to urban planning and environmental resilience.

Her work integrates cutting-edge technology with human-centered design, ensuring that cities of the future are not only livable but also adaptive to climate change and rapid urbanisation.

In this interview with The Island, Dr. Chandrasena shares insights into her journey—from her early days in journalism to pioneering the Smart Drain Initiative, a groundbreaking infrastructure project addressing urban drainage inefficiencies. She discusses the critical role of community engagement, the challenges of balancing innovation with political realities, and the urgent need for sustainable urban solutions in Sri Lanka and beyond.

Her story is one of relentless curiosity, problem-solving, and a deep commitment to building better cities. As she puts it, “Urbanisation is inevitable; our challenge is to shape it in ways that are inclusive, sustainable, and forward-thinking.”

Urbanisation is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century, and few understand its complexities better than Dr. Chandrasena. A trailblazer in sustainable urban development, she has dedicated her career to bridging the gap between technological innovation and environmental sustainability. Through her work, she emphasises a crucial message: cities must evolve—not just grow.

From Journalism to Urban Innovation

Dr. Chandrasena’s career path is anything but conventional. Beginning as a journalist, she honed her skills in field research and community engagement, which later became instrumental in her work as an urban planner. “Journalism taught me how to listen to people’s stories and understand the realities on the ground,” she explains. This background helped her develop urban solutions rooted in real-world insights rather than abstract theories.

Her transition into urban innovation was fueled by a deep-seated passion for environmental resilience. After a stint in banking and serving in the Sri Lanka Army Corps of Engineers, she pursued town and country planning, ultimately integrating her diverse experiences to address urban challenges holistically.

The Smart Drain Initiative: A Game Changer in Urban Infrastructure

One of Dr. Chandrasena’s most groundbreaking contributions is the Smart Drain Initiative—a next-generation urban drainage system designed to combat flooding and waste accumulation. Implemented in areas like Balapola and Ambalangoda, this technology incorporates IoT-based monitoring, predictive maintenance, and automated waste filtration to enhance resilience against climate change.

“Storm drains are often neglected, but they are the foundation of a city’s flood resilience,” she says. By modernising drainage infrastructure, her initiative is setting a precedent for cities worldwide to rethink their approach to urban water management.

Livability as the Core Urban Challenge

For Dr. Chandrasena, urban planning is not just about infrastructure—it’s about people. She identifies livability as the root problem that must be addressed in city planning. “Congestion, pollution, lack of green spaces, and inefficient waste management are all symptoms of poor urban planning,” she explains. Her work focuses on designing cities that prioritise well-being, accessibility, and sustainability.

Sri Lanka, in particular, faces unique challenges due to rapid urbanisation. With cities like Colombo struggling to accommodate a massive influx of commuters, Dr. Chandrasena advocates for affordable housing solutions near economic hubs and improvements in public transportation. “A city’s economic success should not come at the cost of its residents’ quality of life,” she insists.

Technology and Community Engagement: The Future of Urban Development

Dr. Chandrasena sees technology as a powerful tool for fostering inclusive urban development. From using social media for community consultations to deploying smart infrastructure, she believes digital solutions can democratise urban planning. “We need to move beyond traditional engagement methods and empower people through accessible technology,” she says.

Her leadership philosophy reflects this inclusive approach. Through initiatives like the MyTurn Internship Platform, she mentors young professionals, encouraging them to take an active role in shaping the future of cities. “Leadership is not about authority—it’s about creating opportunities for collaboration,” she adds.

Global Urban Challenges and the Need for Collaboration

Urban issues are not confined to national borders. Dr. Chandrasena highlights the importance of global partnerships, citing the twin-city concept as a model for knowledge exchange. By pairing cities with similar challenges—such as Galle, Sri Lanka, and Penang, Malaysia—municipalities can co-create solutions that address both local and global urban challenges.

Her work has not gone unnoticed. She recently won Australia’s Good Design Award for Best in Class Engineering Design, a testament to the impact of her innovative approaches.

Call to Action for Sustainable Cities

Dr. Chandrasena’s vision for the future is clear: cities must be designed to be resilient, inclusive, and sustainable. While challenges like climate change and urban congestion persist, she remains optimistic. “There are no perfect cities—just as there are no perfect people. But by striving for practical solutions, we can make cities better for everyone.”

Her journey—from journalist to urban innovator—demonstrates that change begins with a vision and the determination to act on it. As urbanisation accelerates, her work serves as a blueprint for how cities can not only survive but thrive in an ever-evolving world.

Features

Need to appreciate SL’s moderate politics despite govt.’s massive mandate

Published

2 days ago

2025/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Dissanayake

by Jehan Perera

President Donald Trump in the United States is showing how, in a democratic polity, the winner of the people’s mandate can become an unstoppable extreme force. Critics of the NPP government frequently jibe at the government’s economic policy as being a mere continuation of the essential features of the economic policy of former president, Ranil Wickremesinghe. The criticism is that despite the resounding electoral mandates it received, the government is following the IMF prescriptions negotiated by the former president instead of making radical departures from it as promised prior to the elections. The critics themselves do not have alternatives to offer except to assert that during the election campaign the NPP speakers pledged to renegotiate the IMF agreement which they have done only on a very limited basis since coming to power.

There is also another area in which the NPP government is following the example of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. During his terms of office, both as prime minister and president, Ranil Wickremesinghe ruled with a light touch. He did not utilise the might of the state to intimidate the larger population. During the post-Aragalaya period he did not permit street protests and arrested and detained those who engaged in such protests. At the same time with a minimal use of state power he brought stability to an unstable society. The same rule-with-a-light touch approach holds true of the NPP government that has succeeded the Wickremesinghe government. The difference is that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has an electoral mandate that President Wickremesinghe did not have in his final stint in power and could use his power to the full like President Trump, but has chosen not to.

At two successive national elections, the NPP obtained the people’s mandate, and at the second one in particular, the parliamentary elections, they won an overwhelming 2/3 majority of seats. With this mandate they could have followed the “shock and awe” tactics that are being seen in the U.S. today under President Donald Trump whose party has won majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The U.S. president has become an unstoppable force and is using his powers to make dramatic changes both within the country and in terms of foreign relations, possibly irreversibly. He wants to make the U.S. as strong, safe and prosperous as possible and with the help of the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, the duo has become seemingly unstoppable in forging ahead at all costs.

EXTREME POWER

The U.S. has rightly been admired in many parts of the world, and especially in democratic countries, for being a model of democratic governance. The concepts of “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” by which one branch of the government restricts the power of the other branches appeared to have reached their highest point in the U.S. But this system does not seem to be working, at least at the present time, due to the popularity of President Trump and his belief in the rightness of his ideas and Elon Musk. The extreme power that can accrue to political leaders who obtain the people’s mandate can best be seen at the present time in the United States. The Trump administration is using the president’s democratic mandate in full measure, though for how long is the question. They have strong popular support within the country, but the problem is they are generating very strong opposition as well, which is dividing the U.S. rather than unifying it.

The challenge for those in the U.S. who think differently, and there are many of them at every level of society, is to find ways to address President Trump’s conviction that he has the right answers to the problems faced by the U.S. which also appears to have convinced the majority of American voters to believe in him. The decisions that President Trump and his team have been making to make the U.S. strong, safe and prosperous include eliminating entire government departments and dismissing employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which were established to protect the more disadvantaged sectors of society. The targets have included USAID which has had consequences for Sri Lanka and many other disadvantaged parts of the world.

Data obtained from the Department of External Resources (ERD) reveal that since 2019, USAID has financed Sri Lankan government projects amounting to Rs. 31 billion. This was done under different presidents and political parties. Projects costing USD 20.4 million were signed during the last year (2019) of the Maithripala Sirisena government. USD 41.9 million was signed during the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government, USD 26 million during the Ranil Wickremesinghe government, and USD 18.1 million so far during the Anura Kumara Dissanayake government. At the time of the funding freeze, there were projects with the Justice Ministry, Finance Ministry, Environment Ministry and the Energy Ministry. This is apart from the support that was being provided to the private sector for business development and to NGOs for social development and good governance work including systems of checks and balances and separation of powers.

MODERATE POLITICS

The challenge for those in Sri Lanka who were beneficiaries of USAID is to find alternative sources of financing for the necessary work they were doing with the USAID funding. Among these was funding in support of improving the legal system, making digital technology available to the court system to improve case management, provision of IT equipment, and training of judges, court staff and members of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. It also included creating awareness about the importance of government departments delivering their services in an inclusive manner to all citizens requiring their services, and providing opportunities for inter-ethnic business collaboration to strengthen the economy. The government’s NGO Secretariat which has been asked to submit a report on USAID funding needs to find alternative sources of funding for these and give support to those who have lost their USAID funding.

Despite obtaining a mandate that is more impressive at the parliamentary elections than that obtained by President Trump, the government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has been more moderate in its efforts to deal with Sri Lanka’s problems, whether in regard to the economy or foreign relations. The NPP government is trying to meet the interests of all sections of society, be they the business community, the impoverished masses, the civil society or the majority and minority ethnic and religious communities. They are trying to balance the needs of the people with the scarce economic resources at their disposal. The NPP government has demanded sacrifice of its own members, in terms of the benefits they receive from their positions, to correspond to the economic hardships that the majority of people face at this time.

The contrast between the governance styles of President Trump in the U.S. and President Dissanayake in Sri Lanka highlights the different paths democratic leaders can take. President Trump is attempting to decisively reshape the U.S. foreign policy, eliminating entire government departments and overwhelming traditional governance structures. The NPP government under President Dissanayake has sought a more balanced, inclusive path by taking steps to address economic challenges and governance issues while maintaining stability. They are being tough where they need to be, such as on the corruption and criminality of the past. They need to be supported as they are showing Sri Lankans and the international community how a government can use its mandate without polarising society and thereby securing the consensus necessary for sustainable change.