Connect with us

Features

NPP govt., a patchwork of ideological differences, bound to suffer splits – FSP

Published

1 year ago

on

Pubudu Jagoda

by Saman Indrajith

Education Secretary of the Frontline Socialist Party, Pubudu Jagoda, has expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to overcome the country’s pressing economic challenges.

In an interview with The Island, Jagoda highlights the inherent divisions within the JVP/NPP coalition, which, he believes, are bound to hinder its ability to provide meaningful relief to the public.

“The government is a patchwork of ideological contradictions,” Jagoda says. “It includes remnants of the old JVP cadre who advocate socialist solutions for economic problems. Alongside them are newer social democrats whose views often clash with the socialist stance. Adding to this complexity are neoliberals who align with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s policies but reject him personally, and a faction of nationalists—many of whom were part of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Viyath Maga initiative before joining the NPP.”

Jagoda says that this diversity of perspectives has resulted in an inability to present a cohesive strategy for addressing the country’s economic woes. “This collection of divergent views struggles to formulate practical solutions for the people’s problems.”

Jagoda is of the view that the government’s current approach relies heavily on rhetoric around anti-corruption initiatives and promises of reforming the political culture. While these efforts may garner short-term support, they lack the capacity to address the more immediate issues faced by the population. “There are limits to how far you can go with slogans about changing the political culture. These initiatives cannot put food on people’s tables,” he said.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: What is your assessment of the current situation in Sri Lanka?

A: The global economy has faced numerous crises over the years, from time to time. In the late 19th century, the 1920s, and 1973, significant economic downturns came into being. Historically, these crises have been characterised by fluctuating trends, often described using the shapes of English letters—V-shaped, U-shaped, and W-shaped—to denote the pattern of economic recovery and recession. For example, the 1973 crisis was V-shaped, while the 1927 crisis exhibited a W-shaped recovery. However, the global economic crisis of 2008 defied such conventional classifications. Initially described as L-shaped due to a sharp decline followed by prolonged stagnation, it later evolved into a pattern resembling a staircase cross-section. Economists now predict a further decline in 2025 and 2026, signifying a fast-collapsing global economy.

Economists argue that addressing the economic crisis requires a comprehensive strategy to manage external interventions by superpowers and to protect national interests. However, opposition parties, including the NPP and SJB, have failed to articulate clear economic policies. Their manifestos are technocratic and lack detailed strategies for addressing issues such as the debt crisis, state revenue challenges, foreign currency shortages, and a coherent development plan.

The government’s mandate, though significant in the parliamentary election, lacks a unified vision.

Sri Lanka faces three key economic policy challenges: the first one is continuation of IMF-driven policies. Will the NPP Government continue with the IMF’s structural adjustment programmes? The second is about managing superpower interventions: Can this government leverage its mandate to negotiate more favourable terms with global powers? The third is about addressing public welfare: Will the government prioritise economic relief for citizens or continue to favour corporate elites under the guise of political reform?

Sri Lanka’s economic crisis manifests starkly in rising poverty and malnutrition. Statistics reveal that 25% of families rely on financial support from neighbors and relatives, while 61% have reduced their food consumption. Child malnutrition rates have soared to 26%, levels previously associated with countries like Ethiopia and Somalia in the 1990s.

The government’s inability to articulate a clear economic vision and its reliance on neoliberal reforms risk deepening the crisis.

Q: What is the FSP going to do about it?

A: We advocate for an economic plan that provides an alternative to the IMF programme. We emphasise the importance of a foreign policy that protects Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and shields its people from the geostrategic invasions of powers like the US and India. Furthermore, we want the inequities created by a top corporate elite that benefited disproportionately from the previous regime’s economic policies addressed. Our position has consistently been that this elite should bear a fair share of the tax burden to provide relief to the people. These three pillars formed the foundation of our political campaign.

Looking ahead, we believe the most critical aspects will continue to revolve around these priorities, the first of them is opposition to the IMF programme. We challenge its long-term implications on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and economy. Then the issue of geostrategic independence. We advocate for a foreign policy that avoids subjugation to major powers. Third aspect is about equitable Taxation. We demand ensuring that economic policies benefit the majority rather than a privileged few.

As public frustration with the government grows, there is a real danger that people may revert to supporting extreme-right factions responsible for Sri Lanka’s economic turmoil. This could include figures like Ranil Wickremesinghe, members of the SJB, the Mahinda Rajapaksa camp, or even more regressive alternatives. History teaches us that severe economic crises often lead to two potential outcomes: revolutions/military coups or the rise of far-right fascist governments. Sri Lanka is no exception to this historical pattern.

If the current trajectory continues, new leaders could emerge from outside the existing political framework, replacing figures such as Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa, or Namal Rajapaksa. Alternatively, the country could face a revolution or even a military coup. Superpowers are unlikely to oppose such outcomes, as these scenarios could align with their strategic interests and facilitate their agendas.

Recognising these risks, we are focused on preventing a sudden collapse of the government. While criticising the IMF programme and the restructuring of International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs), we have taken proactive steps to offer alternatives. For instance, we submitted a detailed 13-page document outlining the dangers of the IMF programme and proposing alternative solutions. Recently, we provided 22 proposals for the national budget, reaffirming our commitment to constructive engagement rather than mere criticism.

Despite our efforts, the government has ignored these suggestions, offering no response or acknowledgment. Nevertheless, we see it as our responsibility to propose solutions and advocate for change. If the government continues on its current path, failure seems inevitable, leading to heightened public frustration.

In such a context, our primary focus is to create a political space that prevents the public from being pushed toward far-right factions or fascist military-style governance. To achieve this, we are engaging with leftist and progressive elements within the democratic framework. In the meantime, we are utilising platforms like the People’s Struggle to unite individuals and organisations against the potential rise of far-right authoritarianism.

This initiative seeks to build a broad coalition capable of resisting such a shift while advocating for a just and equitable alternative. We understand that this cannot be achieved by our party alone, so we are collaborating with other progressive forces to strengthen this movement.

Our efforts are directed toward preventing a political and economic regression in Sri Lanka. By uniting progressive forces and presenting clear alternatives, we aim to address the root causes of the crisis while protecting the nation from the threats of authoritarianism and economic subjugation.

Q: How would you interpret the Joint Statement issued by India and Sri Lanka following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s visit?

A: We must acknowledge the geopolitical reality that India is both Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour and the regional superpower. It is inevitable that Sri Lanka must work with India while being mindful of her strategic and economic interests. However, this does not mean that we must relinquish our sovereignty, independence, or national dignity. A balance is both possible and necessary.

For instance, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s assurance that Sri Lanka would not allow its territory to be used against India’s security interests was, while prudent in principle, perhaps an over-commitment in execution. Safeguarding India’s security concerns is one thing but providing explicit commitments risks undermining our flexibility and sovereignty. It is a self-imposed limitation that could have been avoided.

Similarly, the joint statement’s commitments to land connectivity, an integrated oil pipeline, and a shared electricity grid raise serious concerns. These projects are not without precedent in the region, and the experiences of other nations connected to India offer cautionary lessons. Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all face significant challenges arising from their direct land links with India. Sri Lanka’s geographical separation by sea has so far shielded it from similar vulnerabilities, and it would be unwise to jeopardise this advantage without thorough deliberation.

The proposed electricity grid integration is another contentious issue. Nations like Bangladesh, which are already connected to India’s electricity grid, are formulating exit strategies due to reliability and sovereignty concerns. For instance, Bangladesh faced prolonged power cuts when it failed to settle bills with India. Similarly, Nepal has been unable to fully exploit its hydropower potential because of obligations under agreements with India. Sri Lanka, with over a century of independent electricity production and potential for future self-sufficiency, has no engineering necessity to integrate its grid with India. Such a move appears driven more by political than practical considerations.

The oil pipeline and refinery agreements also warrant scrutiny. Historically, Sri Lanka has imported crude oil for domestic refining, with plans to upgrade facilities like the Sapugaskanda refinery to produce and export diesel and petrol, emulating Singapore. However, recent agreements have seen the handover of strategic assets, including Trincomalee’s oil tanks and the operation of local petrol stations, to Indian entities. Furthermore, the proposed monopoly on LNG supply by an Indian company undermines Sri Lanka’s ability to procure competitively priced LNG from global markets.

These agreements are reportedly still at the “in-principle” stage, but the government’s failure to consult parliament or public forums before committing to such significant undertakings raises serious concerns. Instead of deferring to agreements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, whose policies were widely rejected in elections, the current administration should assert its mandate and demand reconsideration of these commitments.

The issue of awarding the digital national ID project to an Indian company further highlights the erosion of sovereignty. In an era where data is as critical as military assets, granting access to the biometric and personal data of 22 million Sri Lankans to a foreign entity is a grave risk. The tender process itself has been controversial, with conditions favoring only Indian companies and the tender notice published exclusively in Indian newspapers. This lack of transparency and favoritism raises alarms about national security and accountability.

Examples from other nations further underline the dangers of such agreements. In Kenya, the same Indian company involved in Sri Lanka’s digital ID project was banned after allegations of data fraud. Despite this, the Sri Lankan government has persisted with plans that effectively outsource national security data to a foreign entity, undermining the country’s sovereignty.

While Sri Lanka’s size and economic vulnerability necessitate diplomatic tact, these factors do not justify subservience to any foreign power. The President’s visit to India and the commitments made during the visit failed to uphold the dignity and independence of Sri Lanka. It is imperative that our leaders adopt a more balanced approach that safeguards national sovereignty while engaging constructively with India.

Q: How would you comment on the President’s scheduled visit to China?

A: The geopolitical scene has evolved significantly since the Cold War era, transforming international relations into a complex interplay of economic, political, and military interests. Unlike the binary divisions of the past, where nations were clearly aligned with one of two superpowers, today’s global politics involves multifaceted alliances that often overlap and conflict.

For instance, India, which historically aligned with the USSR, now pursues multiple roles. Economically, India collaborates with China and Russia within BRICS, promoting de-dollarization. However, militarily, India partners with the U.S. and other QUAD nations, positioning itself against Chinese regional dominance. Similarly, China has shifted its foreign policy from rigid ideological stances to pragmatic engagement, often accommodating regional superpowers’ roles in their respective spheres of influence.

In this context, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s upcoming visit to China is unlikely to yield significant pushback against the commitments made to India. China is more likely to seek reciprocal agreements, such as securing concessions in Hambantota or other strategic locations, rather than urging Sri Lanka to reject Indian interests outright. This reflects a broader Chinese strategy of coexistence with other regional powers while pursuing its own strategic and economic goals.

A case in point is China’s stance on Sri Lanka’s IMF programme. Unlike during the Cold War, when China might have opposed Western-led financial restructuring, it now focuses on securing a foothold within those frameworks. For example, if Sri Lanka privatizes state-owned entities like the CEB, China’s concern would not be with the principle of privatization but with acquiring a significant stake in those assets.

The lifting of the moratorium on research vessels in Sri Lankan waters exemplifies the government’s precarious balancing act. Allowing both Indian and Chinese vessels to conduct ocean floor mapping may appear to appease both powers, but it risks antagonizing one or the other, depending on the strategic implications of the research findings. The government might view this as a strategy to placate China following the President’s visit to India, but such concessions only deepen the geopolitical entanglement.

Instead of succumbing to these pressures, Sri Lanka should revisit and reaffirm its historical commitment to neutrality in the Indian Ocean, as embodied in the 1972 UN resolution declaring the region a Zone of Peace. This resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and India, explicitly seeks to prevent military and economically motivated agreements with indirect military implications among Indian Ocean littoral states. By invoking this resolution, Sri Lanka could resist external pressures without directly antagonizing powerful nations.

The government’s current approach, of attempting to “give a little to everyone,” is fraught with risk. It creates the perception of a nation willing to compromise its sovereignty for short-term diplomatic gains. Such policies can lead to long-term strategic vulnerabilities, as seen with the lifting of the research vessel moratorium and the transactional diplomacy of balancing Chinese and Indian interests.

The broader concern is that Sri Lanka’s vulnerability, compounded by economic challenges, could make it a flashpoint in escalating global tensions. Any future conflict, potentially involving advanced ballistic missile systems, AI-driven warfare, and nuclear capabilities, would have catastrophic consequences for small nations like Sri Lanka.

While the government justifies its actions as necessary for an economically bankrupt nation, we believe that there remains space to assert Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and protect its long-term interests. Diplomacy should not equate to submission, and economic hardship must not justify policies that undermine national security and dignity. Instead, the leadership must tread carefully, adopting a principled approach that balances strategic interests while preserving the country’s independence.

Q: How do you view the Aragalaya protests now after years of their end?

A: The Aragalaya emerged as a powerful expression of public frustration, driven predominantly by economic pressures. For many Sri Lankans, the tipping point was the failure of Gotabaya Rajapaksa to provide relief during a devastating economic crisis. The sense of betrayal was especially acute among those who had voted for him in 2019, such as in Kaduwela, where Gotabaya secured 76% of the vote. This sense of disillusionment was evident when thousands from areas like Malabe, Athurugiriya, and Pelawatte—a stronghold of Rajapaksa supporters—joined daily protests for months and ultimately marched 26 kilometers to Colombo on May 9, 2022, to demand his resignation.

This mass movement was not confined to one demographic; it brought together people from all sectors of society, each with their own grievances and aspirations. For the general public, it was primarily about economic hardship and a betrayal of trust. For others, like leftist and progressive groups, it was an opportunity to promote the idea of a revolutionary mass movement aimed at empowering people.

However, the Aragalaya was also marked by significant political and diplomatic interference. Representatives from various political factions—including UNPers sponsored by Ashu Marasinghe, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s allies, Basil Rajapaksa’s agents, Sarath Fonseka’s supporters, and Champika Ranawaka’s supporters were present, each attempting to advance their own agendas. Diplomats from major powers, such as the U.S., India, and China, as well as government intelligence agents, were also actively monitoring and engaging with the movement.

Despite its grassroots energy, the real political shifts occurred in Parliament, not in the streets. The appointment of an interim president was a key moment that divided the movement and eroded its momentum. Opposition parties like the NPP and SJB had the option to reject Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election by refusing to participate in the parliamentary process, aligning with the Aragalaya’s demand for a complete overhaul of the system. Instead, they chose to field their own candidates—Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Dullas Alahapperuma—only to concede and congratulate Wickremesinghe after his victory. These actions were televised, demoralizing many activists who viewed them as a betrayal by the opposition.

An alternative approach, proposed by representatives of the Aragalaya, called for the establishment of an interim government with a six-month mandate, followed by elections. This proposal included forming a cabinet representing all political parties but excluded the concept of an interim president. It was well-received at a meeting at the Public Library Auditorium in Colombo on May 5, 2022, just days before Gotabaya was ousted. However, it failed to gain traction in Parliament, where the ultimate decisions were made.

The Aragalaya, while unprecedented in its scope and inclusivity, was ultimately undermined by political fragmentation, external influences, and the lack of a unified strategy among its leaders and participants. It highlighted the deep disconnection between parliamentary politics and the will of the people, leaving many to question whether meaningful change is possible within the current system.


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

The middle-class money trap: Why looking rich keeps Sri Lankans poor

Published

6 hours ago

on

2026/01/21

By

Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLmfO0mqGoL/

Every January, we make grand resolutions about our finances. We promise ourselves we’ll save more, spend less, and finally get serious about investments. By March, most of these promises were abandoned, alongside our unused gym memberships.

The problem isn’t our intentions, it’s our approach. We treat financial management as a personality flaw that needs fixing, rather than a skill that needs the right strategy. This year let’s try something different. Let’s put actual behavioural science behind how we handle our rupees.

Based on the article ‘Seven proven, realistic ways to improve your finances in 2026’ published on 1news.co.nz, I aim to adapt these recommended financial strategies to the Sri Lankan context.” Here are seven money habits that work because they’re grounded in how humans actually behave, not how we wish we would.

While these strategies offer useful direction for strengthening personal financial management, it is important to acknowledge that they may not be suitable for everyone. Many households face severe financial pressure and cannot realistically follow traditional income allocation frameworks, such as the well-known but outdated Singalovada Sutta guidelines, when even meeting daily food expenses has become a struggle. For individuals and families who are burdened by escalating costs of essentials, including electricity, water, mobile connectivity, transport, and other non-negotiable commitments, strict adherence to prescriptive models is neither practical nor fair to expect. Therefore, readers should remain mindful of their own financial realities and adapt these strategies in ways that align with their income levels, essential obligations, and broader personal circumstances.

1. Your Money Problems Aren’t Moral Failures, They’re Data Points

When every rupee misspent becomes evidence of personal failure, we stop looking for solutions. Shame is a terrible problem-solver. It makes us hide from our bank statements, avoid difficult conversations, and repeat the same mistakes because we’re too embarrassed to examine them.

Instead, try replacing judgment with curiosity. Transform “I’m terrible with money” into “That’s interesting, why did I make that choice?” Suddenly, mistakes become information rather than indictments. You might notice you overspend at Odel or high-end restaurant when stressed about work. Or that you commit to expensive plans when feeling socially pressured. Perhaps your online shopping peaks during power cuts when you’re bored and frustrated.

2. Forget the Year-Long Marathon, Focus on 90-Day Sprints

A Sri Lankan year is densely packed with financial obligations: Sinhala/Tamil Avurudu, Christmas, Vesak, and Poson celebrations; recurring school fees; seasonal festival shopping; wedding and almsgiving periods; yearend festivities; and an evergrowing list of marketing-driven occasions such as Valentine’s Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, and many others. Each of these events carries its own financial weight, often placing additional pressure on already-stretched household budgets.

Research consistently shows that shorter time frames work better. Ninety days is long enough to create a meaningful change, but short enough to maintain focus and momentum. So instead of one overwhelming annual goal, give yourself four quarterly upgrades.

In the first quarter, the focus may be on organising your contributions toward key duties and responsibilities, while also ensuring that you are maximising the available benefits for your designated beneficiaries. Quarter two could be about building a small emergency fund, even Rs. 10,000 provides breathing room. Quarter three might involve auditing your bills and subscriptions to eliminate unnecessary expenses. Quarter four could be when you finally start that investment you’ve been postponing. You don’t need superhuman discipline or complicated spreadsheets, just focused attention, one quarter at a time.

3. Make One Decision That Eliminates Weekly Worry

The best money decisions are the ones you make once but benefit from repeatedly. These are decisions that permanently reduce what behavioural economists call “decision fatigue”, the mental exhaustion that comes from constantly managing money in your head. What’s one choice you could make today that would remove a recurring financial worry?

It might be setting up an automatic standing order to transfer Rs. 10,000 to savings the day your salary arrives, before you can spend it. Maybe it’s consolidating your scattered savings accounts into one that actually pays decent return.

These aren’t dramatic moves that require personality transplants. They’re structural decisions that work with your human tendency toward inertia rather than against it. Most banks now offer seamless digital automation. You can set it up once and benefit from that decision every single month without additional effort or willpower. You make the decision once. You benefit all year. That’s leveraging your energy intelligently.

4. Stop Spending on Who You Think You Should Be

Sri Lankan society comes with heavy expectations. The car you drive, the school your children attend, the hotels you patronise, the brands you wear, all communicate your worth, or so we’re told. Much of our spending isn’t about actual enjoyment. It’s about meeting unspoken expectations, keeping up appearances, or aspiring to a version of us that doesn’t actually exist.

We buy expensive saris we’ll wear once because everyone does. We maintain memberships to clubs we rarely visit because it looks good. We say yes to weekend plans at overpriced restaurants because declining feels like admitting we can’t afford it. We upgrade phones not because ours stopped working, but because others have.

Before your next purchase, ask yourself: do I actually want this, or do I want to want it? If it’s the second one, walk away. You won’t miss it. This isn’t about deprivation, it’s about precision. When you stop spending to perform and start spending to support the life you genuinely enjoy, money pressure eases dramatically. Your resources align with your actual values rather than imagined expectations.

Maybe you don’t care about fancy restaurants, but you love long drives along the southern coast. Maybe branded clothing leaves you cold, but you’d spend any amount on art supplies or books. That’s fine. Spend accordingly.

5. Break One Habit, See If You Actually Miss It

We’re creatures of routine, which serves us well until those routines outlive their usefulness. Sometimes we spend money on habits that started for good reasons but no longer serve us. Alpechchathava, in Buddha’s teaching, means living contentedly with few desires. It guides a person to manage money wisely by avoiding excess spending, unnecessary debt, and craving, and by focusing on essential needs and wholesome priorities. In this way, wealth supports mental cultivation, generosity, and spiritual progress.

The daily kottu roti that once felt like a convenient solution after working late may now have turned into an unnecessary routine. Similarly, frequent P&S or Caravan snack runs, and the habit of picking up sugary treats like cakes and sweets, are not only costly but also wellknown to be unhealthy, as nutritionists consistently point out. Beyond food, other expenses such as magazine subscriptions, the monthly coffee meetup, or weekend mall browsing often continue on autopilot without us realising how much they add up. These seemingly small, habitual expenses can quietly drain your budget while offering very little longterm value.

Try this experiment: keep a money diary for one week. Note every expense, no matter how small. Then identify one regular spend and eliminate it for the following week. If you don’t miss it? Excellent, keep it gone. If you genuinely miss it? Add it back without guilt. This isn’t about permanent sacrifice.

It’s about snapping yourself out of autopilot and checking whether your spending still reflects your current reality, priorities and purchasing power. You might discover you’re spending Rs. 15,000 monthly on things you barely notice.

6. Create Your Crisis Playbook on a Good Day

Many financial disasters don’t happen because we’re careless, they happen because we’re panicked. When crisis strikes, job loss, medical emergency, unexpected business downturn, fear hijacks our decision-making. Our rational brain exists while panic makes expensive choices: high-interest personal loans, selling investments at losses, making commitments we can’t sustain.

The solution? Make your crisis plan before the crisis arrives. On a calm day, sit down and document: If I lost my income tomorrow, what would I do first? Which expenses are truly essential? What’s the absolute minimum I need to function? Who could I call for advice? Which savings are untouchable, which could be accessed if necessary? What government support or loan restructuring options exist (Not in Sri Lanka)? This is a sort of preparation for sudden shocks.

7. Question the Money Stories You Inherited

Sometimes our biggest financial obstacles aren’t failed attempts, they’re the attempts we never make because we’ve internalised limiting stories. “Our family was never good with money.” “Investing is for rich people.” “I’m just not the type who earns more.” “Women don’t understand finance.” These narratives, absorbed from family, culture, or past experiences, become invisible fences.

Question them. Where did this belief originate? Is it actually true, or is it a story you’ve been telling yourself for so long, it feels like fact? What would happen if you tested it? Often, these stories protect us from the discomfort of trying and potentially failing. But they also protect us from the possibility of succeeding. And that’s a far costlier protection than most of us realise.

The Bottom Line

Improving your finances in 2026 doesn’t require becoming a different person. It requires understanding the person you already are, your patterns, triggers, and tendencies, and working with them rather than against them.

These aren’t magic solutions. They’re evidence-based approaches that acknowledge a simple truth: you’re not broken, and your money management doesn’t need fixing through willpower alone. It needs better systems, clearer thinking, and a lot less shame.

Continue Reading

Features

Public scepticism regarding paediatric preventive interventions

Published

6 hours ago

on

2026/01/21

By

A significant portion of the history of paediatrics is a triumph of prevention. From the simple act of washing hands to the miracle of vaccines, preventive strategies have been the unsung heroes, drastically lowering child mortality rates and setting the stage for healthier, longer lives across the globe. Simple measures like promoting personal hygiene, ensuring the proper use of toilets, and providing Vitamin K immediately after birth to prevent dangerous bleeding, have profound impacts. Advanced interventions like inhalers for asthma, robust trauma care systems, and even cutting-edge genetic manipulations are testament to the relentless and wonderful progress of paediatric science.

A shining beacon that has signified increased survival and marked reductions in mortality across the board in all paediatric age groups has been the development of various preventive strategies in the science of children’s health, from newborns to adolescents. The institution of such proven measures across the globe, has resulted in gains that are almost too good to be true. From a Sri Lankan perspective, these measures have contributed towards the unbelievable reduction of the under-5-year mortality rate from over 100 per 1000 live births in the 1960s to the seminal single-digit figure of 07 per 1000 live births in the 2020s.

Yet for all this, despite the overwhelming evidence of success, a most worrying trend is emerging. That is public scepticism and pessimism regarding these vital interventions. This doubt is not a benign phenomenon; it poses a real danger to the health of our children. At the heart of this challenge lies the potent, often insidious, spread of misinformation and disinformation.

The success of any preventive health strategy in paediatrics rests not just on its scientific efficacy, but on parental cooperation and commitment. When parents hesitate or refuse to follow recommended guidelines, the shield of prevention is compromised. Today, the most potent threat to this partnership is the flood of false information.

Misinformation is false information spread unintentionally. A well-meaning friend sharing a rumour about a vaccine side-effect they heard online is spreading misinformation.

Disinformation is false information deliberately created and disseminated to cause harm or sow doubt. This often comes from organised groups or individuals with vested interests; sometimes financial, sometimes ideological, who seek to undermine public trust in medical institutions and scientific consensus.

The digital age, particularly social media, has become the prime breeding ground for these falsehoods. Complex scientific data is reduced to emotionally charged, simplistic, and often sensationalist soundbites that travel faster and farther than the truth.

The most visible battleground is childhood vaccination. Decades of robust, high-quality research have confirmed vaccines as one of the most cost-effective and successful public health interventions ever conceived. Global vaccination efforts have saved an estimated 150 million lives in the past 50 years, eradicating or drastically controlling diseases like polio, measles, diphtheria, and tetanus.

However, a single, long-retracted, and scientifically debunked paper claiming a link between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism continues to be weaponised by disinformation campaigns. This persistent myth, despite being soundly disproven, taps into deep-seated fears about children’s development. Other common vaccine myths target ingredients such as trace amounts of aluminium or mercury, which are harmless in the quantities used and often less than what is naturally found in food or the idea that “natural immunity” from infection is superior, totally ignoring the fact that natural infection carries the devastating risk of severe complications, long-term disability, and even death. The tangible consequence of this doubt is the dropping of childhood vaccination rates in various communities, leading to the wholly unnecessary re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles.

Scepticism is not limited to vaccines. It can touch any area of paediatric preventive care where an intervention might seem unnecessary, invasive, or have perceived risks. Routine screenings for speech disorders, motor skills, or mental health issues can sometimes be perceived as medicalising normal childhood variations or putting a “label” on a child. Parents may resist or delay screening, missing the critical window for early intervention of proven measures that are likely to help. Advice on managing childhood obesity, reducing screen time, or adopting a balanced diet can be viewed by some parents as intrusive or judgmental, leading to poor adherence to essential health-promoting behaviours.

The regular use of inhalers for asthma or other chronic conditions might be looked down upon due to the fear of “dependency”, “addiction”, or long-term side effects, despite medical consensus that these preventive measures keep conditions controlled and prevent life-threatening exacerbations.

The common thread is a lack of understanding of the risk-benefit ratio. Parents, bombarded by fear-mongering narratives, often overestimate the rare, mild risks of an intervention while catastrophically underestimating the severe and permanent risks of the disease or condition itself.

The power of paediatric preventive medicine is not in a single shot or pill, but in the consistent, committed partnership between healthcare providers and parents. Paediatric science, driven by rigorous evidence-based medicine, do continue to refine guidelines, conduct transparent research, and communicate its findings clearly. When guidelines are confusing or lack robust evidence, it naturally creates openings for doubt. The scientific community’s commitment to continuous quality improvement and accessibility is paramount.

Ultimately, the success of prevention rests with the parents. Parenting, as a vital form of preventive care, includes all activities that raise happy, healthy, and capable children. The simple, non-medical steps mentioned in the introduction, proper handwashing, good sanitation, and encouraging exercise, are all forms of parental preventive intervention.

For more complex interventions, parental commitment requires several actions. They need to seek and trust the guidance provided by qualified healthcare professionals over anonymous, unsubstantiated online claims. They need to engage in an open dialogue by asking relevant questions and expressing concerns to doctors in an open, non-confrontational manner. A good healthcare provider will use this as an opportunity to educate and build trust, and not a portal to simply dismiss concerns. Then, of course, there is the spectre of adherence to various protocols and actions by the parents. These include consistently following recommended schedules, whether for well-child checkups, vaccinations, or daily medication protocols.

Addressing public scepticism requires a multi-pronged, collaborative strategy. It is not just about correcting false facts (debunking), but about building resilience against future falsehoods (prebunking). The single most influential voice in a parent’s decision-making process is their paediatrician or primary care provider. Clinicians must move beyond simply reciting facts. They need to use empathetic communication techniques, like Motivational Interviewing (MI), which focuses on active listening, validating parental concerns, and then collaboratively guiding them toward evidence-based decisions. For example, responding with, “I hear you’re worried about the side-effects you read about. Can I share what we know from decades of safety monitoring?” Being open about common, minor side effects such as a short-lasting fever after a vaccine pre-empts the shock and distrust that occurs when an expected, yet unmentioned, reaction happens.

Public health campaigns must go on the offensive, not just a defensive fact-checking spree. Teaching the general public how disinformation works, the use of “fake experts”, selective cherry-picked data, and conspiracy theories all add up to a most powerful form of inoculation (prebunking) against future exposure. Health institutions must simplify their communications and make verified, high-quality information easily accessible on platforms where parents are already looking.

Parents often trust their peers as much as their doctors. Engaging local community leaders, faith leaders, and even trusted social media influencers to share accurate, positive messages about paediatric health can shift the public narrative at a grassroots level. While protecting privacy, sharing aggregate data and stories about the dramatic decline in childhood diseases thanks to prevention can re-emphasise the collective good.

The battle against child mortality and morbidity has been one of the great human achievements, a testament to scientific ingenuity and collective effort. Today, the greatest threat to maintaining these gains is not a new virus, but a breakdown of trust fuelled by unchecked falsehoods.

Paediatric preventive interventions, from a cake of soap and a proper toilet to the most sophisticated genetic therapies, are the foundation of a healthy future for every child. To secure this future, the scientific community must remain transparent, the healthcare system must lead with empathy, and the public must commit to informed, critical thinking. By rejecting the noise of disinformation and embracing the clear, evidence-based consensus of science, we can ensure that every child continues to benefit from the life-saving progress that defines modern paediatrics. The well-being of the next generation demands nothing less than this renewed commitment.

Little children are not in a position to make abiding decisions regarding their health, especially regarding preventive strategies in health. It is ultimately the crucial decisions made by responsible parents regarding the health of their children that really matter. As doctors, our commitment is never to leave any child behind.

by Dr B. J. C. Perera  ✍️
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Joint Editor, Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health
Section Editor, Ceylon Medical Journal

Continue Reading

Features

Attacks on PM vulgar, misogynistic; education reforms welcome

Published

6 hours ago

on

2026/01/21

By

PM Amarasuriya

We express our profound concern and deep outrage at the vulgar, misogynistic, and defamatory attacks being directed at the Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya.

Dr. Harini Amarasuriya is not merely a political leader; she is a scholar, public intellectual, and lifelong advocate of social justice, equality, and education. Attempts to discredit her through personal abuse rather than reasoned policy debate are not only an insult to her, but an assault on democratic values, women’s leadership, and intellectual integrity in public life.

Such attacks are unjust and unethical, and they corrode democratic discourse. We are deeply disappointed that certain political actors and their supporters continue to rely on misinformation, prejudice, and emotional manipulation, instead of engaging in rational, evidence-based, and constructive debate.

Sri Lanka has already paid a heavy price for decades of politics rooted in fear, communal division, and sentiment-driven populism. The country’s economic collapse and social breakdown are the direct consequences of these failed approaches. The people decisively rejected this style of politics through the Aragalaya, signaling a clear demand for change. Sri Lanka now stands at a historic turning point. After decades of corruption, ethnic manipulation, and policy paralysis, the people have given a clear mandate for systemic reform.

At this critical moment, Sri Lanka urgently needs structural reforms, particularly in education, which is the foundation of long-term national development, social mobility, and global competitiveness. Yet we observe that the very forces responsible for the country’s decline are once again attempting to block or derail reforms by exploiting religious, cultural, and emotional narratives.

We strongly affirm that no nation can be rebuilt through hatred, fear, or division. Education reform is not a political threat; it is a national necessity. Efforts to undermine reform through personal attacks and manufactured controversies serve only those who seek to return to power by keeping the country weak, divided, and intellectually impoverished.

Those who now attack Dr. Harini Amarasuriya are not defending culture or morality. They are defending privilege and political survival. Having failed the country for over seventy-five years through communalism, patronage, and anti-intellectualism, they now fear that an educated, critical, and empowered generation will render their outdated politics irrelevant.

This is why they target:

=a woman,

=an academic,

=and a reformer.

We therefore state clearly that we:

1. Condemn all forms of character assassination, gender-based attacks, and hate propaganda against the Prime Minister and Minister of Education.

2. Affirm our full support for Dr. Harini Amarasuriya’s leadership in advancing Sri Lanka’s education reforms.

3. Urge the government to proceed firmly and without retreat in implementing the proposed education reforms, in line with national policy and the public mandate.

4. Call upon academics, professionals, teachers, parents, and citizens to stand together against reactionary forces that seek to sabotage reform through fear mongering and disinformation.

A country cannot be rebuilt by those who destroyed it. A future cannot be created by those who fear education reforms.

Sri Lanka’s future must not be sacrificed for the ambitions of a few.Sri Lanka must move forward — with knowledge, dignity, and courage.

Signatories:

1. Markandu Thiruvathavooran, Attorney at law

2. S. Arivalzahan, University of Jaffna

3. Dr S.Ramesh, University of Jaffna

4. Dr. Mariadas Alfred, Former Dean, University of Peradeniya

5. Prof B.Nimalathasan, Senior Professor, University of Jaffna

6. S. Srivakeesan, Station Master, SriLankan Railways

7. A. T. Aravinthan, Branch Manager, Commercial Bank

8. Dr. S. Niththiyaruban, Paediatrician, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna

9. Dr. S. Selvaganesh, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna

10. Dr. S. Mathievaanan, Consultant Surgeon, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna

11. Prof. P. Iyngaran, University of Jaffna

12. Eng. M. Sooriasegaram, President, Education Development Consortium

13. Dr. S. Raviraj, Senior Consultant Surgeon, Former Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University, Jaffna.

14. Mr. Saminadan Wimal, University of Jaffna

15. Dr. A. Antonyrajan, University of Jaffna

16. P. Regno, Attorney at Law

17. Prof. J. Prince Jeyadevan, University of Jaffna

18. Prof. S. Muhunthan, University of Jaffna

19. Prof. R. Kapilan, University of Jaffna

20. Dr. S. Jeevasuthan, University of Jaffna

21. J.S. Thevaruban, University of Jaffna

22. S. Balaputhiran, University of Jaffna

23. Dr. N. Sivapalan, Retired Senior lecturer, University of Jaffna

24. I. P. Dhanushiyan, University of Jaffna

25. Dr. K. Thabotharan, University of Jaffna

26. Dr. Bahirathy J. Rasanen, University of Jaffna

27. Perinpanayagam Ronibus, Vice Secretary, Change Charitable Trust, Jaffna

28. Dr. S. Maheswaran, University of Peradeniya

29. Mr. S. Laleesan, Principal, Kopay Teachers’ College

30. Victor Antany, Teacher, Kilinochchi

31. K. Shanthakumar, Principal, Technical College, Vavuniya

32. S. Thirikaran, Principal, J/ Puttur Srisomaskanda College

33. Dr. T. Vannarajan, Advanced Technical Institute, Jaffna.

34. X. Don Bosco, Resource person, Piliyandala Educational Zone

35. K. Ravikumar, Regional Manager, Powerhands Pvt Ltd

36. Sathiyapriya Jeyaseelan, DO, Economist

37. A. Kalaichelvan, Chief Accountant, Animal Productive & Health

38. C. Vathanakumar, Retired Project Director

39. P. Kirupakaran, Department of Buildings (NP)

40. A. Antony Pilinton, David Peris Company, Jaffna

41. A. Muralietharan, Social Activist

42. Sinthuja Sritharan, Independent Researcher

43. T. Sritharan, Social Activist

44. Ms. Gnasakthi Sritharan, Social Activist

45. P. Thevatharsan, Management Service Officer

46. . S. Mohan, Social Activist

47. K. Jeyakumaran, Social Activist

48. Dr. N. Nithianandan, Chairman, Ratnam Foundation

49. George Antony Cristy, Social Activist

50. S. Thangarasa, Social Activist

51. N. Bhavan, Retd. Deputy Principal, Mahajana College

52. P. Muthulingam, Executive Director, Institute of Social Development, Kandy

53. M.K. Sivarajah, Social Activist

54. Mr. V. Sivalingam, Human Rights Activist

55. S. Jeyaganeshan, Samuthi Development Officer

Continue Reading

Trending