Opinion

Repeal of Online Safety Act vital for economic salvation of Sri Lanka

Published

1 month ago

2025/04/24

I. Imminent Danger

While the economy of Sri Lanka has achieved some degree of stabilisation after the most dire crisis in history, progress along a growth trajectory remains a clear imperative. Fragility of the current situation has been massively increased by the devastating tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration, making our country’s exports to the United States – especially apparel and rubber products – starkly vulnerable.

Against this backdrop the GSP+ facility, affording preferential access to the vast markets of the European Union, becomes a lifeline for our exports. Exemption from import duty for a wide array of products involves an advantage of immense value.

This is, however,neither a right nor an entitlement, and its availability is by no means assured in perpetuity. Its continued enjoyment is conditional upon compliance with provisions contained in 27 treaties, principally the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Aspects of this have been incorporated into the domestic legal system of Sri Lanka, by legislation in the drafting of which,as Minister of Export Development and International Trade, I played a key role in 2007.

GSP+ privileges for Sri Lanka are now coming up for review, with a delegation from Brussels expected to arrive very shortly.

One of Sri Lanka’s abiding commitments is a fundamental modification of the Online Safety Act, No. 9 of 2024, an unforgiving onslaught on media freedom, which was vehemently opposed by political parties across the spectrum, and representatives of the media and civil society. Despite the outrageous contents of the Act, no action whatever has been taken up to now, to amend this legislation. There is no doubt that this situation, if it is allowed to continue, will gravely impede vital interests in respect of our international trade. Certainly, the government’s professed intention of enhancing the value of exports to the European Union to the threshold of 3.6 billion dollars in the short term, will be reduced to a fanciful expectation.It is, therefore, a matter of urgent practical importance to identify the most obnoxious features of the law and to set in motion the legislative procedures necessary to effect their repeal or radical reform.

II. Overbroad Definition of Offences

A defect going to the very root of the legislation is a definition which is strikingly vague and overbroad: “Any person, whether in or outside Sri Lanka, who poses a threat to national security, public health or public order or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, by communicating a false statement, commits an offence” (Section 12).

The central criterion itself is an attack on basic democratic values. There has been judicial recognition of the reality that “Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate” (New York Times vs. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 at p. 270 – 1 (1964). The solution, in a democratic culture, is not suppression but refutation of falsehood through enhanced engagement and challenge.

The central objection is to the use of subjective language like “ill-will” and “hostility” as elements of the definition of a penal offence carrying condign penalties, including long periods of rigorous imprisonment. Inherent vagueness leads to unpredictability of consequences.

Equally compelling considerations apply to the use of “national security” as a lever for restraint on expression and publication. Public policy, as set out in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (Preamble to UN Document E/CN 4/1996/39), adopted on 1 October 1995, emphasises the need “to discourage governments from using the pretext of national security to place unjustified restrictions on the exercise of freedom of speech and expression”.

It is the absence of necessary qualification that violates the basic ethos of a democratic society.A “threat” to national security, public health or public order as the basis of restriction on free speech and communication is unacceptable without essential limitation.The internationally accepted test of “clear and present danger”(Schenk vs. U.S. 249 U.S. 247 at p.52 (1919)) is in no way reflected as a qualifying element in the Sri Lankan legislation.

III. Overarching Authority of the Commission

The crux of the pivotal offence is a “false statement”. The truth or falsity of the statement complained of, is a matter to be determined at the untrammelled discretion of the Online Safety Commission, the central authority created by the law. It is composed of 5 members appointed by the President,with the concurrence of the Constitutional Council.

A vital circumstance is that members of the Online Safety Commission, unlike the membership of other independent Commissions established under the Constitution, are not recommended for appointment by the Constitutional Council. The initiative is that of the President, not the Constitutional Council, the function of the latter being confined to “approval” (Section 5 (1)). This is a marked, and in principle unacceptable, departure from the pattern of constitutional provisions governing the appointment of independent Commissions.

This difference of approach undeniably impacts public perceptions regarding performance of the Commission’s functions in a spirit of total independence – a result much to be regretted, in view of the awesome sweep of powers conferred on the Commission. These include the prohibition, by mere fiat of the Commission,of statements pertaining to a diversity of matters such as physical security,ethnic and religious harmony,disaffection to the State, personal wellbeing and privacy, and interference with the right of association.

In any event, given the invasion of seminal rights and freedoms as the direct consequence of exercise of the Commission’s powers, it is reasonable to assume the desirability of a process of consultation which would include, among others, internet service providers, internet intermediaries, and representatives of media organisations, as well as the professional, business and academic communities.

Incompatibility of scope and objectives of this Act with the irreducible norms of a functioning democracy is clear from judicial pronouncements of impeccable authority: “The freedom of speech and expression is one which cannot be denied without violating those principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions” (Mark Fernando J. in Amaratunga v. Sirimal, The Jana Ghose Case, S.C. Application No. 468/92).

The reality of this danger is reinforced by implications of the definition of a “false statement”, the anchor of criminal liability in terms of the Act: “A ‘false statement’ means a statement that is known or believed by the maker to be incorrect or untrue and is made especially with the intent to deceive or mislead but does not include a caution, an opinion or imputation made in good faith” (section 52). The manner of formulation suggests that the concluding phrase is in the nature of an exception from criminal liability, the burden of proof in this regard falling on the shoulders of the accused. In practice, this is an intolerably onerous burden.

In sum, the behemoth of the Commission is destructive of the foundations of civil liberty.

IV. Remoteness of Causal Nexus

One of the reasons why the law is indefensibly wide in its operation is the imposition of criminal liability for consequences which are not proximately linked to the conduct of the accused.It is declared to be an offence to communicate “a false statement which gives provocation to any person or incites any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation or incitement will cause the offence of rioting to be committed” (section 14).

In the envisaged situation, rioting is committed by a third party. Criminal liability on the part of the person communicating through an online account or online location, is grounded solely in assumed knowledge of likely behaviour of the third party. Indeed, criminal liability of the communicator is established, even when the consequence of rioting does not take place at all, the only difference being reduction of sentence (section 14 (f)). Similarly, the communicator of the statement is held criminally responsible for disturbance of a religious assembly, with no clear nexus being insisted upon between the act of the accused and the rioting which takes place (section 15)).

The net of criminal liability is cast far too wide by this approach, the lack of a sufficiently clear causal nexus being the underlying defect.

V. Expanding Frontiers of Criminalisation

A prominent feature of the Online Safety Act is the indiscriminate use of criminal sanctions to attain its objectives. A wide range of offences is created by Part III of the legislation. Many of these are of amorphous scope, lacking in precise definition of constituent elements – for example, “wantonly” giving provocation by a false statement to cause riot (section 14), “voluntarily” causing disturbance to a religious assembly (section 15) and “malicious” communication of a false statement to outrage religious feelings (section 16). The ambit of the offence against “public tranquillity” (section 19) is equally unclear. These are all offences which carry deterrent sentences of imprisonment, in one case for up to 3 years and in the other for a maximum of 7 years, in addition to, or as an alternative to, a substantial fine.

The Commission, on satisfaction that an offence has been committed under the Act, is empowered to “take steps to initiate criminal proceedings in terms of s. 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979” (section 38(2)). Moreover, every offence established by the Act is characterised as a non-cognisable offence within the meaning of the laws governing criminal procedure (section 43(a)).

Penal consequences of daunting severity are visited upon bodies corporate. Every director or other principal officer is held criminally responsible (section 44(a)). If the offender is a firm, criminal liability is imposed on every partner of the firm (section 44(b)) and, in the case of an unincorporated body, “every individual who is a controlling member and every principal officer responsible for management and control” (section 44(c)) is exposed to criminal sanctions. Lack of knowledge or exercise of due diligence is recognised as an exculpatory circumstance but, in keeping with general evidentiary principles, the burden of proof in this regard is borne by the accused.

VI. Chilling Effect of the Law

The core of the statute resides in the powers vested in the Commission, to apply an extensive range of measures to deal with “prohibited statements” (Part II). These include orders “to stop the communication of such statements” (section 11 (b)), “to disable access to an online location” (section 11 (c)) and to direct removal of prohibited statements (section 11 (e)). A worrying factor is the absence of a proper definition of “prohibited statements”, the purported definition consisting merely of a reference to the provisions which use the phrase (section 52).

When the Commission is satisfied that a “prohibited statement” has been made, its coercive powers which come into play, are of a drastic nature. These extend to the authority to issue a notice to the communicator of the statement, ordering the adoption of measures to prevent circulation (section 23 (f)). This renders applicable the draconian provision that the recipient of the notice “shall comply with such notice immediately but not later than 24 hours from such notice” (section 23 (b) and (f)). Failure results in criminal proceedings in a Magistrate’s Court (section 23 (g)).

The Commission has power to name an online location as a “declared online location” if 3 or more prohibited statements have been communicated on that location to end users in Sri Lanka (section 28 (i)). An internet service provider or an internet intermediary, on the making of such a declaration by the Commission, is obliged to cease communication instantly on pain of imprisonment for a term of up to 7 years or a maximum fine of 10 million rupees, the penalty being doubled in the event of a subsequent offence (section 29 (6)).

Especially in light of the broad definition of “inauthentic online account”, “internet service provider”, “internet intermediary” and “internet intermediary service” (section 52), the chilling effect of the law is evident.

It is hardly surprising, then, that prominent internet and technology companies active in Sri Lanka, in their response to the legislation, have sounded a strong note of caution, even indicating the risk of withdrawal from their operations in our country.

The Asian Internet Coalition (AIC) which consists of 13 companies of international stature, commenting on this legislation when it was in Bill form, declared: “Despite our commitment to constructive collaboration, the AIC has not been privy to proposed amendments to the Bill. We unequivocally stand by our position that the Online Safety Bill, in its current form, is unworkable and would undermine potential growth and direct foreign investment into Sri Lanka’s digital economy. We firmly believe that for the Bill to align with global best practices, extensive revisions are imperative” (Emergency Media Statement of 23 January 2024).

This can hardly be disregarded in cavalier fashion.As the government has emphatically acknowledged, digitalization and other technology innovations are central to current plans for economic development and, of equal importance, for ensuring equitable distribution of the benefits of progress. Swift and ready access to market information – be it for farmers, the fishing community, manufacturers of industrial products, providers of services and the small and medium sector in particular – is an indispensable requirement for the success of current strategies. If companies of the calibre of Facebook, Google,X,Apple,Amazon,Cloudflare and Yahoo,contemplate discontinuation of their services because of the oppressive character of the law, economic development, far from being advanced, is certain to be retarded.

VII. The Need for Imperative Change

Parliament debated the Online Safety Bill for 2 full days on 23 and 24 February 2024. Pervasive deficiencies of the law were convincingly identified during this rich and rewarding debate. No one was more forthright than the current Prime Minister, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, at that time speaking from the ranks of the Opposition, in her unreserved condemnation of the Bill and her strident call for its withdrawal: “The intent of the Government is clear. It is about controlling dissent; it is about taking control of public discourse or public narrative at a crucial time in this country when democracy needs to be protected at all costs. That every instrument is gong to be used to stifle dissent, is very clear” (Hansard of 24 January 2024, Column 224).

The Online Safety Act stands as a monument to illiberalism and as an anchor of State apparatus infringing the substance of civil liberty. Its removal from the statute laws of our country is a dire necessity, no longer to be delayed.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D.
(Sri Lanka);
Rhodes Scholar,Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

KOICA – Volunteer Partner’s Day Meeting 2025

Published

2 days ago

2025/05/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

On 20th May 2025, KOICA Volunteer Partner’s Day of year 2025 was held at the Courtyard by Marriott with the presence of the Country Director of KOICA Sri Lanka office Mrs. LEE Yooli, Mr. Samantha Bandara, the Director General of External Resources Department and officials from the Department of Technical Education & Training, National Institute of Education, Schools, Universities, National Youth Services Council, Colombo Public Library and over fifteen (15) volunteer partner organization representatives in Sri Lanka.

At present, there are thirteen (13) KOICA volunteers serving in Sri Lanka and the meeting organized by KOICA (WFK Division) was to share the know-how, experience and knowledgeable resources with the respective partner organizations. The main goals of the knowledge sharing session were to deliver relevant information about the KOICA Volunteer program and to generate insights from the partner organizations that will be useful in recalibrating WFK program’s future direction, including safety and security.

During the session, participants of partner organizations showed their strong need to obtain the services of volunteers, especially for the fields of Korean Language, ICT, Electronics, Social Welfare, Electronics and Auto-Mobile Engineering. Furthermore, they appreciated and emphasized the importance of expanding of KOICA Volunteer Program to rural areas in Sri Lanka.

Since the initiation of KOICA Sri Lanka office in 1991, volunteer dispatch activities have taken place throughout most regions in the country. There has been a significant demand for KOICA volunteers in the educational sphere targeting areas of Korean Language, ICT, etc. The expertise received from Korea has not only shown developmental potential in partner organizations but has also provided invaluable expertise for the youth to excel in the job market.

The Country Director of KOICA Sri Lanka office Mrs. LEE YOOLI expressed her gratitude to all the participants of partner organizations and added “KOICA Headquarters, together with the Sri Lanka Office, is pleased to continue the volunteer program under its ODA endeavors towards Sri Lanka; while introducing new focused volunteer fields in alignment with the SDG goals and the Sri Lankan government priorities.”

In the meeting, Mr. Samantha Bandara, Director General of the External Resources Department, extended his deep appreciation to KOICA for overall technical cooperation towards Sri Lanka and especially, appreciated the services of volunteers who contribute for the social and economic growth of the country, by sharing their expertise and Korea’s development experience.

The Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), the grant aid division of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, is the Korean government agency for grant aids under the mission of “Contributing to the common prosperity and the promotion of world peace through inclusive, mutual development cooperation leaving no one behind.”

Opinion

Has AKD lost the plot?

Published

3 days ago

2025/05/21

Sahan Weerasooriya

The election of the JVP/NPP leader as the executive president of Sri Lanka was no doubt momentous, perhaps, second only to the election of Ranasinghe Premadasa to the same coveted position. Though it was the first time the ‘caste barrier’ was broken, unfortunately, instead of hailing this social revolution Premadasa had other ideas; he attempted to rewrite history by attempting to change his heritage thus missing a great opportunity to show that Sri Lanka indeed was a country of equality and opportunity! AKD shares with Premadasa the same great achievement of reaching the top from very humble beginnings. In addition, AKD is the only leader of the country to be elected from a party with a ‘terrorist’ heritage and many were hopeful that this would not be a baggage. As recent events have shown, it looks as if he is not able to shed that baggage. It is said that a leopard cannot change its spots! This is past repeating itself, as well illustrated by the actions of our first executive president JRJ; he was a manoeuvrer who could not stop doing so, even when he reached the top, which no doubt contributed to his downfall!

AKD started well, just like all his predecessors have done, but wheels seem to be coming off the wagon pretty soon! He continues to behave like an opposition politician continuing with attacks on his opponents, past and present, instead of concentrating on statecraft, to take action to alleviate the suffering of the masses burdened with severe economic hardships and chart a course for future prosperity. Perhaps, this may at least be partly due to his having to face election after election but this should not be an excuse. Prior to the presidential election he portrayed that he was surrounded by groups of experts, of all modalities, who were ready with policies for rapid implementation but these experts seem to have disappeared into thin air! Only experts in economics seem to be from the much-maligned IMF. The message from the voters seems to be falling on deaf ears as shown by absurd explanations given for the erosion of the vote at the last local government elections.

He seems to be a one-man band which, worryingly, dashes hope for the long-promised abolition of the presidency. He would be totally ineffective without the executive powers of the presidency. This seems yet another addition to his unfulfilled promises. He is apparently being supported by a group of amateurs! Prior to elections there was much hype about the PM, a respected academic, who seems to have been pushed to the background. She does not seem to be functioning efficiently even as the minister of education. Ragging continues in universities resulting in suicides. Even worse was the suicide of a student sexually molested by a teacher, humiliated by a friend of the accused teacher, a private tutor who contested on the NPP ticket. The initial punishment for the teacher, till public protests erupted, was a transfer to a distant school. To make a terrible situation even worse was the action of the minister tasked with ensuring the safety of women and children. She claimed that the parents had not met her and handed over a petition.

This lack of leadership is replicated by the President himself. AKD’s mantra during the parliamentary election campaign was cleansing of Diyawannawa but no sooner had the guardian of the house been elected than his doctorate from a private Japanese university was questioned. After much hesitation, the speaker resigned, claiming that he would prove his academic qualifications. He has not done so and he is still an ‘honourable’ MP! Another MP, a female lawyer had the audacity to state that under the NPP government anyone was free to lie and admitted that she had lied about billions of dollars airlifted to Uganda by the Rajapaksas! AKD has taken no action against these MPs.

AKD also had an exposition of the Sacred Tooth Relic to be held in the run-up to the recent local elections. It did not pay dividends may be because the arrangements were in shambles. He visited Vietnam to deliver a lecture for the International Vesak Day but apparently did not find time to pay homage to the Buddha’s sacred relics on display a short distance away from the conference hall. He did find time to lay a wreath at the memorial of the war dead and flew back on a private jet so that he could vote in the LG elections! Another promise broken but it is claimed that a Buddhist society had paid for the private jet!

AKD’s actions regarding the ceremony to remember and honour war heroes clearly shows that he has completely lost the plot. To the shock and horror of all patriotic Sri Lankans, an announcement was made a couple of days ago by the secretary of defence that the ceremony would be presided over by the deputy minister of defence! In short, the commander of the forces is too busy or too reluctant to attend the remembrance of those who sacrificed their lives for the integrity of the country. I doubt it has happened in any country! If he was of the opinion that this event was superfluous or that it hampered reconciliation, he should have had the guts to issue a statement to that effect. Coming from a ‘terrorist’ heritage, the JVP may be having a soft corner for the terrorists killed by the armed forces and may have thought it was hypocritical for him to attend!

As the public outcry could not be patched over, he decided not only to attend the ceremony but also visit the disabled and allow them to take selfies. It is a shame that AKD seems to have developed selective amnesia for his past statements. During the time Rajapaksas were leading the campaign to eradicate the Tigers, AKD was a strong supporter and at times claimed that he told them what to do! What has brought about this change? Was it the backing from the pro-LTTE groups in other countries?

To add insult to injury, during his speech he alluded that the ‘war’ had been fought for political gains. Though it may have produced political gains, doesn’t he realise that it was fought, at a tremendous cost, to defeat terrorism for the purpose of continuing the integrity of the country? He and his acolytes are spreading the canard that this is different as we did not fight a foreign country. Had the Tigers succeeded, we may well be fighting a different country in our little island! His virtual equation of dead terrorists to our fallen heroes added further insult.

Unfortunately, we seem an ungrateful country insulting our fallen war heroes and allowing hypocritical Western nations insulting our living heroes.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Opinion

Make Sri Lanka Great

Published

4 days ago

2025/05/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka holds immense untapped economic potential, bolstered by its strategic location along major global trade routes, rich natural resources, and a vibrant cultural heritage. Yet, despite these advantages, the nation has faced significant setbacks in recent decades—civil conflict, political instability, economic mismanagement, and rising poverty. Against this backdrop, the call to “Make Sri Lanka Great” is more than a slogan; it is a mission. It represents a collective vision to restore economic stability, promote inclusive growth, and unlock a future of opportunity for all Sri Lankans.

Reclaiming Sri Lanka’s Historical Greatness

Historically, Sri Lanka was a flourishing centre of commerce, education, and cultural exchange in the Indian Ocean. Its location between East and West positioned it as a maritime trade hub linking Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Ports such as Colombo, Galle, Trincomalee, KKS connected global traders, scholars, and travelers, fostering a dynamic and prosperous economy.

Today, reviving this legacy is crucial. Economic renewal must be anchored in a fusion of historical insight, national unity, and bold innovation. To move forward, Sri Lanka must:

* Reclaim its legacy of knowledge, resilience, and productivity.

* Promote confidence in its global economic potential, encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment.

* Ensure social inclusion, recognising that unity across ethnic and religious lines is foundational to sustainable growth.

By leveraging its geographic strengths, investing in human capital, and creating a transparent, investor-friendly environment, Sri Lanka can once again become a leading player in regional and global trade.

Economic Challenges

Sri Lanka’s development path is obstructed by a complex web of systemic challenges. An ongoing economic crisis—driven by high debt, poor fiscal discipline, and import dependency—has caused inflation, job losses, and currency depreciation. Political instability and inconsistent policymaking further undermine investor confidence and long-term planning.

Social divisions, rooted in a civil war that ended in 2009, continue to impact national unity. Additionally, youth unemployment and the outmigration of skilled workers are weakening the nation’s human capital. Environmental degradation through deforestation, pollution, and unregulated urbanisation threatens tourism, agriculture, and long-term resilience. Addressing these interconnected issues is essential to laying a foundation for economic recovery and sustainable progress.

A New National Vision

To become truly great, Sri Lanka must redefine development beyond GDP and infrastructure. A developed Sri Lanka should be:

* Economically strong, with robust industries in technology, tourism, agriculture, and services.

* Socially cohesive, where every citizen is treated equally and with dignity.

* Globally respected, as a democratic, peaceful, and environmentally responsible nation.

· Empowering to youth, offering them opportunities to succeed at home, not just abroad.

Foreign-to-Local Citizen Ratios

The Foreign-to-Local Citizen Ratio is more than just a demographic statistic — it serves as a valuable indicator of a country’s openness, safety, and attractiveness to the global community. A healthy ratio often reflects a nation’s ability to provide freedom, security, and economic opportunity to foreigners who visit, live, work, or invest. (See Table)

Foreign-to-Local Citizen Ratios

For example, Singapore’s 44% foreign-to-local ratio has supported its rise as a financial and innovation hub by filling labour gaps and driving productivity. While Sri Lanka’s 1.3% ratio reflects low foreign participation, strategic immigration and talent attraction could contribute to economic revitalisation.

Singapore, the UAE, and Germany have higher foreign-to-local ratios, signaling environments where international residents feel safe, welcomed, and empowered. These nations offer stable governance, clear legal frameworks, and strong institutions that attract foreign workers, investors, and entrepreneurs.

A favourable ratio also shows that a country:

* Ensures security and legal protection for foreigners.

* Provides infrastructure and services that support international living and business.

* Encourages foreign direct investment (FDI) and startup ecosystems by reducing red tape and fostering trust.

* Embraces cultural diversity, creating a dynamic and innovative society.

For Sri Lanka, improving its foreign-to-local ratio can boost its global reputation as a safe, business-friendly, and forward-looking nation. By creating an environment where foreigners feel confident to visit, reside, invest, and contribute, the country can unlock new economic opportunities and accelerate its journey toward sustainable development.

Economic Renewal

To make Sri Lanka great, a comprehensive strategy is required:

* Good Governance: Eliminate corruption, strengthen democratic institutions, and promote transparency and rule of law.

* Economic Transformation: Support local production, SMEs, and ethical foreign investment. Create a resilient, diversified, and export-oriented economy.

* Education and Skills: Modernise the education system to meet future job demands, especially in IT, engineering, tourism, and creative sectors. Expand vocational training to empower youth.

* Social Inclusion and Reconciliation: Promote national unity through inclusive governance, equal rights, and decentralis`ation to ensure all regions benefit from development.

* Environmental Sustainability: Invest in clean energy, eco-tourism, and sustainable agriculture. Protect forests, oceans, and heritage sites to maintain long-term economic and ecological balance.

* Fiscal and Institutional Reform: Improve tax systems, streamline public spending, and create a stable investment environment to manage debt and rebuild confidence.

* Knowledge Economy: Position Sri Lanka as a digital hub in South Asia by investing in R&D, digital infrastructure, and innovation ecosystems.

Conclusion

The country has the potential to follow the path of nations like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore — countries that transformed crisis into opportunity through strong leadership, national unity, and long-term reform. To achieve this, Sri Lanka must embrace good governance, invest in human capital, promote entrepreneurship, and prioritise sustainable development. The nation’s future greatness depends on bold economic transformation rooted in its unique strengths. With a clear vision, inclusive policies, and collective commitment, Sri Lanka can rise above its challenges and secure a peaceful, prosperous, and globally respected future.

Visvalingam Muralithas is a researcher in the legislative sector, specializing in policy analysis and economic research. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Economics at the University of Colombo, with a research focus on governance, development, and sustainable growth. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics (Honours) from the University of Jaffna and a Master’s degree in Economics from the University of Colombo.

by Visvalingam Muralithas