Features
The East Asian disanalogy, or why Sri Lanka cannot be a Singapore

by Uditha Devapriya
Economists and political analysts tend to extol the virtues of free markets and the evils of state-led growth. They seem to think that Sri Lanka has, for the most, been caving into the latter approach, i.e. widening the state at the expense of the private sector. The solution, according to analysts, is to let the market decide and to limit the government to the role of what Robert Nozick described as a “Night-watchman”, formulating the rules of the economy without playing with them. These analysts then point at societies that prospered under such a state: the US, much of Western Europe, and the Tiger economies of East Asia.
Unfortunately, much of the hype surrounding advocacy of free market principles and small government is built on a tautological premise: economic liberalisation will lead to growth, so it should be implemented in the country. Import tariffs must be reduced or even eliminated, export-orientation must replace import-substitution, let’s not think of local industrialisation or machine-manufacture yet because we’re an island, and let’s reduce the role of the state because in the US, Britain, and East Asia, it played a minimal role.
Countries are not all endowed with the same levels or the same kinds of resources. Nor do they magically transit to free markets and small governments. To say economic liberalisation worked there and that owing to it these principles must be applied here is to assume that all it takes for a country to prosper is the implementation of policies to which those countries which are supposedly implementing them now resorted only after they had passed through certain stages. This assumption, quoting the late S. B. D. de Silva, is “a veritable non-sequitur of bourgeois scholarship.” As always, context is important.
The US got to where it is largely through its leap to industrialisation in the latter part of the 19th century. Much of the industrialisation which transpired at that time was financed, not by private initiative, but by the government: vast tracts of land running into millions of acres were handed over to railway companies. In Britain the state played an important role in promoting local industry, smothering the up-and-coming textile mills of India. Discussions about the success of private sector led growth in these countries leave out or ignore the role played by colonial conquest, which happened to be financed by the government. “Is there any greater example of a rampant state than the English state in the world?” asked a friend at an Advocata Night-Watchman seminar years ago. “When you’re talking laissez-faire, they were basically robbing the seas around the world, installing slavery.” True.
In East Asia three distinct case studies can be identified: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, and Singapore. The foundation for Japan’s economy was laid down long before the war by the Tokugawa shogunate; it broke the stranglehold of petty traders, privileging industrial capital over merchant finance. Taiwan emerged from the war cut off from mainland China after the Communist takeover in 1949, yet American experts and economists who formulated that country’s transition to liberalisation didn’t embark on free market reforms right away. First they oversaw rent reduction in 1949, the sale of public lands in 1951, and a land-to-the-tiller program in 1953. Land reform limited ownership of paddy land to 4.5 hectares, much lower than the 10-25 hectare limit imposed by the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government in 1972 (a favourite punching bag for free market “Advocatas”). South Korea implemented the same set of reforms. It hardly need be added that in all three countries, democratisation followed, rather than preceded, the transition from agriculture to industrialisation.
Singapore is a different case, not least because unlike other East Asian countries it lacked a rural hinterland in which a transition from agriculture to industry could take place. Yet there too the role of government intervention cannot be denied, economically and also politically. Milton Friedman once referred to Lee Kuan Yew as a “benevolent dictator”, the very same epithet Maithripala Sirisena used on Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2014 after walking out from the then administration. In a 1993 essay William Gibson described the country as “Disneyland with the Death Penalty”, bringing to mind Jagath Manuwarna’s remark about Sri Lanka at a press conference in late 2014: “kalakanni Disneylanthaya.” Unlike Manuwarna’s statement though, Gibson’s essay was banned by the Singaporean government.
Liberals and classical liberals and even left-liberals tend to look up to Singapore and Yew’s reforms without realising that, as Regi Siriwardena observed, their achievements rested on the denial of democratic and human rights. Hence when one columnist, drawing wildly false analogies, argues that Singapore lacked a president, yet accomplished much (implying that Sri Lanka doesn’t need an Executive Presidency to get things done), he fails to acknowledge or chooses to ignore not only that Singapore had just one political party during its transition from third world to first, but also that it curtailed dissent in a way that makes any hounding of dissent in Sri Lanka today look haphazard in comparison; when asked why he refused to tolerate political cartoons, for instance, Yew bluntly told Fergus Bordewich that in Confucian society politicians ought to be seen as deserving of respect.
The absence of a rural hinterland made it all the easier for Singapore’s government to enact capitalist reforms, since it could dispense with the need to abolish the kind of pre-capitalist social relations that existed in Taiwan and South Korea. Despite this, however, government intervention swept across the country; in the words of one economist, Singapore responded to international economic forces “through manipulating the domestic economy.”
Wage adjustments vis-à-vis a National Wages Council, a high savings and investment culture promoted via state enforced and state directed abstinence, the shift towards manufacturing in the latter part of the 1960s, the growth of public enterprises (believed to have accounted for 14% to 16% of manufacturing output), and tight government control of trade unions all played a part in bolstering its prospects. As Hoff (1995) noted, the paradox of Singapore’s economic success was that while investments came from the private sector, savings relied on the public sector. It is true that contributions by foreign investment were significant, yet had Singapore not had a rigidly regulated economy where, for instance, compensation costs for production workers were one-third that of the US equivalent by 1993, it would not have become the third world’s first success story it is touted as today.
The specific conditions under which the East Asian economies transformed from developing to developed, from inward-looking to outward-looking, make their emulation in other parts of the world untenable, if not unlikely. At the time the governments of these countries were imposing reforms, Western Europe was struggling to recover from wartime recession and MNCs had not become as active in peripheral countries as they would decades later. Their geopolitical alignment with the US in the Cold War guaranteed the success of the East Asian Tigers. Moreover, these were hardly what one could call classical liberal societies: political authoritarianism cohabited with economic liberalisation. Even that dichotomy comes off as false when we consider that government intervention figured heavily in these economies, something the “Advocatas” of free markets don’t seem to be aware of today.
There was another very significant factor: the absence of a merchant trader class in these countries. The Tokugawa reforms extended to Korea and Taiwan after Japan turned them into granaries for its domestic needs. The US experts hired to oversee reforms in Korea and Taiwan facilitated, rather than reversed, these processes. In Sri Lanka and much of the Third World, by contrast, experimentation with free market classical liberalism has resulted in not just political authoritarianism, but also the defenestration of an industrial sector, leading to lopsided growth subsidised by a Pettah merchant class: rather than manufacturing goods, they are imported and resold. The call for “going local”, then, contrary to what intellectuals, institutions, and Opposition MPs think, say, and write, has to do with more than a hysterical call for a garrison state. This is not economics. This is common sense.
False analogies, assumptions, and tautologies will thus get us nowhere. It is certainly ironic that think-tanks and institutions that privilege reason over guesswork end up indulging in selective scholarship. Even more ironic are statements uttered by academics from countries which passed through several stages before making the transition from a planned order to a free market advising us to bypass those stages when implementing policy reforms here. It takes not only foresight and hindsight, but also courage, to swerve from and dispute these assumptions, dig deep into history, and understand what drives the wealth of nations and the poverty of others. Free markets alone will not do, as even the history of countries where they flourish today tell us. Something else can, and something else must.
The writer can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com
Features
Easter truth can be the beginning

There has long been speculation that the Easter bombing of April 2019 had a relationship to Sri Lankan politics. The near simultaneous bombings of three Christian churches and three luxury hotels, with a death toll of 270 and over 500 injured, by Muslim suicide bombers made no sense in Sri Lanka where there has been no history of conflict between the two religions. But a political motivation was suspected on the basis of who would be the beneficiary of an otherwise senseless crime. The bombing immediately discredited the government in power at that time, saw the nomination of the opposition presidential candidate soon after, and paved the way for the crushing defeat of the government at the national elections that followed in a few months.
In Parliament last week, Leader of the House Bimal Ratnayake revealed a political strategy to create the conditions for the change of government that took place. His remarks corresponded to suspicions that the attack was not just a failure of intelligence, but the result of deliberate manipulation by those in the political sphere. What is new is that these suspicions are now being stated clearly and officially at the highest level of government. Minister Ratnayake said, “They started this in 2013 by creating and maintaining Sinhala and Muslim extremist groups through intelligence agencies. The culmination of this was similar to the Cambridge Analytica incident.”
The Cambridge Analytica scandal involved the unauthorised harvesting of personal data from millions of Facebook users to build psychological profiles and micro-target voters for political purposes. The data harvested by Cambridge Analytica was used primarily to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favour of Donald Trump and the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK. The company also allegedly worked on elections in Kenya, Nigeria, India, Trinidad and Tobago, and several other countries, using psychographic profiling and targeted digital ads to manipulate voter behaviour.
Cardinal’s Consistency
If the allegations about the Easter attacks prove true, they would constitute one of the most unprincipled examples of violence being used for political purposes in Sri Lanka’s post-war period. To use fear, death, and destruction to pave the way for a political return is totally unacceptable and without conscience. What makes the current moment different from earlier efforts to deal with such unacceptable actions is that there now appears to be political will. There is a sense that the present government is committed to follow through with investigations, even if the implications reach to the highest levels of power.
It is significant that the government has taken the controversial step of reappointing retired officers Shani Abeysekera and Ravi Seneviratne, both of whom were known to be top class police investigators who were removed from the investigation process by previous governments, to once again lead the investigations. They are both controversial in that they briefly joined the government side’s political stage during the last presidential election campaign. Minister Ratnayake justified their reappointment on the grounds that Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith made the request. It is in this context that the current government’s willingness to act gains it credibility with the Catholic community, which bore the brunt of the attacks.
The role of the Catholic Church and Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith in consistently pushing for accountability in the Easter Sunday case is commendable. From the outset, the Cardinal was a vocal advocate for justice for the victims of the bombing. His calls for transparency, a credible investigation, and the identification of those truly responsible have been persistent and unwavering. Over the years, previous government leaders made promises to find the culprits and masterminds in response to this pressure which the Cardinal publicly welcomed. But those assurances, like many others before them, did not materialise in the form of tangible outcomes.
Ending Impunity
Progress in the investigation of the Easter bombings comes at a time when the government has already made forward movement in pursuing economic accountability. High-profile arrests and legal actions against formerly powerful politicians for corruption are being carried out in a way never witnessed before. For many decades, impunity has been the practice in government at the highest levels. Economic crimes and political violence in which the protagonists were suspected to be of government-origin were pursued only half-heartedly in the past. Charges were often framed, suspects were taken into custody, but invariably the process broke down mid-way and the suspects were released. This time around those who have been charged have had their cases taken to court where they have been given exemplary sentences.
In the case of the Easter bombing, the testimony of survivors and the documentation of intelligence failures are now being brought back into the spotlight. Investigations into key actors, including the alleged role of former paramilitaries turned politicians like Pillayan show that this is no longer a nominal exercise. The challenge for the government is to ensure that this momentum does not wane. The legal and institutional frameworks need to be allowed to function without interference. No matter how politically sensitive, the Sri Lankan people need answers, and more importantly, justice.
Sri Lanka has suffered for decades from a culture of impunity that has bred cynicism and mistrust. The present government has taken early steps to reverse that trend. It is too early to say whether this will lead to full justice. There are indications that the government is sequencing its priorities: first, economic crimes and now political crimes like the Easter attacks; later, possibly, war crimes. The wounds of the war years are deep and divisive. Pursuing accountability for wartime abuses may demand more political capital than the government currently possesses or wishes to expend, and it is likely that such steps will be undertaken more cautiously—and later.
In the case of the Chemmani mass graves the government seems to be allowing the judicial investigations to proceed independently, unlike in the case of the Mannar and Matale mass graves by previous governments. Permitting the Chemmani probe to proceed signals that the era of blanket impunity might finally be drawing to a close and the integrity of Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions is being secured. If a crime like the Easter bombing, which has defied a satisfactory conclusion for over six years is successfully investigated and prosecuted, it may open the space for deeper scrutiny of the past, including the war years. It is up to the independent institutions, judiciary and civil society to push this process forward.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Reflections on Cuba, BRICS and geopolitics

I returned to the US, from Cuba, just a few hours before Donald Trump signed a memorandum on 30 June, 2025, tightening the long-standing US economic blockade against Cuba. The memorandum includes a statutory ban on US tourism to the neighbouring island.
Despite a long fascination for the island nation, I did not volunteer for the Venceremos Brigade to Cuba during my college years. Finally, my wish to see the legendary island of anti-imperialist revolution—the so-called ‘last bastion of socialism in the western hemisphere’—came true.
I enjoyed Cuba’s resplendent land and waters, the vibrancy of its music and dance, and the warm hospitality of its racially integrated people. I visited the impressive places and monuments of its colonial and modern history, receiving a wealth of interesting and intriguing information from my wonderful Cuban guides and other sources.
The history of Cuba is one of struggle and transformation. The original Taino people were extinct due to the Spanish conquest. The Revolution of 1898 brought liberation under scholar-poet Jose Marti, only to be followed by US neocolonial rule from 1902 to 1959. During the latter part of this period, the Batista dictatorship and his American business and Mafia connections dominated the island.
The armed struggle, culminating in the 1959 Revolution, led by Fidel Castro, Camilo Cienfuegos, Che Guevara and others, transformed the nation. The Cuban Communist Party, under Fidel Castro’s rule (1959-2008), implemented widespread confiscation and wealth redistribution. Throughout this period and up to date, the US has maintained occupation of Guantanamo Bay (the first US overseas military base) under a 1903 perpetual lease agreement, following the Spanish-American War.
Cuba’s Present Crisis
Unfortunately, what I encountered in my homestays and travel around the island was far from the thriving socialist society I had hoped to see. The once magnificent buildings in Havana and other cities are dilapidated and the streets strewn with litter. Lacking reliable public transportation, people stand on streets around the island patiently waiting to catch rides from any vehicle that will stop—among them, the still widely used pre-Revolution American cars and horse-drawn carriages.
The island is currently facing its worst economic crisis, since the 1959 revolution. Long and daily power cuts, scarce internet connection, food and medicine shortages, and high prices, are the realities of present-day Cuba. Some staple items like beans are nowhere to be found; rice production has declined and much is now imported. Sugar, too, has become an import in Cuba, which, until recently, was the leading sugar exporter in the world.
People cannot make ends meet with their meager incomes—a doctor’s monthly salary is approximately US$50. Even by conservative World Bank estimates, 72% of all Cubans live below the poverty line. Beggars seem to be everywhere, with the African community descendant from slavery being the most economically victimised.
Young professionals, products of the island’s renowned free education and healthcare systems, are emigrating to the US, Europe, and elsewhere, leaving mostly the elderly behind. Cuba reportedly lost some 13% of its 11 million population between 2020 and 2024, due largely to emigration. Financial remittances from emigrants are essential for their families’ survival at home.
In private, people complain bitterly about government mismanagement and corruption, expressing concern about the island’s future and people’s survival. Given state authoritarianism and repression, there is no independent media, visible organised resistance, or public demonstrations.
The Cuban government blames US sanctions and blockade, operative since the early 1960s, for the island’s economic strangulation. In contrast, the US and its Cuban-American supporters blame socialism for Cuba’s failures.
Notwithstanding claims to be a leader of the international Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba withstood the 1961 CIA-backed Cuban-American Bay of Pigs invasion and the 1962 Cuban missile crisis by aligning itself with the Soviet Union, eventually becoming its client state. The dismantling of the Soviet Union in 1992 and the recent Covid crisis have dealt severe blows to the Cuban economy and society. The decline in tourism, one of the most important sectors of the Cuban economy, will be further impacted by Donald Trump’s recent statutory ban on US tourism.
Is the opening of Cuba to neo-liberal capitalism—including global finance capital, the IMF, international intervention by the US (and its Cuban-American supporters awaiting return of land and business confiscated by the Cuban Revolution)—the solution to Cuba’s current economic crisis?
The Path Forward
Government mismanagement, corruption, repression and authoritarianism, economic collapse, agricultural decline, lack of employment, shortages of fuel and food, rising prices, powerlessness, despair and labour emigration characterise much of the world following neoliberal policies today. These countries also face the threats of international intervention, regime change, sanctions and blockades if they attempt to strike out on independent paths of economic and political development outside western-dominated neoliberalism.
Is BRICS the alternative to both authoritarian socialism and neoliberal capitalism, the path to resolving the crisis in Cuba and much of the world?
The Global South-led BRICS constitutes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as 10 partner countries, including Cuba, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Today, the BRICS countries together are estimated to account for 56% of world population, 44% of global GDP.
The BRICS alliance provides a much-needed platform to explore alternative mechanisms, like the New Development Bank and bilateral trade agreements, to reduce reliance on Western financial institutions, such as the IMF and currencies, specifically the US dollar. While BRICS rejects certain aspects of Western dominated geopolitics and hierarchical North-South relations, it upholds neoliberal economic principles: competition, free trade, open markets, export-led growth and globalisation, unfettered technological expansion.
BRICS aims to advance its members within the existing global capitalist order, rather than create a fundamental alternative to the capitalist paradigm which prioritizes profit-led growth before environmental sustainability and human well-being. As such, corporate hegemony, concentration of wealth by a global elite spanning the North and the South, as well technological and military domination, are not challenged. Neither does BRICS challenge political authoritarianism within its member countries or the possibility of the emergence of forms of authoritarian capitalism. Composed of countries unequal in size, economic and military power, BRICS may also easily reproduce unequal exchange and new forms of colonialism in south-south relations.
False Alternative
Although barely noticeable to a visitor, China is quietly replacing the former Soviet Union as Cuba’s benefactor, expanding its economic activities on the island. Since 2018, Cuba has joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the massive infrastructural project connecting some 150 countries around the world. While the US is tightening its trade blockade, China has become Cuba’s largest trading partner and the primary provider of technology for infrastructure, telecommunications, renewable energy sources, the tourism industry, and other important areas of Cuba’s development.
Some critics of US imperialism tend to see China as a benevolent alternative to US and western domination. There are claims that certain media outlets, promoting such perspectives, may be linked to a funding source, associated with China. Even if it is true, the political and military intentions of Chinese economic expansion can only be known in the future.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China has increased its nuclear arsenal by 20% from an estimated 500 to over 600 warheads in 2025. According to US government sources, China has also established satellite intelligence infrastructure or ‘spy bases’ in Cuba that can target the United States commercial and military operations. Cuba, located only some 90 miles from the Florida coastline, could well be drawn into the geopolitical confrontation between the United States and China as it was during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, the Cuban Missile Crisis being a case in point.
Even though the world is moving towards an inexorable market and technologically controlled reality, the rationality of this trajectory must be questioned. The need for balanced ecological and social frameworks upholding bioregionalism, local control of resources, food self-sufficiency need to be considered. Freedom of expression, right to dissent, and collective organising undermined by both neoliberal capitalism and socialist authoritarianism must be upheld. This requires the awakening of consciousness to create a human society founded on wisdom and generosity over competition and exploitation.
The words of the great nineteenth century Cuban patriot, Jose Marti (1853-1895) are still applicable to the transformation needed in both Cuba and the world:
“Happiness exists on earth, and it is won through prudent exercise of reason, knowledge of the harmony of the universe, and constant practice of generosity.”(Courtesy IDN in-depth News)
(Dr. Bandarage has served on the faculties of Brandeis, Mount Holyoke and Georgetown and is the author of books, including Colonialism in Sri Lanka; The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka, Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy, Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World and numerous other publications on global political economy and related subjects. www.bandarage.com)
Features
Multi-faceted Sri Lankan celebrity … checking out land of birth

I was sent a video of Noeline Honter doing the song ‘Beauty and the Beast’, with Maxi Rosairo, live on stage.
The clip, I was told, was from The Island Music Awards, held in the late ‘90s … probably 1994.
Believe me, their performance was simply awesome … the vocals, the voices, the passion, the expression, the enthusiasm. Yes, that is what singing is all about. And no lyric-stands, planted in front, for guidance.
Well, the good news I have for you is that Noeline Honter will be in our midst next month (August) and she will be seen in action at three events, in Colombo.
Noeline will be featured at Gatz, Cinnamon Life, on Sunday, 24th August, and again on 20th of September.
Her first date at Gatz will be with the group Terry & The Big Spenders, while her 20th September performance will be with Mirage.
Noeline will also be performing at the BMICH, on the 30th of August, at a concert, ‘Vibes of Yesterday.’
The show, which is in aid of the Apeksha Hospital, Maharagama, will also feature several other artistes. The band in attendance will be the ‘Expressions.’
Noeline indicated to us that she is very much looking forward to her date with Mirage.

Noeline’s first band … her very own Galaxy
“It will be really exciting as I’ve performed with this wonderful outfit several times, as a guest artiste, touring the Middle East and other parts of the world, and also joining them on stage at their regular gigs in Dubai.”
In Sri Lanka, Noeline was not only known for her singing, she was also immensely popular as a TV presenter … winning several awards in both categories – singing and TV presenter.
In addition, she had her own Academy of Training, and she continues with her English training, Down Under, conducting several training programmes online to students, in many countries.
Noeline’s contribution to the field of television news, in Australia, commenced in 2008, in the role of Executive Producer and Presenter of ‘Sri Lanka News weekly,’ a news programme telecast on Channel 31, in Melbourne.
This multi-faceted Sri Lankan celebrity now presents interview programmes on Channel 31, where she features a gamut of mainly Sri Lankan musicians, resident in Sri Lanka and around the world. This is a chat show with musical clips by the featured artistes.
Noeline had her own band in the scene here … Galaxy, comprising Mohan Sabaratnam (drums), Kamal Perera (guitar), Joe Thambimuttu (bass/keyboards/vocals), Kumar Pieris (keyboards), and Ricky Senn (sax/trumpet /brass).

Noeline Honter: Three events in Colombo
Her trip to Sri Lanka, in August, she says, is mainly to be with her family, and to visit some of her favourite places, like Yala, Trincomalee, etc
“When I come over in August, it will be nearly three and a half years since I left the beloved land of my birth.”
Noeline is now based in Australia and says she is absolutely delighted to have the opportunity of sharing time with her son, Ryan, in Adelaide, and her daughter, Jaimee, in Melbourne.
Yes, a name that will never ever be forgotten, especially in the local Western music scene – Noeline Honter.
Go check her out at Gatz, Cinnamon Life, on 24th August and 20th September, 2025.
-
News4 days ago
Dates for A/L and O/L exams announced
-
Latest News6 days ago
Search for survivors after Houthis sink second Red Sea cargo ship in a week
-
News6 days ago
Sri Lanka back to its high poverty levels
-
Business3 days ago
SLIC Life among Asia’s Best: Finalist in 3 key categories at 10th Trusted Life Awards
-
Features3 days ago
Afghanistan:Broken promises, burning nation
-
News3 days ago
Utilize capital allocated by the government effectively to reach targeted economic development goals – President
-
Business7 days ago
Maldives HC expresses deep concern over growing disconnect with Sri Lanka
-
Editorial3 days ago
Navigating tariff shocks