Connect with us

Features

The recent IMF visit and the new ‘economic team’

Published

on

By Darshanie Ratnawalli

A new economic team, representing SL has gone into a meeting with the IMF. A President Media Division release dated October 2, 2024, says that the IMF visit was to hold discussions on the progress of the IMF programme and the release of the fourth tranche and that the following “economic team” has been appointed by the new government for discussions with the IMF.

This is the team –Anil Jayantha, Chair of the NPP Economic Policy Council & Senior Advisor to the President on Economic Affairs & Finance, Duminda Hulangamuwa, Senior Advisor to the President, Sunil Handunnetti, JVP Politician, Seetha Bandara Ranathunga, Sunil Gamage, Nandasiri Keembiyahetti, O. G. Dayaratne Banda and Amarasena Athukorala.

I spoke about this new team and their possible role in discussions with the IMF, with a prominent SL economist, who had, since 2015, been educating the Sri Lankan people about economics, that fabled subject, about which the majority of not only the Sri Lankan people but also Sri Lankan politicians, know little.

“Did you see the NPP team that met the IMF? Much like a Gota Viyathmaga team”,

I told this US economics professor and ex Central Banker from Sri Lanka, Vdhura Tennekoon, Assistant Professor of Economics at Indiana University, USA. He is also known more widely as economatta (ඉකොනොමැට්ටා), his popular blog and facebook page ID. )

” Yes. But who else do they have? These are the economists they have,”

Professor Tennekoon replied philosophically.

“Where is Mahinda Siriwardene (the Treasury Secretary) and Nandalal (Governor Central Bank)?”, I responded.

“They will be in the team anyway. The issue I see is, how helpless two of them will be.”, Professor Tennekoon replied.

“You said these people will stay on course,” I reminded Professor Tennekoon of what he had consistently claimed in his articles. “With people like Dr. Keembiyahetti on the team, wouldn’t that be challenging?”

(A bit of context, Dr. Nandasiri Keembiyahetti is a teacher of economics at Sri Lanka’s University of Ruhuna. He does not have much truck with wholesome, liberal, capitalist concepts of the economy such as market forces determining the price of goods. Recently, when the price of eggs went down, immediately after the ascension of the new regime, he posted a single line on his Facebook page- “So now you see into whose pocket that extra Rs 10 went!” meaning that the old lot had pocketed Rs 10 per egg and when the new lot assumed power, they had stopped, leading to the immediate egg price drop. However, when the egg price started going up again, Dr. Keembiyahetti prudently refrained from saying that the new lot too had now started pocketing their share!)

“If they [Nandalal and Siriwardene] stay silent and allow the NPP team to talk, it is like endorsing those views. That will make them fools. If they talk against the team, it will be portrayed as a betrayal of people’s mandate,” Professor Tennekoon went on, referring to the dilemma that the liberal economists, Nandalal and Siriwardene will face in those meetings.

This “Mandate Fright” is actually what forced the Central Bank to disregard the best interests of the SL economy and obey the unsound directives of the government during the unfortunate Gota years, and even during the more fortunate (but just as unsound) Mahinda years. It was exactly to prevent politicians, waving the people’s mandate card, from frightening the Central Bank into compliance with political agendas against their better judgement, that the Central Bank Independence Act was enacted.

Ominously, the NPP economic expert Harshana Sooriyapperuma, asked if they accept an independent Central Bank, only hemmed and hawed at the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce economic forum, held to determine which party catered to the best interests of the Sri Lankan economy during its current knife edge recovery phase.

“They [Nandalal and Siriwardene] have to participate because of their official roles,” Professor Tennekoon went on.

“Did you foresee this? You didn’t did you? You thought those people who expect the NPP to make a mess of IMF negotiations will be surprised and disappointed,” I asked pointedly, for in Prof Tennekoon’s economatta articles he had always painted a fairly optimistic picture of the IMF program under an NPP government.

“This team was expected to represent the government. Who else could have? So, that is not a surprise.”

“So what could happen?” I asked hoping for a soothing answer, instead of which I got this,

“At the meeting they will realize that they do not have much room to negotiate,” adding

“but the team is ’stronger’ than I thought. It looks like they are determined to negotiate with the IMF.”

“I always felt you were too optimistic about these people carrying on as usual.”, I said referring to economatta’s unwillingness to renounce the NPP in his articles as economic bad news.

Professor Tennekoon responded, “The IMF team is not in a “negotiation mode” as they think. They are professionals, not politicians, and not prepared for or skilled in negotiations.

“I am optimistic because either way it is good for the country.”

Not trusting this optimism, I ventured, “Could the same thing that happened when Basil and Cabraal were at helm and came out with their own analysis contrary to the IMF assessment happen? “Either way, good for the country!”

“What do you mean?”

Professor Tennekoon replied, “There are two possibilities; (a) They will come to an agreement with IMF and things will proceed as should be; (b) No agreement and the programme will not continue. The government will have to face the consequences quickly. They will not have a voice anymore among the people. That is good from a long term perspective.”

Professor Tennekoon also admits that he was pessimistic when Ranil Wickremesinghe became president and claims he has been proved right.

I asked, “Why were you pessimistic when RW became president?”

Professor Tennekoon gave me a ‘you have to lose to win and win to lose’ type of answer;

“RW has been doing the right thing but without a clear mandate from people. I think the assumption of his and the people around him was that he will have the people’s mandate when they could see results. He has clearly shown results that people have seen but his actions were not endorsed by the people. No policy action is successful without people’s mandate. If RW won this election, he could have been successful in implementing the required reforms.”

“Perhaps, people haven’t seen this,’ I protested, “maybe, more time was needed.”

“People had two issues,” Prof. Tennakoon answered, “the economic crisis was just one issue. People had an issue with the political culture and many of them thought if the latter is fixed the economy will thrive. They have to learn by trial and error. No other way. That can only happen (under the circumstances) if NPP can rule for several years.”

“Another trial, another error. It’s so tiring” I responded.

“I think the Yahapalana government was a mistake. So many groups were together simply to defeat MR but MR was still popular. If he had another chance, the economy would have collapsed earlier. Somewhere in 2016 or 2017,” Professor Tennekoon surmised, delving into the backstory before delivering his prediction on the current situation, “People will realize that the political culture is not everything. Then the economy will be their focus.’

“You said none of this before elections”, said I, “You said whoever comes will have to follow the IMF program, no choice.”

“Yes. I still say that,” insists Professor Tennekoon, “If the government deviates, the economy can’t survive long.”

“I think all those people in the “economic team” are unorthodox economists, right?,” I asked, voicing bewilderment at the new government’s want of economists (Neither Anil Jayantha nor Harshana Rajakaruna are professional economists). Only Duminda Hulangamuwa is liberal. But he is not an economist,” I went on.

Agreeing with me that as far as he knows, the new economic team does seem to be afflicted with an overdose of unorthodoxy, Professor Tennekoon raised a red flag: “The more serious issue is who do they represent? Anil Jayantha and Hulangamuwa, as I know, have been appointed as advisors and therefore they may represent the President and through the President the government and people of Sri Lanka.

“But what about others? They are an economic council of a political party, not of Sri Lanka. I don’t think they have any power to negotiate with the IMF on behalf of Sri Lanka. Maybe the President has delegated that power to the economic council of his party.”

This brought up important question. What exactly was the purpose of this IMF visit and what was the “economic team” doing in these discussions? “Did this IMF team come here for the review (the third review) prior to releasing the fourth tranche?” I asked Professor Tennekoon.

He replied,”I saw somewhere that this is a courtesy visit. That usually happens after a government change when a country is in an IMF program. I saw nowhere that they came for the review. They will make a public statement soon.’

It turns out that they did not really come for the review. According to the press release issued by the IMF after the visit, “The IMF team will continue its close engagement with Sri Lanka’s economic team to set a date for the third review of the IMF-supported program.”

According to Harsha de Silva, ex-MP, too, the third review which has to precede the fourth tranche will only happen once the new government has presented the new Budget. He said this at an interview with Neth News.

I then asked Vidhura Tennekoon the most burning question on everyone’s mind; “Now, about AKD saying we want to go to IMF targets through alternative ways, while giving tax relief to people, is there any meaning to this ? Are they planning to use Ranil’s over performed primary surplus to give tax relief or are they planning to use income obtained from plugging major tax leaks in places such as Customs and Excise? (This is what they said before elections)”

“I don’t know,” Professor Tennekoon admitted, “Probably the first way.”

I asked him then, “Chathuranga Abeysinghe said, in an interview before elections, that they were going to plug a massive leakage and that was how they plan to cover losses incurred through VAT and other cuts. Is that a viable route?”

“I have no idea what that leak is,” said the professor.

“I suppose unpaid duties /taxes?,” I hazarded.

“Collecting unpaid taxes is a part of the usual process,” said Tennekoon matter of factly.

“Yes, hardly a groundbreaking revenue booster,” I agreed.

“The faces of the team who met with the IMF team gives an idea about what happened there,” he said.

I asked, “‘Maybe they are going to cut VAT and shift the burden to the better-off via income tax.”

“Possible” came the answer.

“Also perhaps increase spending on aswesuma, health and education?” I asked, for these are ways of “relieving people” too.

“Let’s wait and see. Whatever it is, it should be within the IMF parameters,” concluded Professor Vidhura Tennekoon sensibly.

I will end with a final fact. The NPP, as stated by them before the election, aims to increase government revenue above the 15.3% (of GDP) benchmark set by the IMF. The NPP wants to increase revenue, because their economic and political agenda demands a higher primary expenditure by the government than the 13% (of GDP) limit set by the Public Finance Management Act No. 44 of 2024.

In order to increase government expenditure and still maintain the primary surplus of 2.3% (of GDP) target set by the IMF as essential for debt sustainability, the new government must increase revenue. It has no other choice. How will they do this while cutting taxes? This is the million dollar question. This is the question the voters should have asked ourselves when Gota promised tax cuts. We didn’t ask them. Calamity followed. Here’s another looming tax cut. We have to question and question. Our survival depends on it.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Celebrating 25 Years of Excellence: The Silver Jubilee of SLIIT – PART I

Published

on

The event was graced by distinguished guests, including H.E. Paul Stephens – Australian High Commissioner, Eric Walsh – High Commissioner for Canada in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Prof. Harlene Hayne – Vice-Chancellor, Curtin University, Australia along with many esteemed industry experts.

SLIIT is a degree-awarding higher education institute authorized and approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Ministry of Higher Education under the University Act of the Government of Sri Lanka. SLIIT is also the first Sri Lankan institute accredited by the Institution of Engineering & Technology, UK. Further, SLIIT is also a member of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) and the International Association of Universities (IAU).

Founded in 1999, with its main campus in Malabe and multiple centers across the country—including Metro Campus (Colombo), Matara, Kurunegala, Kandy (Pallekele), and Jaffna (Northern Uni)—SLIIT provides state-of-the-art facilities for students, now celebrating 25 years of excellence in 2025.

SLIIT continues to expand its academic, research, and industry connections, ensuring its graduates are well-prepared for global challenges while maintaining high standards of education and innovation.

Since its establishment in 1999, the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) has played a transformative role in shaping the nation’s technological and educational landscape. Operating as a company limited by guarantee, SLIIT reinvests all surpluses into academic and institutional development, maintaining independence from government ownership and funding since its inception, except for an initial BOI grant and temporary financial support from the Mahapola Trust Fund, which was fully repaid by 2015.

Officially delisted from any government ministry in 2017, SLIIT stands as a fully self-sustaining, non-state higher education institution. Over the years, it has grown from a pioneering IT-focused institute into a multidisciplinary university, offering programs in engineering, business, architecture, and humanities. With a strong emphasis on research, industry collaboration, and global academic partnerships, SLIIT continues to produce highly skilled graduates, reinforcing its reputation as a center of academic excellence and innovation.

Academic Excellence & Global Recognition

*  Ranked Sri Lanka’s No. 1 non-state university and 3rd overall in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2025.

*  Ranked No. 1 in Sri Lanka in the AD Scientific Index World Young University Ranking 2025.

*  Secured 5th place in the 2024 Scimago Institutional Ranking (first quartile).

*  Maintains an active research culture through grants, research integration into curricula, and a dedicated research center.

Programs, Faculty & Employability

*  25,000+ students, 96% employment rate, and an alumni base of over 40,000 graduates.

*  Offers undergraduate, postgraduate, and PhD programs in IT, Engineering, Business, Law, Psychology, Architecture, Quantity Surveying, Nursing, Hospitality & Tourism, Education, and more. Plans to introduce a Medicine program.

*  400+ eminent academics, many with PhDs and international research backgrounds, with a combined 5,000+ years of experience.

Industry & Global Partnerships

*  50+ industry partners, providing internships and job placements.

*  Collaborations with leading global universities such as Curtin, Liverpool John Moores, University of Edinburgh, University of Western Australia, and University of Queensland.

Achieving Global Recognition: SLIIT’s World University Ranking

A defining achievement in SLIIT’s journey has been its recognition on the global stage. Today, SLIIT proudly stands as the 3rd highest-ranked university in Sri Lanka among both state and non-state institutions in world university rankings in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2025. Notably, it holds the prestigious position of being the highest-ranked non-state university in the country. This recognition is a testament to SLIIT’s unwavering dedication to academic excellence, research contributions, and strong industry partnerships. By continuously improving its academic framework, research output, and international collaborations, SLIIT has firmly established itself as a leading institution in higher education, both locally and globally.

SLIIT Ranked Sri Lanka’s No. 1 Non-State University, Secures 3rd Place Nationally

SLIIT’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Lalith Gamage, expressed pride in the institution’s achievement, emphasizing its commitment to academic quality, research impact, and industry collaboration. Prof. Nimal Rajapakse echoed this sentiment, reaffirming SLIIT’s dedication to institutional excellence and global engagement. Looking forward, SLIIT aims to further strengthen its academic and research capabilities while positioning itself as a top choice for students seeking international-standard education.

Academic Excellence and Research Contributions

SLIIT has consistently maintained high academic standards, fostering an environment that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and technological innovation. Its research contributions in artificial intelligence, data science, cybersecurity, and other emerging fields have significantly impacted the academic and industrial spheres. Collaborations with international universities and institutions have further strengthened its research capabilities, allowing students and faculty to engage in groundbreaking projects that address global challenges.

Industry Partnerships and Global Recognition

One of the hallmarks of SLIIT’s success has been its strong industry partnerships. By working closely with leading corporations, startups, and government agencies, the institution has ensured that its graduates are well-equipped with the skills and knowledge required to excel in the modern workforce. Internship programs, industry-led workshops, and career placement initiatives have solidified SLIIT’s reputation as a premier institution for producing job-ready professionals. The university’s global collaborations have also positioned it as a key player in international education, further enhancing its credibility and influence.

Empowering Future Leaders

SLIIT Vice Chancellor, Professor Lalith Gamage, presents the winners’ trophy

Beyond academics, SLIIT has nurtured a vibrant student community that thrives on extracurricular activities, leadership development, and social responsibility. Student-led clubs, hackathons, entrepreneurship initiatives, and community service projects have created a holistic learning experience, empowering students to become well-rounded individuals and future leaders in their respective fields.

The Future

To be a globally recognized leader in higher education, research, and innovation, driving technological advancements and academic excellence to empower future generations. SLIIT envisions itself as a transformative force in shaping the future of education, fostering a culture of creativity, critical thinking, and industry collaboration to address emerging global challenges.

As SLIIT embarks on its next 25 years, SLIIT is looking forward to:

Expand academic offerings to align with the evolving demands of industry and society, ensuring students are equipped with future-ready skills.

Strengthen research capabilities by fostering innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and real-world impact in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, engineering, and business.

Cultivate a dynamic learning environment that nurtures intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and ethical leadership.

Enhance global partnerships with universities, industries, and research institutions to promote knowledge exchange and technological advancements.

Contribute meaningfully to national and global progress by developing a generation of professionals, entrepreneurs, and researchers who drive sustainable development and innovation.

Winning National and International Competitions

SLIIT has demonstrated excellence not only in academics and sports but also in various national and international competitions. Students and faculty have participated and triumphed in globally recognized contests, including programming competitions, hackathons, robotics championships, and business case challenges. These victories highlight SLIIT’s emphasis on innovation, problem-solving, and technical expertise. The university’s commitment to nurturing talent and providing competitive exposure has enabled students to showcase their capabilities on prestigious global platforms, bringing recognition to both themselves and the institution.

Conclusion

The Silver Jubilee of SLIIT is not just a celebration of its past achievements but also a recognition of its continued commitment to shaping the future of education and technology. As we commemorate this significant milestone, we extend our gratitude to the visionary leaders, dedicated faculty, industrious students, and supportive industry partners who have contributed to SLIIT’s remarkable journey. With a strong foundation and an inspiring vision, SLIIT is poised to achieve even greater heights in the years to come.

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

Continue Reading

Features

Notes from AKD’s Textbook

Published

on

Small State Diplomacy:

There is a vast and increasingly interesting body of literature on the ways in which small and militarily and economically not so powerful countries, such as Sri Lanka, could deal with more powerful countries such as India and China, the United States and Canada and much of Western Europe, with whom Sri Lanka has trade and political links. In general, small state diplomacy is understood in the context of and in opposition to great power diplomacy. Until the Cold War came to an end, small states were generally seen as ‘rule-takers’ or those following diktats set by powerful nations, the ‘rule-makers’. Along the same vein, such small nations were also seen as mere consumers of security products and military alliances rather than initiators of these things.

But in contemporary times, there are many studies that have attempted to explain how and under what conditions it would be possible for the foreign policies of small states and their diplomatic efforts to influence and impact international affairs. Ideally, like more powerful countries, the goals of smaller and less powerful nations should also reflect their own core national interests, including safeguarding territorial integrity, advancing prosperity, and protecting the rights of their citizens beyond their borders. But these interests should be advanced in tandem with broader global concerns, focused on influencing the international environment in general.

It is in this context that Sri Lanka has spectacularly failed as a small state, particularly after the collapse of the Non-Aligned Movement and the abysmal failure of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Sri Lanka’s failure has also resulted from very specific local ruptures directly linked to dismantling democratic practices in the country since the late 1970s. These include the steady politicization and the resultant mediocratization of the country’s Foreign Service and the negative impact of the long lineage of elected but unenlightened political leaders from Presidents to Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and others who have undisputedly compromised Sri Lankan foreign policy and global standing. The country has not produced diplomats in a long time who have steadfastly looked after Sri Lanka’s interests in the world without pandering to the diktats of autocratic governments at home, with the assurance that they will be protected in return.

Similarly, Sri Lanka has been very unfortunate to not have leaders at the apex of local power who could intelligently and sensibly speak their mind to global and regional powers with a clear understanding of how international politics work and how the country can protect its national interest within this rubric.

So far, there has been an utter compromise of such interests through personal greed, the lack of preparedness and absence of intelligence. This is the reason Sri Lankan diplomacy and foreign policy have often failed or become very ordinary, even when it comes to crucial elements of the field, such as negotiations. I include in this category both political leaders and weak-willed and unenlightened foreign service officers. This has resulted in Sri Lanka ending up agreeing to be part of woefully inadequate and nationally unprofitable agreements, thereby constantly relegated to being on the proverbial backfoot; the longstanding Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva being a case in point, while the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement is another problematic example from the region. As a nation, we have shown our incapability in negotiating not only with more powerful countries, but even with private entities from such countries.

Against this backdrop, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visit to India, in December 2024, can be seen as a breath of fresh air on how one may engage in a more refined foreign policy that will look after local interests at the global level. Given our usual pusillanimity, the stand taken by President Disanayake when India’s Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar called on him, becomes interesting. Of course, Jaishankar is a seasoned career diplomat who has always stood for India’s interests internationally, while Dissanayake is a man without experience in dealing with global leaders. After all, this was his first state visit with a motley crew, equally lacking experience in international relations.

However, by all reports reaching us from the discourse on this visit, Dissanayake did well even though much of this has not been adequately reported in the press, barring the solitary intervention by Minister Sunil Handunnetti in Parliament, in February 2025. President Dissanayake’s success came from his political acumen and extreme confidence emanating from the powerful local mandate he had been given by the Sri Lankan people. He expressed what he had to say without floundering, in clear Sinhala, which was translated into English. At one point, Jaishankar had engaged Dissanayake on the perennial fishermen’s issue involving the two countries. He said it would be good to find a solution that made sense to Sri Lanka, but it also needed to convince the political interests in Tamil Nadu.

In his response, President Dissanayake minced no words, articulating where his responsibility lies, stating that for the first time people from northern Sri Lanka showed confidence in a political party from the south, which he represented, and it was essential to build on this trust and safeguard their rights, livelihood and security. In other words, he resisted the usual official Indian refrain and raised without reservations the issue of Indian poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Sri Lanka’s firm position on this controversial issue was thus elucidated very clearly by President Dissanayake to Dr Jaishankar.

For me, used to seeing nationally counter-productive positions and agreements shoved down Sri Lanka’s throat by powerful nations and organizatipns at international meetings, this was a refreshing textbook example of how a small country should conduct its foreign relations with a powerful neighbour with a reasonable degree of self-respect and core national interest at heart. But this is merely one example of Dissanayake’s numerous successful engagements with Jaishankar. It is understood that other such instances include Dissanayake’s stand on India’s interest in constructing a land bridge between the two countries and its persistent pressure on the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution.

This brings to my mind a comparatively different example from the Yahapalanaya era. In 2015, while preparing to meet the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala with a small group of academics and friends, I was informed by one of his staff members that he longed to visit the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, at least once in his life, the only significant Buddhist temple connected directly to the life of the Buddha he had not been able visit. The reason being he would not be given a visa by the Sri Lankan government due to its needless deference to the Chinese government. This had become an unquestioned and established practice of Sri Lankan foreign policy with regard to the Dalai Lama. The irony is that this is a highly respected global personality who continues to be welcomed openly by countries which have robust trade and political relations with China. I took it upon myself to write to President Maithirpala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that Sri Lanka should allow the Dalai Lama to visit and expounded on why this would not dent our relations with China. I never heard from them. I was also told by Sri Lankan diplomats at the time both in Delhi and Colombo this would never happen.

This is a telling example of the mediocrity and non-independence of our foreign policy, even at a fundamental level. It is, and not only in this instance, often dictated by what other nations might think, or how they may feel or react, rather than what Sri Lanka wants to do in keeping with its convictions, and that, too, without properly evaluating the merits of each case. Consecutive post-Independence Sri Lankan governments have not issued a visa to the Dalai Lama. Juxtapose this to the instance when in 2014, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government allowed the violent Burmese Buddhist monk, Ashin Wirathu, who once identified himself as ‘the Burmese bin Laden’ to visit Sri Lanka to attend a public meeting in Colombo.

This needs to be considered in terms of realpolitik. That is, would the Chinese want to lose out on the far greater advantages of their considerable investments and structures of influence by withdrawing from Sri Lanka, because the Sri Lankan government allowed the elderly Dalai Lama a deeply personal spiritual visit? At most, they would issue an irate statement conveying their displeasure as they have done consistently on all such occasions involving other countries. But on the Sri Lankan government’s part, depriving a visit to the Dalai Lama to the Temple of the Tooth located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Kandy no less, is utterly un-Buddhist for a state that accords the foremost place to Buddhism in its constitution. I do hope President Dissanayake would be able to see the frivolity of the reasoning of his successors and advance the possibilities in his newfound textbook on small state diplomacy.

But, in the long term, this new textbook approach will be successful only if more concrete work is put into the process. A visit by the Dalai Lama would be one aspect that can send a much needed signal to the world that finally our foreign policy is standing on its own feet without compromising the country’s relations with other nations. More can be done when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Sri Lanka on 5th April 2025. One hopes that Dissanayake will engage with his foreign visitor to make clear what the national interests are.

After all, the land bridge idea consistently pushed by India is vehemently opposed by both the country’ powerful Buddhist clergy and many ordinary Sri Lankans who happen to have brought President Dissanayake and his party to power. The 13th Amendment, forced into the Sri Lankan Constitution with direct Indian intervention, albeit under an Indian National Congress (INC) government, should never be part of any future constitution. After all, President Dissanayake’s own party, the JVP, has consistently opposed the 13th Amendment. This does not mean, however, that regional socio-political interests within the island should not be addressed in a future constitution-making process within a local paradigm; they certainly should be.

On the other hand, while we should be open to Indian investments and any others in keeping with the laws of the land, allowing backdoor and illegal entry of projects of the kind that Adani attempted, should be out of the question. This can be part of the conversation during the upcoming visit of Mr Modi. It would behoove the Sri Lankan government to be mindful that Indian foreign policy in the region has in recent times run into spectacular failures as exemplified by the cases of Bangladesh, Nepal and the Maldives as well as India’s general inability to counter Chinese influence in the region.

One hopes that President Dissanayake will continue to engage with his visitor and others like him in times to come in the manner he has already established during his 2024 state visit to India.

Continue Reading

Features

Removing obstacles to development

Published

on

President Dissanayake

Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.

There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.

More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.

RENEWED GROWTH

The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.

Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.

The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.

COMMITTED GOVERNMENT

The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.

There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.

By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Trending