By Adolf
With MP Dr. Harsha de Silva ridiculing Duminda Hulangamuwa in Parliament, and the former President denying that he hired Hulangamuwa as his economic adviser and stating that Dr. R. Samaratunga, a former Treasury Secretary, was his economic adviser, serious questions are being raised about whether Duminda Hulangamuwa possesses the appropriate qualifications and professional experience to serve as an economic adviser to the government. He is only an accountant by profession.
Hulangamuwa’s professional background is primarily in taxation and accounting rather than economics. He was most recently associated with tax consultancy, and critics argue that there is a significant distinction between being an experienced tax professional and possessing the academic and professional expertise required to advise a government on broad economic policy.
Several analysts have questioned whether Hulangamuwa has formal qualifications in economics and whether his professional experience adequately covers areas such as macroeconomic policy, monetary policy, public finance, economic modelling, international trade, and fiscal strategy. An economic adviser is expected to assess complex policy choices and their wider consequences for growth, inflation, employment, government revenue, debt sustainability, and investor confidence. Expertise in taxation alone does not necessarily provide that breadth.
PB Jayasundara
His past professional record has also attracted criticism. Hulangamuwa has been associated with tax-policy advice during the tenure of former Treasury Secretary P. B. Jayasundara. Critics have specifically questioned advice relating to the introduction and implementation of self-assessment mechanisms for tax payments, arguing that the policy and its implementation contributed to weaknesses in government revenue collection. Any assessment of this claim, however, should be based on documentary evidence and the broader fiscal circumstances prevailing at the time rather than on political assertions alone.
Questions have also been raised about Hulangamuwa’s tenure at Ernst & Young (EY) and the firm’s audit work involving National Development Bank (NDB). Critics have alleged that shortcomings in the audit process contributed to significant losses for shareholders, with a figure of approximately Rs. 13.2 billion being cited. Such a serious allegation should not be treated as established fact without reference to regulatory findings, court records, audit reports, or other authoritative evidence. Responsibility for corporate losses must also be distinguished from responsibility for the quality of an audit.
Nevertheless, these controversies make the question of suitability legitimate. If Hulangamuwa is to play a senior role in shaping Sri Lanka’s economic policy, the public is entitled to know precisely what qualifications, experience, and track record qualify him for that responsibility.
At a time when Sri Lanka continues to face difficult decisions concerning debt, taxation, public expenditure, investment, and economic growth, government economic advisers should be selected on the basis of demonstrated expertise and a proven understanding of the wider economy.
The issue, therefore, should not be whether Hulangamuwa is an accomplished tax or accounting professional. It is whether that expertise is sufficient for the fundamentally different responsibility of advising a government on national economic policy. That distinction deserves transparent public scrutiny. It would do a world of good for President AKD to hire a qualified economist as his economic advisor.
