By Adolf

With much debate today over the reported 16 million spent on security for former President Ranil Wickremesinghe , and questions about the procedures followed leading to his imprisonment, it is useful to place such spending in a global context. The daily cost of maintaining top political leaders has long been a subject of discussion, particularly when comparing figures for U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

For Donald Trump, security and operational expenses for his presidency are exceptionally high. Securing Trump Tower—his private residence in New York—is estimated at around $300,000 per day, with costs rising further when his family stays there. Travel added substantially: operating Air Force One costs about $142,000 per flight hour, so a multi-country trip could exceed $5 million, averaging over $700,000 per day.

Narendra Modi’s security is overseen by the Special Protection Group (SPG), which in 2020–21 had an annual allocation of ₹592 crore (around $72 million). This translates to roughly $200,000 per day. On foreign visits, costs increase significantly, with Air India One operations and logistics pushing daily expenses to $600,000–$800,000.

These comparisons highlight the vast sums required to protect global leaders, reflecting both the burden on taxpayers and the premium placed on national leadership security to protect the dignity of the office of Head of State and the image of the country.

By Adolf

Given the controversy surrounding the manner in which the former President’s arrest was carried out on Friday, it is necessary to recall the long-established principles governing government financial practices.

Government financial regulations clearly set out the procedures relating to expenditure on official overseas travel. When an official returns from such a trip, a statement of accounts must be prepared, indicating the funds obtained, the expenses incurred, and any balance remaining. These accounts are then subject to verification, approval, and audit.

If any expense cannot be justified, the officer concerned must provide clarification. Where an expense is disallowed for valid reasons, the corresponding amount must be refunded. In this particular instance, it is important to note that these procedures were duly followed and that the Auditor General had already reviewed and approved the accounts.

Flawed process followed

It appears, however, that these established procedures were not properly examined before legal action was initiated. Proceeding directly to imprisonment, without reference to the systems and controls in place,
undermines due process and fairness, and cannot be equated with justice.

Verbal allegations alone cannot form the basis of accountability. Legal responsibility must rest on documentary evidence and the official records maintained under government financial regulations.

Accordingly, before pursuing legal action, it is essential that law enforcement and prosecuting authorities carefully review the government’s expenditure systems to ensure proper controls have been followed.

It would also be prudent for President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to reflect on this process, as he too could be subjected to similar treatment if due process is disregarded now for former Presidents.

My mother carries a diary of my grandmother, a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made in the name of public service. It details how my grandmother, a reasonably wealthy woman, was left with so little after her husband, my grandfather, had devoted his life to his community and country.

Though he was a self-made man, a teacher, a Principal, a scholar, and a Member of Parliament with an immense reputation for virtue, my grandfather left nothing for his family, not even enough money to afford his own casket. His service was total, but its cost was borne by his family. My mother keeps that diary, I believe, as a reminder that there is no glory in blind service at the expense of one’s family.

This anecdotal history seems to be a template for the new Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)/National People’s Power (NPP) Government’s attitude towards public service. It reinforces the dangerous myth that public service is the most noble cause and can only be fulfilled by one who sacrifices everything.

In this view, public servants should not be rewarded for their immense effort and power. It’s a belief deeply embedded in the psyche of people like Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the JVP, whose recent success has come after a long road of blood, sweat, and tears. This narrative, while powerful, is a pseudo-free public service that takes away all accountability for a leader’s actions.

Public service is not a part-time passion project; it is a full-time, serious job of nation-building. It is a dangerous myth that everyone works for free. Only a handful of individuals are financially independent enough to do so. What about the rest?

When public leaders are at the mercy of businessmen, their decisions become tilted towards business agendas, not the nation’s best interests. It’s a fundamental management principle: not paying people a reasonable remuneration is a bad policy. Expecting those who hold immense power to work for an altruistic purpose is simply a terrible policy.

I have learnt this lesson firsthand. Despite being a third-generation politician, I came from the corporate world. My career was built on the principles of financial integrity and professionalism. When I entered politics, I was determined to conduct my public life with the same standards, ensuring I earned an honest living to support my family.

The JVP’s narrative, however, painted everyone in the opposing camp as rogues, and even Balasuriya, a family name tied to public service, lost an election over this powerful narrative.

The emotional toll of that period was immense. As a loving husband and a father to two beautiful young daughters, I could never justify sacrificing their future on the altar of a political myth. My story isn’t one of glory, but a simple truth: one must be financially secure to serve without compromise.

I have heard Lee Kuan Yew’s argument about the need to pay public representatives well to attract the best talent. While this might not be politically palatable in Sri Lanka, the core principle holds true. Evidence suggests that inadequate salaries lead to more corruption, not less.

We cannot expect people to dedicate their lives to the betterment of the country if they are not provided the basic means to survive. Reasonable remuneration is required so that people who have a passion for public service can have an opportunity to dedicate their lives to the country.

However, salaries alone will not combat corruption. It is just as important to establish effective monitoring systems and eliminate the impunity that many politicians and people in high positions have enjoyed for so long in Sri Lanka.

Ultimately, politics reflects society at large. As I have heard from my father, who served as a politician himself, “You cannot expect an island of virtue in an ocean of corruption.”

Before we jump on the bandwagon and argue that MPs should not get pensions or salaries, we should ask ourselves honestly what sacrifices we are willing to make in our own careers and for how long, at the expense of our families.

*The writer is a former State Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is a third-generation politician and a former corporate executive.
*The article was published on The Sunday Morning.

By Panduka Keerthinanda

Sri Lanka is a nation of paradox: it is endowed with abundant natural resources, including fertile agricultural land and valuable minerals, yet it struggles with widespread poverty and economic instability. This discrepancy arises from a complex interplay of historical policies, governance issues, economic structure, and external factors.

Given here are the reasons behind this paradox, supported by evidence from the search results.

Historical and policy-related constraints

Outdated agricultural policies: The Paddy Lands Act of 1958, still in force, was intended to protect tenants but has instead led to generational land disputes and entrenched poverty among farmers. This policy discourages investment and innovation in agriculture, perpetuating inefficiency and low productivity.

Mismanagement of mineral resources: Sri Lanka possesses high-quality graphite, phosphate, and ilmenite deposits. But these resources are under-exploited due to corruption, mismanagement, and lack of technological expertise. For example, the nationalization of graphite mines in 1971 led to a decline in exports from dominance to just 10,000 metric tons annually, despite reserves of 1.5 mn tonnes. Similarly, phosphate mining suffers from quality issues, leading to returned products and lost revenue .

Lack of political will: Short-term political agendas prioritize votes over long-term economic growth. Policies are often skewed to serve immediate interests rather than sustainable development, resulting in wasted resources and missed opportunities.

Structural economic issues

Over-reliance on low-value agriculture: Agriculture employs about 30% of the workforce but contributes only 7–8% to GDP. Most farmers work in low-productivity subsistence farming, with limited access to modern technology, credit, and markets. This traps rural populations in poverty, as agricultural growth has not translated into higher incomes.

Inequality between urban and rural areas: Wealth is concentrated in urban centres, while rural areas (home to 75% of the population and 85% of the poor) lack infrastructure, education, and opportunities. This spatial inequality hinders inclusive growth.

Vulnerability to external shocks: Sri Lanka’s economy depends on exports of tea, rubber, and apparel, which are susceptible to global price fluctuations and demand shifts. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, caused a 25% decline in exports, exacerbating poverty and unemployment.

Governance and institutional failures

Inefficient State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): SOEs, such as those in mining and energy, are often managed by political appointees rather than professionals. They operate without accountability, incurring massive losses. For example, the national airline lost more money in eight months than the annual budget for poverty alleviation programmes.

Protectionism and lack of competition: Government monopolies in sectors like lotteries and aviation stifle competition and innovation. Profits in these sectors arise from monopolistic practices rather than wealth creation, further hindering economic dynamism .

Erosion of wealth creation capacity:As Bill Gates noted, wealth is not merely having resources but the ability to create and recreate wealth. Sri Lanka has failed to develop this capacity due to poor governance, corruption, and a lack of entrepreneurial culture.

Social and developmental challenges

High malnutrition and poor human capital: 22% of Sri Lankans suffer from malnutrition, which affects cognitive development and productivity. Despite high primary school enrolment, education quality is low, limiting the workforce’s skills and adaptability .

Inadequate social safety nets: While poverty rates have decreased, social protections remain weak. Only a small fraction of the poor benefit from programs like cash transfers, leaving many vulnerable to shocks like health crises or natural disasters.

Impact of climate change: Frequent floods and droughts threaten food security and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas. This exacerbates poverty and strains limited resources.

Global and geopolitical factors

Competition and market access: Sri Lanka faces intense competition from countries like Madagascar (in graphite) and Vietnam (in agriculture). Without competitive advantages or value addition, it struggles to retain market share.

Dependence on foreign investment and aid: While foreign investment is needed for infrastructure and mining, Sri Lanka has often partnered with unqualified companies, leading to sub-optimal outcomes. Additionally, the country relies on loans and aid to sustain basic imports, such as fuel, further eroding economic sovereignty.

Potential solutions and missed opportunities

Value addition in resources: Sri Lanka could process minerals like graphite and phosphate domestically to capture higher value. For example, graphite could be used in batteries and electronics, while phosphate could be refined into fertilizers .

Tourism and services expansion: Tourism, which earned $15 billion in 2024, could be expanded to $100–150 billion by leveraging natural scenery and cultural assets. Similarly, IT and BPO services could grow significantly with targeted investments .

Port and logistics development: Strategically located ports like Colombo and Hambantota could become regional hubs, boosting trade and logistics services .

Agricultural modernization: Investing in high-value crops (e.g., organic tea, spices) and agro-processing could increase farmers’ incomes and export earnings.

The path forward

Sri Lanka’s poverty amidst plenty is not inevitable. It stems from deep-rooted institutional and policy failures rather than a lack of resources. To transform its economy, Sri Lanka must:

1. Reform policies to encourage private investment and competition.
2. Invest in human capital through better education and healthcare.
3. Modernize agriculture and mining to add value and increase productivity.
4. Strengthen governance to curb corruption and improve public sector efficiency.
5. Leverage its geographic location to become a tourism, logistics, and services hub.

With political will and strategic action, Sri Lanka could potentially triple its GDP in a decade, lifting millions out of poverty. As the World Bank emphasizes, growth must be inclusive and coupled with investments in people and resilience to ensure sustainable prosperity .

(The writer is an attorney-at-law)