World Test Championship set to stay nine-team contest till 2031
‘Cricket reforms wouldn’t have happened if not for AKD’ – Wettimuny
Lihini wins Girls Under 18 Hard Court singles title
Aaron’s six wickets help S. Thomas’ take first innings lead
Matt Henry six-for and Will Young hundred crush India
As I write this I get news of the death of Lalith Kotelawala, an outstanding entrepreneur. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth as he was the only son of Justin Kotelawala, a pioneer Sri Lankan businessman and the younger brother of Sir John Kotelawala. Justin K started a successful insurance company in the face of competition from British insurers who dominated the field before independence. He also set up a finance company which catered to the rising native middle class in addition to owning large swathes of real estate partly acquired by his marriage to an heiress from one of Colombo’s richest families.
Gamani Corea was his nephew being his aunt’s only son. However with the change of regime in 1956 Lalith K, Justin’s son, lost most of his fortune due to the take over of the family insurance company and other assets. He had to start from scratch and build up his own companies including a Bank – the Seylan Bank and a finance company-Golden Key – both of which became very successful. His diversified group named Ceylinco entered into tourism, gem and jewellery, health and many other fields which had not been exploited by Sinhala businessmen.
His great success and penchant for publicity brought challenges to the Kotelawala business house for the second time. Lalith’s publicly declared appetite for political leadership either as President or Minister of Finance in a UNP regime brought on him the wrath initially of Nivard Cabraal and later the Rajapaksas who were in no mood to brook such a rich and powerful rival who had impeccable UNP credentials.
I had no qualms about supporting him as Investment Minister especially when he wished to set up a five star hotel in the “golden mile” of hotels on Galle road. He had successfully negotiated with the Hyattt group to partner him in this enterprise. Since his businesses were cash rich at this stage he saw no difficulty in financing this mega venture. He invited me and a few others to inaugurate this venture by participating in the groundbreaking ceremony. The building was just intruding onto the Colombo skyline when calamity hit him.
When the real economy contracts and legitimate business returns decline, small time savers are badly affected and they tend to go to get rich schemes and risky financial institutions which give them a bigger return. Lalith’s Finance company “Golden Key” provided such a refuge with high interest payments and a trustworthy name (Kotelawala) to guarantee the safety of their investments. Another problematic factor was that many politicians of the MR government saw in Lalith’s company a safe haven for their ill gotten gains away from the prying eyes of the tax authorities.
It must be said that he too was complicit in that he would have pandered to those crooks happy in the knowledge that big money was flowing into his coffers which would help to sustain his ever increasing promises of interest payments which were way higher than what was offered by the regular banking system. It soon became a Ponzi scheme. No wonder then that the Governor of the Central Bank was apprehensive of these developments. His objections were summarily dismissed by Lalith leading to a verbal battle between him and Cabraal. That undid him in the end. MR preferred to stand by Cabraal.
Lalith’s bravado irked many powerful politicians who were afraid he would take to “the family business” of politics like his uncle Sir John. MR who first befriended him, abandoned him when the Central Bank warned him of a possible financial catastrophe. This became a reality when a senior politician who had amassed a large sum of ill gotten money and deposited it with “Golden Key” was assassinated by the LTTE. Soon after that tragedy his relatives pulled out their money sending the finance company into a liquidity crisis.
The manager of the company whom Lalith trusted had released the money without informing him. There was a run on the company as soon as news of a large scale withdrawal became public. On previous such occasions the Central Bank would intervene to prevent a collapse. But in this case they did not and Golden Key had to be liquidated leaving tens of thousands of small depositors penniless. It was a mega scandal and with his wife embroiled in a money laundering charge Lalith fell from grace.
He was remanded in Welikada prison with his health ruined and his reputation in tatters. Later I visited him several times in his home to find that he was a broken man. With his premature death a pioneer mega local investor was lost and the local investment scenario received a heavy blow.
At about this time a dispute flared up between the President and Karu Jayasuriya. Numerous complaints were directed to MR that Karu as Minister of Public Administration was favouring UNP official, particularly Grama Sevakas, who were appointees of the UNP from the time of JRJ and Premadasa. If there was one thing MR was sensitive about it was the need to keep his backbenchers happy. On the other hand, Ranil succeeded in luring Karu back with the promise of making him the Deputy leader of the UNP.
Karu who was a great believer in Sai Baba and other assorted soothsayers, realized that he could not make much headway in the PA which was already full of ambitious and unscrupulous politicians. Karu’s departure led to a mini reshuffle and I was sent back to the Ministry of Public Administration while my friend, Anura Yapa, became the new Minister of Investment Promotion.
Back in my old Ministry I found that the northern war was intensifying with our armed forces regaining the initiative for the first time. This was largely due to the efforts of Gotabaya and Sarath Fonseka who at that time had the confidence of the President. MR used all his famous PR skills to ensure that he got the adulation of the public for the advances of the army. He visited the newly liberated areas and encouraged the soldiers for which he deserved the highest praise as none of his predecessors had visited the battle front.
Says Chandraprema, “The President visited Vakarai on February 3, 2007 soon after the area had been cleared. This ready willingness to visit the war zone despite the risk of attacks from infiltration teams was what gave the armed forces the feeling that this was a President to whom the war was a national priority and not just a regrettable necessity”. He posed for a photo op with the Special Forces that liberated Vakarai and visited a Kovil. The Hindu priest who garlanded him was shot dead a few days later by the LTTE showing that MR had bravely taken a mighty risk.
The rolling successes of the army meant that my Ministry had to bend its energies to maintain civil administrations in the North and East. It became challenging because the LTTE were forcing the inhabitants in the contested northern areas to follow them while retreating in the Vanni leaving “ghost towns” behind. The LTTE had even carried away furniture and roofing from homes in order to create a mobile “human shield” to save themselves from attacks by the armed forces. They also used civilians to dig large trenches along the way to impede the advance of heavy weapons and transports of the army moving into the LTTE held areas.
I was in touch with my Government Agents who had a difficult time often caught in the crossfire between the army and the LTTE. The I TTE brutalized the public servants. For instance the AGA of Tirukkovil in the east was murdered by the LTTE because he did not help the insurgents. But once the army secured strategic points like Kilinochchi and Vauniya the local administration was able to function effectively again. The Tamil parties raised issues in Parliament, probably on the instigation of the LTTE, and I had to answer them in the House after consulting my GAs and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Gota was always courteous and keen to brief us about the latest developments in the theatre of battle. We had to keep in mind that the LTTE was keen to recruit public servants to their cause. When a joint committee was to be setup after the signing of the Indo-Lanka agreement, the LTTE insisted on appointing an AGA of ‘Trincomalee – Pathmanathan, who was a hall mate of mine at Peradeniya, as their nominee and Chairman of the committee. Since we refused to recognize a public servant as a nominee of the LTTE this project was abandoned despite the best efforts of the Indian High Commission.
After the clearing of the east and establishing the local administration there, the army launched a pincer attack on the extensive LTTE held territory in the Vanni. One army group extended the defence line from the west of Vavuniya towards Mannar bringing that area under government control. The army initially faced stiff resistance from LTTE fighters. The traditional army approach of moving in large formations on a broad front which was the “Sandhurst trained” army leaders strategy was not working since the LTTE could break through the thinly manned army lines.
Chandraprema describes well the change of tactics under SF and GR which brought success to the army; “The army had learnt the hard way during the ‘decade of darkness’ in the 1990s that moving in large formations presents an easy target for LTTE artillery. After assessing where they went wrong in the past operations, the army stopped operating in traditional formations like platoons, companies and battalions and split up instead into small groups, the eight-man team being the norm. After the monsoon ‘stand still’ the army resumed its advance along the hinterland of western Vanni. Another task force operated along the coastal belt and captured the strategic town of Silavaturai which had earlier been a major camp of the army to prevent smuggling and illicit immigration, being the closest to the Port of Colombo.”
However the next objective of capturing LTTE bases Adampan and Anandakulam in the “rice bowl” was an arduous undertaking. To break the impasse the army followed the tactic of opening up many fronts to break up the LTTE forces which earlier had the opportunity of deploying in strength on a few strategic points. After heavy fighting, Adampan was captured in May 2008. By the end of November 2008 the vital point of Pooneryn was captured and the threat to the Jaffna encampment from LTTE long range artillery was eliminated thereby releasing the troops in Jaffna fort for the Mullaitivu offensive.
On January 2, 2009 the symbolically crucial town of Kilinochchi was captured and the fighting moved to Muhamalai which was considered a “jinx” for the army which had in the past failed to go beyond it. This time around the army adopted a strategy of attrition wearing down the LTTE formations through RPG attacks and close range encounters. Another set of troops came down from Jaffna and breached the LTTEs second line of defence of Muhamalai. By the first week of January 2009 Muhamali was in army hands and troops could move down to Elephant Pass via Palai where the LTTEs resistance was overcome. The LTTE cadres then retreated towards the jungles of Mullaitivu where the final battles were destined to take place.
Once the LTTE together with their hostage Tamil civilians, were driven into an increasingly small quadrant in Mullaitivu, they launched a publicity and diplomatic campaign to stop hostilities and rescue the remaining leaders and their families including Prabhakaran and his wife and children. It was a multipronged effort which included mobilizing the UN, the diaspora and NGOs, the UK and USA and especially India. It was a formidable combination and it stands to the credit of MR and GR that they dlid not succumb to their threats as well as blandishments.
In many ways it was MR’s finest hour. Each of these interlocutors were fully engaged and it was made clear that no compromise was possible. Credit must be given also to the Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama who resisted the advice of his officials and fully backed MR in his approach to the interlocutors. The biggest pressure came from India. Fortunately the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Alok Prasad stood by the Sri Lankan government and the “Troika” of three representatives of each side which met regularly kept each other informed of the ground situation.
The Secretary-General of the UN sent his special envoy Satish Nambiar to broker a ceasefire. MR and GR stood firm against it and dismissed the possibility of sending a UN fact finding mission to Mullaitivu. The NGOs were represented by a high level delegation led by Bernard Kouchner of France and David Milliband of the UK. Fortunately MR was able to call their bluff by taking a tough stand that their advice was not warranted by the facts on the ground.
An interesting side line was MR’s decision not to dignify their visit. He moved to Chandrikawewa which was close to his ancestral home in Medamulana. In this he was influenced by his experiences with Gaddafi in Libya. When he visited Libya, Gaddafi, a Bedouin, had pitched camp in the desert and MR was received in that encampment. He emulated Gaddafi and the visiting firemen from Europe had to be driven, sweating profusely in their western clothes to the humid dry zone hotel veranda for their audience with MR.
It was not a lesson that they would easily forget. By a coincidence both these selfish do gooders were not able to achieve their ambitions of high office in their countries and faded ultimately from public view. All these interlocutors were under the impression that the civilians trapped in the quadrant were attacked by our army. Actually the reverse was the case. The army literally held their fire and when the civilians began to cross the lagoon they were welcomed and even fed on army rations which were meant for the soldiers.
It was the LTTE that tried to prevent the civilians from leaving them as their human shield was being eroded. Fortunately Indian officials who monitored the evacuation saw this and stood by us even though Tamilnadu which was facing an election, as expected, used the Sri Lanka situation as a popular rallying cry. To help in this dire situation we agreed to issue a statement that heavy artillery would not be used to fire on the shrinking LTTE quadrant. These were astute and professionally sound Foreign Ministry moves for which MR, GR and Bogollagama should be given the credit.
There is another “inside story” which attests to MR’s luck during this period. When the post of Sec. Gen. of the UN fell vacant with the retirement of Kofi Annan, Jayantha Dhanapala was a candidate to succeed him. He had the backing of the west because he had handled discussions on the non -proliferation of strategic weapons to their satisfaction. US President Bill Clinton supported him. “This pro west tilt alarmed the Non Aligned countries and India promoted Sashi Tharoor as a rival candidate. Jayantha’s candidature was dead in the water as MR had been persuaded by local businessmen to throw our country’s support behind Ban Ki Moon who eventually got the job. It was no secret that the South Koreans threw a lot of money around to get this job for their countryman since they had been poorly received in the UN system.
MRs decision turned out to be a lucky one as Ban Ki Moon adopted a soft line with our government. After he and MR issued a joint statement the UN did not bully the Sri Lankan government. All in all this episode was handled astutely and the war was concluded on our terms. Prabhakaran and nearly all of the top leadership were killed together with large numbers of their terrorist fighters. It was the only instance at that time in the whole world where terrorism was comprehensively defeated.
Speaking at a meeting to felicitate GR at that time I drew attention to the need to tell the world about the humane way in which the civilians who crossed the lagoon were treated. The Sunday Observer of May 27, 2012 reported the following: “Senior Minister of International Monetary Cooperation said Sri Lanka’s humanitarian mission of rescuing over 150,000 Tamil civilians from the clutches of the LTTE’ was the greatest humanitarian operation in modern times. He said, “our heroic forces crossed the lagoon at Pudumathalan and went through difficult terrain to cross the earth bund built by the LTTE. Then they facilitated the crossover of 150,000 civilians to the government controlled area. It was a heroic effort and one of t he greatest of humanitarian operations”.
He said that our case has not been properly presented to the global community. “We are only talking about what happened at the Nandikadal lagoon. Nobody talks about what happened at the lagoon in Pudumathalan”.
(This book is available at the Vijitha Yapa Bookshop)
(Excerpted from vol. 3 of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography)
Holding the scales evenly and meeting with Chief Minister CBK
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
by Prof. Ranjith Bandara Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Colombo
The 2027 Budget has been presented with ambitious promises, large financial allocations and renewed assurances of economic transformation. The government speaks confidently about recovery, stability and a better future.
But one important question remains.
Is this a budget designed to transform Sri Lanka’s economy, or another exercise in presenting attractive numbers and political promises?
A national budget should be more than a statement of government income and expenditure. It should tell the country where its economy is heading and how it intends to get there.
After years of economic hardship, people expect more than financial targets. They want affordable living, secure employment, better incomes and confidence in their future.
Investors want policy certainty. Young people want opportunities. Businesses want an environment in which they can grow.
Unfortunately, the 2027 Budget does not offer a sufficiently convincing strategy to meet these expectations.
Economic recovery is not economic development
Sri Lanka has made progress in restoring macroeconomic stability. Inflation has become more manageable than during the worst of the crisis. Revenue collection has improved. Fiscal discipline has received greater attention.
These achievements should be recognised.
However, economic stability is only the starting point.
The Budget estimates revenue and grants of Rs. 6.18 trillion against expenditure of approximately Rs. 7.93 trillion, including supplementary disaster-related spending.
The fiscal deficit is projected at around Rs. 1.75 trillion. Interest payments alone amount to Rs. 2.64 trillion.
These figures reveal the continuing pressure on government finances.
More importantly, they raise a question about development priorities.
How much of public expenditure will genuinely strengthen the country’s productive capacity? How much will create lasting employment? How much will generate future income rather than merely finance current commitments?
The government hopes to achieve economic growth of at least 7% in the medium term. Yet the World Bank projects growth of 4.2% for 2027.
Closing this gap requires investment, productivity improvements and institutional reforms.
Announcing an ambitious growth target is easy. Creating the conditions to achieve it is much harder.
Cost of living remains real economic test
For ordinary families, economic recovery is measured differently.
They look at the cost of food, electricity, transport, medicine and education. They compare their monthly income with their household expenses.
Many still struggle to make ends meet.
The Budget proposes tax concessions and social assistance. The increase in the monthly income-tax-free threshold to Rs. 162,500 will benefit some employees. Allocations for Aswesuma and other social protection programmes will also help vulnerable households.
But they do not fully address the underlying problem.
Millions of low-income workers receive no direct benefit from income tax reductions. Their main problem is inadequate income and the high cost of essential goods.
Colombo inflation reached 8.3% in October 2026. Even when inflation falls, prices do not necessarily return to earlier levels.
People need higher real incomes, not merely announcements about lower inflation.
A meaningful budget should explain how production costs will fall, how market competition will improve and how household purchasing power will increase.
Economic recovery means little if families continue to struggle to afford a decent life.
A generation without economic confidence
Youth unemployment remains one of Sri Lanka’s greatest challenges.
In the second quarter of 2026, overall unemployment stood at 4%. But unemployment among young people aged 15–24 was 17.8%. Among young women, it was even higher.
These are not merely labour market statistics. They represent thousands of young people uncertain about their future.
The Budget refers to training, digital development and public-sector recruitment.
But training alone does not create employment. Nor can the government continue expanding public employment indefinitely.
The country needs businesses that invest, expand production and recruit skilled workers.
Where is the comprehensive strategy to create well-paid jobs in manufacturing, technology, modern agriculture, logistics and professional services?
How many such jobs are expected from the Budget’s proposals?
Without clear answers, overseas employment will remain attractive to educated and skilled young Sri Lankans.
Migration can support households through remittances. But the continued loss of skilled people also weakens the country’s long-term development prospects.
A successful development strategy must give young people reasons to build their futures in Sri Lanka.
Who will benefit from economic growth?
Another major concern is the unequal distribution of economic opportunities.
According to World Bank estimates, poverty remained at 16.9% in 2025.
Many rural households, estate communities and low-income urban families continue to face serious difficulties.
Economic growth does not automatically improve their lives.
The Budget includes welfare payments, housing support and regional development allocations.
But the critical question is whether these measures will create lasting economic opportunities.
Will farmers earn more from their production? Will small businesses gain better access to finance and markets? Will women have greater opportunities to enter productive employment?
Social assistance is essential for vulnerable households. Yet welfare payments cannot replace income-generating opportunities.
The real achievement of development is not the number of people receiving assistance, but the number who can eventually live without depending on it.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the Budget is the absence of a sufficiently clear and integrated economic transformation strategy.
Sri Lanka cannot build a strong future through government expenditure, tourism and workers’ remittances alone.
It must produce more, export more and compete more effectively in international markets.
The Budget includes proposals for public investment, railway modernisation, business financing, export incentives and investment facilitation.
Which industries will become the country’s major sources of future growth? How will agriculture become more productive? How will small enterprises connect with export markets? How will technology improve industrial competitiveness?
A development budget should answer these questions through clear priorities and measurable targets.
Investment confidence is equally important.
Investors need predictable taxation, efficient government services, reliable infrastructure and consistent economic policies.
They also need confidence that political decisions will not suddenly change the business environment.
A country cannot attract sufficient private investment through incentives alone.
Unless these structural problems are addressed, the ambition of creating a competitive production and service economy will remain uncertain.
Problem is not allocation, but belivery
The Budget proposes approximately Rs. 2 trillion for public investment, including supplementary reconstruction spending.
However, public expenditure figures mean little unless projects are implemented effectively.
By the end of June 2026, only 16.3% of the annual capital expenditure allocation had been spent. By September, reported spending had reached just 31.6%.
Such slow implementation raises serious concerns about administrative capacity.
Will project approvals become faster? Will procurement procedures improve? Will government institutions coordinate more effectively?
The Budget should not merely announce money for development. It should establish accountability for delivery.
Every major project should have a timetable, an identified responsible institution and measurable results.
A billion rupees announced is not a billion rupees of development achieved.
From the Election Manifesto to Economic Reality
The government’s election manifesto promised a more productive, fair and prosperous Sri Lanka.
It raised expectations of a different approach to economic management and public administration.
The 2027 Budget should therefore be judged against those commitments.
There are positive proposals. But much of its immediate appeal comes from allowances, concessions, public-sector benefits and visible spending announcements.
These may provide political advantages. Some also respond to genuine social needs. Yet political popularity and economic transformation are not the same. A government must demonstrate how its policies will increase productivity, expand employment, reduce inequality and improve living standards.
Otherwise, the distance between election promises and economic reality may continue to widen.
This matters beyond politics. When people see impressive announcements without meaningful changes in their daily lives, frustration grows. Social unrest may not disappear simply because macroeconomic indicators have improved. Public confidence depends on visible progress, fairness and credible opportunities.
Are we heading towards another IMF programme?
The Budget also raises important questions about Sri Lanka’s future relationship with the International Monetary Fund.
The President stated that the present IMF programme is expected to conclude in March 2027. A Cabinet-appointed committee is examining the possibility of another arrangement.
This deserves serious public discussion.
Another IMF programme is not necessarily a sign of failure. A precautionary arrangement may help protect the economy against future shocks.
However, repeated dependence on external financial support would raise questions about the sustainability of Sri Lanka’s recovery. Are export earnings expanding sufficiently? Is private investment recovering strongly enough? Are foreign exchange reserves and debt-servicing capacity becoming more secure? If these weaknesses remain unresolved, the country may need further IMF support sooner or later. The real challenge is not simply completing an IMF programme. It is building an economy that can maintain stability, finance investment and meet its external obligations without repeatedly depending on emergency assistance.
Sri Lanka needs direction, not another number game
The 2027 Budget contains useful proposals. It also reflects some progress in fiscal management.
But it remains more convincing as a statement of financial intentions than as a comprehensive development strategy.
The government must clearly identify the industries it wants to develop, the jobs it intends to create, the investments it hopes to attract and the improvements people should expect in their living standards. It must connect spending with outcomes.
It must also strengthen public administration and rebuild trust among investors, businesses and ordinary citizens.
Most importantly, it must explain how economic stability will become broadly shared prosperity.
Sri Lanka does not need another competition over the size of budget allocations. It needs a credible national economic direction.
A budget may impress Parliament with billions. But its real success must be measured in the lives of millions.
Until that happens, one uncomfortable question will remain:
Are we rebuilding the economy, or merely managing its problems while preparing for the next crisis?
Continue Reading Features Saving Sri Lanka’s tomato crop from destructive pest Published
Tomatoes are among Sri Lanka’s most widely consumed vegetables, providing income to thousands of farming families and supporting rural traders, restaurants and food-processing enterprises. Yet a destructive insect pest threatens both production and farmers’ livelihoods, warranting urgent national attention.
, commonly known as the tomato leaf miner and fruit borer, attacks tomato leaves, shoots and fruits. Its larvae feed inside plant tissues, making infestations difficult to detect and control once established.
Field observations have raised concerns that approximately 30% of Sri Lanka’s annual tomato crop could be wasted, with inadequate farmer knowledge of pest management identified as a possible contributing factor. This figure, however, is not a scientifically established national loss estimate. Independent research is needed to determine the proportion of losses directly attributable to this pest, as distinct from other pests, diseases and post-harvest losses.
Nevertheless, the concern raises an important question: how much food and farmer income could Sri Lanka save through better scientific knowledge, timely monitoring and affordable pest management?
A known threat requiring renewed attention
Sri Lanka has known about Tuta absoluta for several years. Research published in The Tropical Agriculturist in December 2019 documented its first detection in the country in July 2017, in tomato polytunnels in the Keppetipola, Boralanda and Kolathenna areas of Badulla District. By 2018, the pest had also been identified in open-field cultivation.
Scientists associated with agricultural research institutions, including the Regional Agricultural Research and Development Centre in Bandarawela and the Horticultural Crops Research and Development Institute (HORDI) at Gannoruwa, investigated different management strategies.
Their findings established a scientific basis for monitoring and controlling the pest. Pheromone traps were found useful for monitoring adult moth populations, while compact fluorescent light traps showed potential for mass trapping under the greenhouse conditions studied.
A separate study reported through the University of Peradeniya in 2019 found infestations in different tomato-growing environments in Badulla District. All four varieties examined were susceptible, with significantly higher infestation levels in protected cultivation than in open fields.
Sri Lanka therefore possesses research evidence on the pest’s presence and potential management methods. The crucial question is whether this knowledge has reached farmers effectively.
Pheromone technology: bridging the knowledge gap
Species-specific sex pheromones are an important component of Tuta absoluta management. These chemical signals attract male moths to monitoring traps, enabling growers to detect pest activity before extensive damage becomes apparent.
Pheromone traps are not a complete control solution. They should form part of integrated pest management, incorporating regular crop inspection, field sanitation, removal of infested plant material, biological control where appropriate and other scientifically validated interventions.
Agricultural discussions have raised concerns that pheromone products were previously made available to growers through Cargills, but insufficient farmer demand may have discouraged further imports. This account requires verification.
Cargills and other suppliers should be invited to clarify whether they imported or marketed Tuta absoluta -specific pheromone lures, the quantities and prices involved, the level of farmer adoption and whether subsequent imports were discontinued. If supplies were withdrawn, the reasons should be established.
The objective is not to criticise a private company without evidence. Rather, the experience could reveal weaknesses in agricultural extension and technology transfer.
Making a product available does not automatically constitute successful innovation. Farmers must understand its purpose, learn how to use it and recognise whether its benefits justify the cost. Without adequate education and field demonstrations, even effective technologies may fail commercially.
A damaging cycle can then emerge: farmers remain unaware of the technology, sales remain low, suppliers hesitate to reorder, and access becomes more difficult. Government agricultural extension services and private-sector distributors must work together to break this cycle.
A national awareness and monitoring programme
The Director General of Agriculture should initiate a coordinated Tuta absoluta awareness and monitoring programme in consultation with provincial agricultural authorities.
The first phase should begin in Welimada and surrounding tomato-growing areas of Badulla District, where the pest was initially detected. The programme should then expand to suitable tomato-growing areas in Nuwara Eliya and Matale districts before extending surveillance and training across all nine provinces according to actual cultivation patterns and pest risks.
Agricultural instructors should be equipped to explain the insect’s life cycle, recognise its characteristic damage and demonstrate appropriate monitoring methods. Training should be conducted in Sinhala and Tamil, supported by clear illustrations and practical demonstrations in farmers’ fields.
Farmers must understand that Tuta absoluta is an insect pest rather than a plant disease, because accurate identification determines the appropriate response. They should also be warned that indiscriminate insecticide applications can increase production costs, harm beneficial organisms and contribute to insecticide resistance.
Training should therefore promote integrated pest management rather than dependence on any single commercial product.
Agricultural retailers, nursery operators, vegetable collectors, supermarkets, transporters and producer organisations should also participate in identifying problems and disseminating recommendations. Universities, research institutes and responsible private-sector suppliers can contribute scientific expertise and practical support.
Radio, television, newspapers and mobile-friendly educational materials should reinforce field demonstrations. Communication must continue throughout tomato-growing seasons rather than being confined to occasional publicity campaigns.
The programme should have clearly assigned responsibilities, measurable outcomes and a defined timetable.
First 30 days: establish scientific leadership.
The Director General of Agriculture should appoint a technical committee led by agricultural entomologists and integrated pest management specialists. HORDI Gannoruwa, the Bandarawela research establishment, relevant universities and provincial extension services should participate. The committee should review available research, assess current infestation patterns, identify reliable pheromone products and prepare a standard monitoring protocol.
The reported 30% crop-loss figure should also be subjected to independent field assessment. Potential suppliers should be consulted about product availability, historical demand, import constraints and distribution prospects.
Days 31–90: conduct field demonstrations.
Demonstrations should begin in Welimada and extend to selected locations in Nuwara Eliya and Matale districts. Existing farmer practices should be compared with scientifically supervised integrated pest management incorporating pheromone monitoring.
Researchers should record pest activity, fruit damage, marketable yields, intervention costs and farmer understanding. The Department of Agriculture should publish practical guidance on trap selection, positioning, inspection and replacement, based on validated local recommendations.
Months 4–6: expand provincial participation.
Provincial agricultural authorities should appoint focal officers to coordinate training and monitoring. Resource allocation should reflect actual tomato cultivation and documented pest incidence. A national information system should record confirmed infestations, monitoring results, farmer participation and the availability of essential equipment.
Quality-assured pheromone lures should be distributed through appropriate agricultural service centres and commercial suppliers. Targeted support for small growers could be considered if evidence demonstrates that cost is a significant barrier.
Months 7–12: evaluate and institutionalise the programme.
An independent assessment should examine adoption rates, reductions in damaged fruit, changes in marketable yields and economic benefits. Successful practices should become part of routine agricultural extension services, with procurement and distribution arrangements strengthened where necessary.
Preventable crop losses affect more than individual farmers. They reduce food availability, weaken rural incomes and disrupt the vegetable supply chain.
Consider an illustrative calculation. A farmer expecting 25,000 kilograms of tomatoes per hectare who suffers a 30% loss would lose 7,500 kilograms of potential marketable production. At an assumed farm-gate price of Rs. 200 per kilogram, the resulting gross revenue loss would be Rs. 1.5 million per hectare.
These figures are illustrative assumptions, not verified national yields, current prices or confirmed losses caused by Tuta absoluta . Nevertheless, they demonstrate why even a modest reduction in avoidable damage could benefit farmers substantially.
A proper national assessment should distinguish losses attributable to this pest from those caused by other factors. It should also determine whether early monitoring reduces unnecessary insecticide expenditure and protects beneficial insects.
Ultimately, programme success should be measured through improved marketable yields, higher net farm returns and more reliable vegetable supplies.
Accountability must accompany awareness
The initiative must not become another programme whose success is measured merely by the number of workshops conducted. Indicators should include farmers reached, confirmed pest incidence, adoption of recommended monitoring methods, availability of quality-assured lures, reductions in crop damage and improvements in farmer income.
Independent researchers should validate the results, while provincial authorities submit regular progress reports and the Department of Agriculture publishes consolidated findings. Private companies should participate through transparent arrangements that protect scientific independence and prevent inappropriate product promotion.
The Director General of Agriculture is respectfully urged to convene the relevant scientific, extension and commercial stakeholders, establish an action plan and launch the programme in Welimada before extending it according to verified need.
Cargills and other agricultural input suppliers should be invited to share their experience and assess opportunities to restore or expand access to reliable pheromone-monitoring technology.
Above all, farmers must be treated as partners in agricultural innovation. Sri Lanka’s agricultural future depends not only on generating scientific knowledge but also on ensuring that it reaches the field, is understood by growers and produces measurable improvements.
Every tomato saved from preventable pest damage represents additional food for consumers, income for farmers and value for the national economy. The time has come to turn existing scientific findings into practical national action.
Lalin I. de Silva is a value chain management journalist at Vivonta Green Tech Consultants and the Proprietary Planters Alliance (Pvt) Ltd, and a former senior planter and agricultural adviser/consultant.
Principal scientific reference: Hadji, T. K. A. I., et al. (2019). Evaluation of different management
strategies to control Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in tomato. Tropical Agriculturist, 167(4), 34–50.
Neoliberalism operates on the core philosophical premise that greed is a functional virtue. Popularised by thinkers like Milton Friedman and politically implemented by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, in the US and the UK, respectively, the doctrine argues that unrestrained individual self-interest and profit maximisation naturally yield the most efficient distribution of resources. Over time, this created a structural dependence on greed through several key mechanisms. Firstly, to maximise quick capital gains, advanced economies shifted away from building physical infrastructure or supporting robust jobs toward speculative finance. Profit was prioritised over human development. This resulted in wages for the working and middle classes remaining largely stagnant while corporate profits surged. Consequently, consumer demand could only be maintained through cheap credit. When consumers failed to pay up and the debt bubbles burst, the state stepped in as the “lender of last resort” which saved the companies at the expense of people. Further, privatisation and state austerity targeted public services like healthcare, affordable housing, and education. Treating these fundamental human needs as profit-driven market commodities has led to extreme wealth inequality and diminished social welfare. This shows that neoliberalism cannot afford to hurt the corporate world which appears to be needing protection at the expense of public good.
Symptoms of implosion within the structure of neoliberal model are already visible. The neoliberalists expected tax cuts and deregulation to have a “trickledown effect” resulting in widespread prosperity. On the contrary such policies have caused wealth accumulation enriching the top 1% while crippling the purchasing power of the majority. Unfettered free trade and globalization was expected to ensure borderless stability but what has happened instead is that extreme vulnerabilities in supply chains have prompted a massive return to protectionism and tariff wars. Furthermore, champions of market economy expected markets to foster individual liberty and safeguard open societies, but rampant inequality and economic insecurity have fueled deep institutional distrust, loss of confidence in democratic governance, spawning sharp populist reactions on both the political left and right. Youth-led unrest in Europe is the latest manifestation of the apparent failure of the global economic system. There had been previous uprisings against this system in Europe as well as the US where the “Occupy Wall Street” campaign was a strong message against greed.
There is a growing global consensus among policymakers, including former critics and defenders alike, that the neoliberal era is coming to a close and the practical reality is being realised that an economy built solely around capital returns eventually runs out of the stability it needs to survive. That is the economic aspect of it, while the psychological aspect is greed and selfishness. The latter two human characteristics were considered ‘good’ because they were supposed to promote enterprise and sharpen competitiveness. Now, it is being realised that competition could be harmful to the human system and entrepreneurship is a tool of exploitation.
Leaving aside greed, which may be the driving force of consumerism, the vital ingredient for the survival of capitalism, one could examine the inherent contradiction of the present global economic system. As mentioned above in the last several decades the profits have surged while wages have stagnated and the purchasing power of the working class has reduced. Large profits are necessary to keep capitalism afloat. This in turn made it difficult to keep real incomes of the working class commensurate with rising cost of living. The incongruity of this situation is that capitalism cannot survive unless consumerism thrives which does not happen when purchasing power of people dwindles. State intervention by lending to keep consumerism going does not work as the ‘debt buble’ would eventually burst. This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism particularly in unfettered neoliberalism. The IMF and the World Bank were restructured to enable design of the world economic order to suit the neo-liberal policies.
Western philosophers did not study the psychology of greed in depth and therefore could not see the overall damage it could cause. Although the Bible and Jesus Christ have advised against avarice, John Calvin the 16th Century French theologian proclaimed that making profit was morally acceptable within Christianity giving a licence, as it were, for unfettered capitalism. In contrast the Buddha saw the fallacy of theories that encouraged greed and he delved deeply into the psychology of greed. He saw that the cause of human predicament is greed and found the means to control it. The political and economic message that Buddha’s theory conveys is that if poverty (suffering) is to be resolved greed needs to be brought under control.
There is another dimension to the problem pertaining to the present world order, and that is the climate change which is also caused by excessive human greed. Planet Earth is in peril due to global warming and overconsumption of its resources, two factors that contribute to climate change and cause damage to ecosystems that are essential for its survival. This is a direct result of adopting consumerism as the driving force of the present world order, the underlying philosophy of which is neo-liberalism driven by market forces. This market heavily depends on human greed which by nature could be insatiable, particularly when there seems to be unlimited attractions produced by the capitalist system. Paradoxically, if greed is controlled this economic system may collapse. Consumerism has been made the purpose of existence so that greed continues to operate unabated. Free market and greed feed each other. Furthermore, this state of affairs causes widening inequality and extreme poverty that constitutes yet another threat to the continuation of the present world order.
It is obvious that this state of affairs is unsustainable as the twin threats of poverty and environmental degradation would make life impossible on this planet. Unfortunately, world leaders are slow in reacting to this threat. Trump has repeatedly stated that climate change and associated environmental outcomes to be a ‘hoax’ a ‘scam’ and a ‘con-job’. The French President has blamed left politics for the youth-led uprisings which in fact have been caused by unaffordability and inequality. Both global poverty and climate change are caused by excessive greed and neither could be resolved without dismantling neoliberalism. The world cannot wait until neoliberalism implodes and destroys itself. The world must unite and create a new world order as early as possible, aimed at alleviating poverty and safeguarding the environment. Third World countries must cooperate with one another in this endeavour.
Unfortunately, some countries, including ours, though said to be governed by a left leaning party, still continue to embrace neoliberalism without reservation and they wholeheartedly collude with the worst offenders of consumption and pollution.
GMOA seeks restoration of duty-free vehicle permits
Government makes charity difficult in Sri Lanka – Pethiyagoda
Iran allows ship carrying fertiliser for SL to pass Strait of Hormuz
Failure to heed PM’s directive worsened Colombo floods: Patali
Monks defy court order as protest over A’pura development plan intensifies
Colombo floods: Facts beneath political sludge
Devananda to hand back Jaffna shops he held for 30 years to their owners
“It Will Be Forgotten in a Week” No Longer Works: Colombo’s Floods and the Demand for Proactive Governance
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…