Saturday Sep 05, 2026
Saturday Sep 05, 2026
Saturday, 5 September 2026 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
President and Finance Minister Anura Kumara Dissanayake
Question for citizens, Parliament and Government
There is an aspect of the management of our national economy which, in my view, deserves far greater public attention than it is receiving today. Much of the current public debate is understandably occupied with immediate political controversies, administrative disputes and other day-to-day issues. But behind all these matters lies a much more fundamental question:
Where has Parliament legally directed the Sri Lankan economy to go, and are we doing enough today to ensure that we get there?
This question has acquired particular importance because Parliament has enacted the Economic Transformation Act, No. 45 of 2024. The Act was endorsed on 9 August 2024. The preamble states describing the objective as “An act to provide for the National Policy on economic transformation and for the establishment of the economic commission of Sri Lanka.” This is not merely another Government policy document, an election manifesto or a statement of political intention. It is an Act of Parliament which establishes a statutory framework for the economic transformation of Sri Lanka and places a number of important economic objectives and targets within that framework.
Why was such legislation considered necessary?
I feel compelled to raise this issue also for a personal reason.
When the Economic Transformation Bill was being prepared, I had the opportunity to serve on an exclusive internal official committee appointed by the then Prime Minister, Dinesh Gunawardena, to examine the draft Bill circulated among the Cabinet and provide observations and advice to the Prime Minister. I remember telling him, somewhat jokingly at the time:
“If I am still alive when the targets become due, one day I may even go to court against a Government which fails to achieve them!”
It was said in jest. But the thought behind the joke was serious.
Why were such targets being incorporated into legislation in the first place? Sri Lanka had just experienced an unprecedented economic crisis. The country had suffered an economic collapse, shortages of essentials, loss of foreign exchange, sovereign default and a dramatic deterioration in the living conditions of its people.
The economic crisis of 2022 had demonstrated with painful clarity the consequences of allowing serious structural weaknesses to accumulate without adequate corrective action.
Against that background, it was understandable that the Government should seek something more durable than another set of economic promises.
It is important, however, to acknowledge the foresight behind this legislative initiative. Those who conceived and promoted the Economic Transformation Act recognised that the extraordinary economic crisis Sri Lanka had experienced required something more enduring than conventional policy declarations. The decision to translate important national economic objectives into a statutory framework, with measurable targets and mechanisms for monitoring and corrective action, deserves appreciation.
Whatever views one may subsequently have about individual policies or their implementation, the underlying vision of creating a legally recognisable framework for Sri Lanka’s economic transformation was significant. It is precisely because that vision was placed into law that we, as citizens, should now take an interest in whether it is being faithfully carried forward.
The Economic Transformation Bill represented an attempt to place important national economic objectives within a statutory framework, with defined targets, time frames, monitoring and corrective mechanisms. That was an important development in the way we approached the management of the national economy. Once Parliament chose to enact such targets into law, however, a new dimension was created. These were no longer simply objectives that a Government could announce and later forget. They became part of the legislative framework governing the country’s economic transformation.
That is precisely why I believe the public should now take a much closer interest in them.
What exactly has Parliament prescribed?
Duty of Cabinet of Ministers in relation to National Policy on Economic Transformation: It shall be the duty of the Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of Sri Lanka under Article 43 of the Constitution, to base the National Policy on Economic Transformation on the following targets.
The Act requires the Cabinet, in formulating the National Policy on Economic Transformation, to base it on specific targets. Among the most significant are:
These are extraordinarily important objectives. They concern employment, investment, exports, public revenue, fiscal stability, poverty and ultimately the standard of living of every Sri Lankan.
They are therefore not matters which should be left exclusively to economists and politicians or allowed to be dusting in the libraries of the Parliament.
The question before us
The question is not whether we support or oppose these targets. The more important question is:
Are we presently seeing sufficient positive evidence that Sri Lanka is genuinely moving towards them?
To answer that question, assurances alone are not sufficient. We need measurable indicators, identifiable strategies, investment decisions, institutional reforms and actual results demonstrating that the country is travelling towards the statutory destination.
To be fair, there are encouraging signs.
The latest official national accounts indicate that Sri Lanka’s real GDP grew by 5.1% in the first quarter of 2026. That is certainly positive and should be acknowledged.
But GDP growth alone cannot establish that the broader economic transformation contemplated by Parliament is on course. A single quarterly growth figure is only one indicator. We need to examine the trajectory
If Parliament has prescribed that exports should reach 40% of GDP by 2030, the public should be able to examine the pathway by which that target is expected to be reached.
If Government revenue is required to reach at least 15% of GDP beyond 2027, what is the present position and what rate of improvement is required?
If net FDI is expected to reach 5% of GDP by 2030, what investment strategy is being implemented today to produce that result?
If female labour-force participation is expected to reach 40% by 2030, what programs and structural changes are being implemented to achieve it?
If poverty is to be reduced below the statutory levels within the prescribed time frames, what measurable evidence demonstrates that the country is moving in that direction?
And if GDP growth is required to remain at or above 5%, what productive capacity is being created today to make such growth sustainable rather than temporary?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the natural questions that arise when Parliament has placed national economic objectives within a statutory framework.
We should not wait until the deadline
This, in my view, is the most important point. Suppose Parliament has prescribed a target for 2030. Should the country simply wait until 2030 and then discover that the policies, investments and structural reforms necessary to achieve that target were never adequately put in place? Surely the purpose of having targets and corrective mechanisms is to identify deviations while there is still time to correct them.
A meaningful monitoring system should therefore ask:
This would enable the country to classify each major target as: On course — At risk — or Requiring corrective action.
That would be much more meaningful than simply waiting for the final deadline.
The Act itself contemplates corrective action
The importance of this issue is reinforced by the structure of the Act. It deals not only with the National Policy on Economic Transformation, but also with the duties of the Cabinet, the policy framework and strategies, conformity of Government policies with the National Policy, and commitment to achieving the key targets and remedial measures for deviations from those targets.
It also provides for Parliamentary oversight of the exercise of the relevant powers and responsibilities. The legislation therefore creates a framework in which progress towards the targets is not supposed to be a matter of occasional political commentary. It is something which should be monitored, reported and acted upon.
Parliament has major responsibility
The responsibility should not rest entirely upon citizens. Parliament itself has a very important role to play. Its relevant committees should be able to examine progress against the statutory targets, call upon responsible authorities to explain the strategies being followed, scrutinise the evidence and ask what corrective measures are being adopted where the trajectory is inadequate.
The role of Parliamentary oversight should not merely be retrospective. It should also be preventive.
It should identify difficulties while there is still time to change course. This is particularly important because Parliament itself has created the statutory framework. The committees of Parliament therefore have a legitimate basis for asking:
Citizens also have a role
Citizens should not regard economic legislation as something belonging only to the Government, economists, accountants or lawyers. The Economic Transformation Act concerns employment, taxation, investment, exports, poverty, public finances and the future prosperity of the country. It therefore concerns every citizen. Citizens and civil society should be able to ask:
This is not an attempt to dictate economic policy to the Government. Different Governments may legitimately choose different strategies. The issue is whether the Government is genuinely pursuing the objectives Parliament has enacted into law, and whether there is credible evidence that the strategies being adopted can achieve them.
Could there be a public-interest or legal dimension?
There is also a question which, in my view, deserves serious legal examination.
If Parliament has imposed statutory duties relating to monitoring, reporting, corrective action and accountability, can citizens, where circumstances justify it, invoke appropriate public-interest or legal mechanisms to ensure that those statutory duties are actually performed? This should not be confused with asking a court to order the Government to produce a particular GDP figure. Courts are not economic planning authorities. The more limited and constitutionally appropriate question would be whether a public authority can be required to perform a duty imposed upon it by Parliament, while leaving the choice of economic policy and strategy to the responsible authorities. That distinction is important. It is not judicial management of the economy.
It is potentially accountability for compliance with the law. This question should be examined carefully by constitutional and administrative-law experts before anyone reaches a conclusion.
National economic transformation scorecard?
Perhaps the time has come for the Government, Parliament, economists, professional organisations, civil society and the media to develop a simple public scorecard. For each principal statutory target, we should be able to see:
demonstrate that the country is on a credible trajectory
Such a scorecard would make the Economic Transformation Act a living instrument of national accountability rather than a statute which is remembered only when its targets are discussed.
Let us not repeat the lessons of the past
Sri Lanka has already experienced the consequences of failing to pay sufficient attention to fundamental economic weaknesses until they developed into a national crisis. We should not repeat that mistake in another form. The present recovery should certainly be welcomed. But recovery from a crisis is not the same thing as economic transformation.
The latter requires sustained growth, investment, exports, productivity, employment, fiscal strength, foreign exchange earnings and improvements in living standards. That is why the statutory targets deserve continuous public scrutiny.
A question for the nation
My intention in raising this issue is not to criticise the present Government or to question its right to determine economic policy. Nor is it to suggest that every economic target can be achieved mechanically regardless of changing circumstances. My concern is more fundamental.
Once Parliament has enacted national economic targets into law, should citizens simply remain spectators until the target dates arrive?
Or should we, as citizens, insist that there is positive and measurable evidence that the authorities are genuinely pursuing those targets through appropriate and credible strategies? Should Parliament’s committees actively monitor the trajectory?
Should the Government periodically demonstrate where we stand against each statutory target? And where there is evidence of deviation, should the corrective mechanisms contemplated by the Act be invoked while there is still time?
Finally, should citizens and civil society explore appropriate public-interest, Parliamentary and, where legally justified, judicial mechanisms to ensure that the statutory framework is being faithfully implemented? I believe these are legitimate questions which deserve a serious national discussion.
When Parliament turns an economic objective into law, the people should have the right to ask whether that law is being honoured. The time to ask that question is not after the target has been missed.
The time is now—while there is still time to correct the course.
