Columnist Dhanusha Gihan Pathirana responds to EFC rebuttal

•  Hollowness of Employers’ Federation’s reply on proposed EPF Reforms

 The published ‘Write of Reply’  (https://www.ft.lk/opinion/EFC-refutes-Columnist-Dhanusha-Gihan-Pathirana/14-794466) from the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC) exposes an important characteristic of its modus operandi: when confronted with structural critiques, the official ‘trade union’ of Sri Lanka’s commercial bourgeoisie prefers to shield their image rather than engage with the economic substance of the arguments.

 This defensive reflex further explains the appalling state of employer-worker relations particularly in Sri Lanka’s labour-intensive manufacturing and services sectors. It is reflected in the fact that monthly wage incomes in these sectors remain predominantly below what’s necessary to meet the basic living cost—which is stipulated by the National Consumer Price Index at around Rs. 59,000 per month. A closer look at EFC’s defence reveals it to be entirely hollow, dodging every critical point raised regarding the future of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) under their proposed reforms.  

 1.Laundering an image without addressing substance

 The EFC’s response reads like an exercise in public relations panic rather than a policy rebuttal. They reply heavily on emotional, defensive language—calling the critique “shocking”, “morally offensive”, and claiming it “impugns their reputation”. Yet, nowhere in their statement do they systematically address the actual economic mechanics and risks outlined in the original analysis, nor do they touch upon the alternative structural solutions proposed (such as merging the exclusive Central Bank Staff Provident Fund (SPF) with the general public’s EPF to force alignment of interest).

 Furthermore, their complaint that they were not approached for a comment prior to publication is an empty grievance. Given that their actual, published response completely avoids the core issues, it is evident that seeking their comment beforehand would have been entirely useless. They simply do not possess a valid, data-driven defence for the systemic risks their EPF blueprint introduces. In analytical and conceptual accounts—unlike in standard daily reporting— it is not the standard practice to share the conclusions derived through systemic analysis with the subjects being analysed prior to publication.

 2.The illusion of Tripartite governance

 The crux of the EFC defence rests on the concept of ‘tripartite governance’—a structure involving employers, employees, and the government. They claim that characterising their proposal as a “private sector-led” model is a misunderstanding because authority would theoretically be shared. This argument completely misses the mark. The original column did not just query formal voting power; it raised the structural threat of insider trading, severe information asymmetry, and front-running. It also highlighted the superior gains EPF would achieve if the principal-agent problem were solved by merging the EPF and SPF, rather than adopting the EFC reforms.

 Because the EPF is an absolute titan in the domestic market, any decision it makes to move into specific corporate equity or debt instruments will naturally drive prices up. If corporate elites sit on that trustee board, they gain immediate, advanced visibility into the fund’s asset allocation. They, or their vast affiliated corporate networks, could quietly buy up those assets through private entities ahead of time, letting the sheer weight of worker’s savings artificially inflate the price before selling for risk-free profits, reducing the potential returns of the fund compared to the alternative suggested above. A tripartite body offers absolutely zero defence against this kind of sophisticated corporate malpractice. The employee and government representatives on such a board would remain entirely defenceless against structural front-running, rendering the “tripartite” label nothing more than a shield of unearned legitimacy.

 3.“International best practice” as Neoliberal dogma

 The EFC frequently alludes to international standards and global labour frameworks to validate its blueprint. In reality, this so-called “international best practice” is merely the standard IMF neoliberal playbook endorsed by the ILO. This strategy aggressively pushes for the privatisation of public pensions funds worldwide, exposing the mandatory, un-withdrawable life savings of ordinary citizens to highly volatile markets and predatory corporate interests. There is no objective, independent theoretical justification for why moving asset management to the hands of a closed-loop corporate network solves the fund’s systemic principal-agent dilemmas. It merely shifts the venue of exploitation from state-led inefficiency to oligarchic corporate capture.

 Ultimately, EFC’s right of reply proves the original point: their proposed reform remains a Trojan Horse. When stripped of its glossy international terminology and defensive indignation, it leaves workers’ life savings exposed to private gain at public expense.