By Anthony Dilakshan Seneviratne –

In the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s recent catastrophe (Cyclone Ditwah), commentary flooded the public domain almost instantly. Predictably, the usual political actors and commentators rushed to assign blame even before the full scale of the tragedy was understood. As infrastructure collapsed, lives were lost, and communities struggled, certain individuals and groups intensified their accusations. Self-appointed experts, segments of the media, and opportunistic political figures seized the moment to promote their own narratives, spread rumours, and point fingers without evidence.

Meanwhile, government agencies, the armed forces, emergency personnel, and countless non-government volunteers mobilised rapidly to contain the crisis. Their efforts stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the disaster not as a national emergency demanding unity, but as a stage on which to score political points. Having lived in a mature democratic society like Australia, the writer finds this behaviour particularly disheartening; such levels of opportunism are rarely tolerated or seen in nations with strong civic cultures.

But this article is not about the blame game. Sri Lanka has no time to waste dwelling on pettiness or mudslinging. Instead, the focus must be on strategy, policy, and the systemic reforms necessary for the nation to move forward. Every crisis, however devastating, carries lessons, and this disaster is no different.

The central question before us is simple: Can Sri Lanka rise again?

The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Just as the Aragalaya became a catalyst for demanding system change, this disaster, too, represents a pivotal moment. It offers Sri Lanka an opportunity, perhaps an unexpected one, to reinforce and accelerate long-delayed reforms. In rebuilding what has been damaged, the nation can also rebuild the systems, attitudes, and institutions that have held it back for decades.

This tragedy, painful as it is, could become a launching pad for creating a cleaner society, a more accountable state, and a more resilient and developed economy. The path forward will require clear thinking, strong leadership, unity, and a commitment to genuine structural change.

The question, then, is not whether Sri Lanka can rise again, but whether it will seize this moment to do so.

Policy Formulation and Implementation

In his address to Parliament last Friday, H.E. the President explained clearly why the government invoked the Public Security Ordinance (PSO) instead of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) to respond to the crisis. As early as August 2025, a review had revealed that the DMA, despite being in place for many years, was outdated, under-resourced, and functionally ineffective. Many of the operational mechanisms it required were either dormant or had never been established. In practice, it had become a toothless piece of legislation, much like the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) before the current administration allocated the funding and resources needed for its enforcement. Today, the Anti-Corruption Commission stands as one of the strongest independent entities in the country, demonstrating what proper implementation can achieve.

These examples highlight a recurring problem in Sri Lanka’s legislative landscape: laws enacted for optics, sometimes to satisfy international partners like the IMF, without the political will or budgetary commitment to implement them meaningfully.

A similar pattern was visible in disaster preparedness. The Department of Meteorology (DoM) possesses only basic forecasting capacity and relies heavily on cyclone tracking data from the Indian Meteorological Department. Consequently, the warnings issued ahead of the disaster were vague rain and flood alerts rather than strong cyclone advisories, diminishing public urgency. What emerged clearly in the aftermath, is the absence of a fully operational, well-funded, and rigorously tested disaster-management system. This failure did not materialise overnight, it has been building for years, as numerous weather-related incidents and preventable deaths have shown in the past.

It is therefore debatable how much blame can be placed on a government that has been in office for just one year, while simultaneously managing the monumental task of stabilising a bankrupt economy inherited from its predecessors.

Yet what has followed the disaster is encouraging. The government’s Rebuilding Strategy, unveiled last Friday, fits coherently within the broader economic direction outlined in the national budget. The scale of restoration funding allocated to families and businesses that lost their livelihoods is unprecedented, proportionate to the suffering they have endured not only during the disaster but throughout the prolonged economic downturn. International partners, including the IMF and other lending agencies, are expected to adopt a sympathetic stance as the humanitarian logic of these policies becomes clear.

The President’s actions in the days following the announcement further strengthened public confidence. His visits to every affected district, his direct engagement with officials, and his detailed understanding of local geography, infrastructure, and community needs were striking. Observers witnessed swift problem-solving, efficient coordination between departments, and firm yet respectful guidance, all qualities seldom seen in Sri Lankan leadership. It was an approach grounded in practicality and genuine public service.

Critics had earlier questioned the government’s decision not to privatise state institutions and to grant significant salary increases to public servants in the first budget. However, the commitment demonstrated by state employees, along with the armed forces and police during the disaster response suggests a shift in motivation and work ethic. The government’s strategy may now be vindicated: a better-resourced, better-valued public service appears poised to become more efficient and dedicated.

This momentum is further reinforced by the recruitment of 96,000 new public servants, including 12,000 university graduates, selected purely on merit and relevant skills, an unprecedented development in Sri Lanka. If this standard is upheld, and if leadership continues to model the President’s example of service, coordination, and accountability, the country’s administrative culture may finally be on the path to transformation.

What New Policies Are Required?

1. Establishing a National Building Code

In his directives following the disaster, H.E. the President emphasised that all future infrastructure, including housing, must comply with proper standards. This raises an important underlying question: Does Sri Lanka possess a functioning National Building Code aligned with international best practices?

At present, the answer appears to be no. Critical parameters, such as 100-year flood levels, return wind periods, structural resilience criteria, and zoning requirements, are either outdated or missing. These elements are foundational in the building codes of disaster-resilient nations.

This gap mirrors the regulatory shortcomings already identified in other sectors. In a previous article published on 5 March 2025,  the writer stressed the urgent need for modern Electricity Regulations and an independent Electricity Safety Regulator. As with electricity, the enforcement of a National Building Code must be grounded in legally binding Building Regulations and overseen by a Regulator. Without this, the country will continue to see substandard structures erected in unsuitable areas or unsafe conditions.

For years, unauthorised constructions, and even some authorised ones, have worsened flooding in many regions. This trend persisted due to political patronage, undue influence, bribery, and institutional complacency. The recent disaster once again exposes the cost of such systemic neglect.

2. Standardised Designs and Quality Control

In the absence of a comprehensive Building Code, Sri Lanka may consider an interim solution: a portfolio of engineer-certified standard house designs tailored to the National Building Research Organisation’s (NBRO) hazard maps. With 5–6 approved design templates, local authorities could fast-track approvals while maintaining structural integrity.

Such models have been successfully used in many countries, including Sri Lanka during the post-tsunami reconstruction period. However, success depends on rigorous quality control, mandatory inspections, builder training, and most importantly, community involvement.

Pre-fabricated housing may serve niche needs, but its limitations mean it should remain a supplementary option rather than the primary solution.

3. Community Involvement as a Core Policy Principle

H.E. the President has consistently demonstrated a commitment to community participation. His decision to halt all wind power projects in Mannar pending agreement from local residents stands as a landmark example. This incident shaped an important budget declaration: no energy project will advance to the tender stage unless the community has formally agreed to the proposed site, following environmental and regulatory approvals.

This approach mirrors democratic norms in countries like Australia, where community consent is integral to development planning. Sri Lanka, long accustomed to top-down decision-making, now appears to be taking meaningful steps toward a more inclusive model, one where people’s rights and preferences hold genuine weight.

If maintained, this shift could redefine Sri Lanka’s democratic culture.

4. Overcoming Implementation Challenges

Critics have accused the government of underspending on capital expenditure (CAPEX) during its first year. Yet, by November 2025, the percentage of CAPEX utilisation was the highest seen in years. Within just six months, systems for planning, design, procurement, and construction were strengthened, producing tangible efficiency gains.

The writer has personally observed improvements in transparency, reductions in undue influence, and stricter oversight mechanisms. These changes reflect a notable cultural shift, a move away from historical patterns of cronyism and toward professionalism and accountability.

Such progress is promising, especially given the scale of CAPEX work planned for the coming year, which will now include both already-budgeted development programmes and large-scale disaster recovery projects. Rationalisation to avoid duplication will be essential, but the groundwork appears strong.

5. Macro-Level Budgeting for Rebuilding

The Treasury’s rapid preparation of a national rebuilding framework, complete with expenditure estimates, deserves recognition. While external agencies have projected costs between USD 5–6 billion, figures that may be inflated, these estimates nevertheless work in Sri Lanka’s favour.

Higher projections create greater scope to secure donor support and negotiate increased flexibility with the IMF. The accelerated reconstruction programme will undoubtedly stimulate economic activity and raise GDP through multiplier effects. However, this does not represent real wealth creation: the assets destroyed in the disaster no longer exist, yet their loss is invisible in GDP calculations.

A more pressing complication is Sri Lanka’s post-2028 debt repayment structure, which links payments to GDP growth. Artificially boosted GDP figures may therefore result in higher interest obligations, posing yet another challenge for economic management.

6. Strengthening Controls for Relief Payments

Even highly developed nations struggle with fraud in large scale relief programs. Australia, for instance, faced significant malpractice during the Pink Batts insulation scheme (GFC era) and the COVID-19 business support payments.

Sri Lanka must therefore implement strong safeguards from the outset. The government’s decision to require certification from three additional officials, in addition to the Grama Niladhari and Pradeshiya Sabha Secretary, adds crucial layers of oversight and reduces the risk of misappropriation. This level of due diligence is essential when billions of rupees are being disbursed at speed.

Will Leadership Harness the Resilience of the People?

Sri Lankans have demonstrated remarkable resilience through the many crises the country has faced since the 1970s. Despite civil conflict, economic shocks, political instability, and most recently a sovereign bankruptcy, the people have always found ways to endure and rebuild. By late 2025, after years of hardship, the nation had begun stabilising its economy and searching for a new direction.

Just one year ago, the electorate chose that new direction. They placed their trust in a comparatively young and politically inexperienced team, led by a President widely regarded as intelligent, hard-working, and sincere in his commitment to the people. In turn, citizens have responded with confidence and hope. For many, a great deal of the country’s aspirations rest on the shoulders of this one leader.

The President leads a party known for its strong internal cohesion. This team-oriented style brings clear governance advantages, especially in contrast to fragmented administrations of the past. However, it can also create blind spots. From observation, not proven fact, the writer believes that this collective approach may have fostered an “our way or the highway” mindset, where alternative ideas, even those offered in good faith by independent experts, are too easily dismissed or completely ignored. While such rigidity is far less dangerous in a team setting than in a single autocratic leader, it is still worth examining how deeply this sentiment is shared across the government.

Some ministers and institutional heads are evidently performing below expectations, yet appear protected by the President and party machinery. The aftermath of the disaster will likely expose gaps in capability even more starkly. If Sri Lanka is to rise stronger, it is essential that these individuals step up, demonstrate competence, and deliver results. The continued presence of a disgraced former Speaker in Parliament complicates the government’s image, especially for a party that has proudly differentiated itself on values and governance ethics.

Conclusion

Few Sri Lankans realise that the country ranks among the most climate-vulnerable nations in the world. United Nations assessments consistently place Sri Lanka within the top ten countries at risk of extreme weather events. It has already suffered significant climate-related damage, and the risks continue to escalate.

Despite this reality, the nation was not adequately prepared for the recent disaster. Years of lax enforcement, weak standards, political interference, and regulatory neglect left Sri Lanka exposed to an event that experts agree was inevitable.

Yet there is room for optimism. With decisive leadership, strengthened institutions, and a more disciplined approach to planning and governance, Sri Lanka can face future climate challenges with far greater resilience. The writer remains confident that under the leadership of H.E. the President, the country is capable not only of improving but of transforming its ability to protect its people from the growing threats of climate change.

*The writer is an electrical engineer with over 25 years experience in Australian Electricity Networks as a Manager and a Principal Engineer. He also worked as a Safety Regulator in establishing and enforcing Safety Regulations and investigating electricity network incidents. He worked as an electrical engineer at CEB, in the first 10 years of his career. He currently runs his own business on renewable energy investments. The writer could be contacted at rev4591@hotmail.com