Repeal of Presidents' Entitlements Act: Reform or retrospective punishment?

IN recent months, the repeal of Sri Lanka's Presidents' Entitlements Act has sparked intense debate across political and social circles. At first glance, the move seems a demonstration of fiscal prudence—a government taking decisive steps to curb what many perceive as excessive privileges.

- Masantha Siriwardena

Yet beneath the surface lies a more profound question: are we genuinely reforming for the public good, or are we punishing individuals who have already carried the weight of the nation on their shoulders? Unlike many other South Asian countries, even in its most challenging moments, Sri Lanka has maintained a functioning democracy, ensuring smooth transitions of power within the framework of democratic justice.

Striking a balance between responsible governance and respect for former leaders is both a moral and historical imperative. How a nation treats those who have served at its highest office reflects its values: are we honouring service while promoting reform, or succumbing to retrospective vindictiveness?

Immense personal sacrifices

The presidency in Sri Lanka has never been a ceremonial role. It demands immense personal sacrifices, often placing individuals and their families in peril. Consider Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, who assumed the presidency amid political instability and personal tragedy. Her husband, Vijaya Kumaratunga, a popular actor and politician, had been assassinated years earlier, and Chandrika herself endured grievous personal injuries, including the loss of an eye during a brutal assassination attempt. Her tenure was marked not by indulgence but by resilience under threat, navigating both political turbulence and life-threatening attacks.