Category: Daily Financial Times

Sri Lanka’s passport has risen to 94th place in the 2026 Henley Passport Index, its highest ranking in at least five years, reflecting a gradual improvement in the country’s global travel mobility.

The latest index shows Sri Lanka improving from 96th place in both 2025 and 2024. The country’s passport was ranked 100th in 2023, 102nd in 2022 and 107th in 2021.

The Henley Passport Index ranks passports according to the number of destinations their holders can access without obtaining a visa in advance, providing a measure of international travel freedom.

Singapore retained its position as the world’s most powerful passport in the 2026 index, while Afghanistan remained at the bottom of the rankings in 104th place.

The 2026 Henley Passport Index compares 199 passports across 227 travel destinations based on visa-free and visa-on-arrival access.

Today, Glasgow will once again become the meeting place of the Commonwealth, as athletes and supporters from 56 nations descend on its red-sandstone streets for the Commonwealth Games.

For the next fortnight, sporting triumphs will capture the attention of millions across the Commonwealth. Rumesh Tharanga will have Sri Lankans willing him towards gold. Yet when the closing ceremony draws to an end, another prize will remain before us – one with the power to enrich every Commonwealth citizen: the untapped capacity of our network to increase trade, investment and enterprise between its members.

History has endowed our family of nations with shared language, legal traditions, institutional similarities and diaspora networks that make commerce easier and cheaper. The result is trade between our member states that is 21% cheaper – and, in turn, around 20% greater than between otherwise comparable countries.

The Commonwealth spans 2.7 billion people across every inhabited continent, from India, the world›s most populous country, to some of its smallest states, Nauru. It encompasses many of the fastest-growing nations. More than 60% of its people are under the age of 30. Yet despite its scale and dynamism, it remains one of the world›s most underutilised economic networks.

It need not be this way. In November, Commonwealth leaders will gather in Antigua and Barbuda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). If the Games celebrate what binds us together, the summit should ask how we make those bonds work harder for our people.

While past summits have often centred on values, this year›s CHOGM will place trade and investment unashamedly at the heart of its agenda. Some question the Commonwealth›s relevance in today›s world; few could say what it does beyond the Games. Yet if anything, the global moment throws its strengths into sharper relief.

The geopolitical order has changed dramatically in the past few years. Multilateralism is fraying. Trade is giving way to protectionism. Broader international institutions have become hostage to great-power rivalries. Against this backdrop, trust commands a new premium.

While in calmer waters, commerce can afford to roam. In rougher seas, it makes for trusted harbours. Few international networks offer as many of them as the Commonwealth. Our voluntary association is bound not by geography, but by institutional and commercial compatibility. That familiarity, reinforced over decades of interaction, breeds trust.

Conventional wisdom has long favoured regional blocs. In principle, proximity lowers transport costs, shortens delivery times and makes it easier to organise production across borders. Geography, however, does not impart trust. Indeed, the geopolitical shocks of recent years have demonstrated precisely the opposite.

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not come at the expense of regional blocs or vice versa. There is much we can do to remove barriers to trade and investment across our network while remaining fully committed to groupings such as the Caribbean Community or the South Asian Association.

Despite our compatibility, unnecessary frictions are still created by policy. We should reduce tariffs where possible, align technical standards and regulatory requirements, streamline customs procedures, and make it easier for entrepreneurs, investors and professionals to move and do business across Commonwealth markets.

But removing barriers is only half the task. The Commonwealth Advantage we have inherited must also be built upon to create a denser commercial network: connecting investors with projects across the Commonwealth, building pipelines of investment-ready projects, fostering Commonwealth supply chains in the industries of the future, and creating common digital standards for trade.

Much of this is self-evident, though too often overlooked. Indeed, the Commonwealth already has many of the necessary initiatives in place. The challenge is no longer identifying what needs to be done but kindling the political will of member states to do it. That should be the measure of success at CHOGM.

The Commonwealth should not enter our consciousness only when the Games begin. Its greatest contribution should be felt in the years between them – in the jobs created, the businesses built, and the opportunities opened to people across our family of nations.

Digital transformation in banking and finance-particularly in payments and remittances-has generated enormous excitement. It has moved both customers and the industry into a new era of convenience, speed and accessibility. The term ‘digital finance’ itself emerged in the 1970s with the introduction of electronic funds transfers (EFTs). Today, it refers to the impact of digital technologies on the transformation of conventional banking and financial services into something faster, more accessible and, supposedly, cheaper.

Digital finance has also encouraged fintech innovation and expanded ‘financial inclusion’. In theory, digital transformation should reduce operational costs for banks and financial institutions, while improving the quality and speed of service.

Digital finance offers comfort and convenience, but customers often end up paying for the very investments made in digitisation and digitalisation. In that sense, it contradicts the common assumption that the primary purpose of digital transformation is to reduce cost. The real paradox of digital finance is that it may reduce costs for institutions while increasing costs for customers.

The promise vs. the reality of digitalisation

Digital transformation is often justified through a simple economic equation: automation plus technology should reduce operational costs. In theory, banks and financial institutions should benefit from fewer physical branches, a smaller headcount for routine work, lower spending on printing and paper-based documentation, and less time devoted to manual compliance procedures.

Some of these reductions are real. Digital systems can replace carbonised forms, photocopies and repetitive back-office functions. Conceptually, such savings should make financial services cheaper, faster and more accessible, thereby advancing the broader goal of financial inclusion.

Yet digital finance contains an important and complex paradox. The narrative of digital transformation is built on the promise of efficiency and lower operating costs. A portion of the expense is transferred directly to the customer, while another portion is shifted within the institution itself.

Customers increasingly pay for the convenience of digital finance through transaction charges, payment gateway fees, ATM withdrawal fees, platform service charges, the cost of smartphones, internet connections, mobile data and even the burden of self-service are increasingly borne by the customer. In effect, customers pay not only for the service, but also for the infrastructure required to access it.

At the same time, institutions face a different burden in their cost structures. The costs of digital transformation do not disappear; they return in the form of software licensing, cybersecurity, system upgrades and the continuing expense of investing in new technology. Banks are therefore compelled to make continuous investments simply to remain competitive and technologically relevant.

Digitalisation, therefore, does not necessarily remove costs from the financial system. It merely changes who pays. Institutions may reduce some internal operating expenses, but users quietly absorb part of the infrastructure cost, while institutions carry the continuing burden of maintaining and upgrading the digital ecosystem.

Cost transfer instead of cost reduction

The traditional banking model bears the cost of infrastructure-branches, staff, and paperwork-while customers effectively contribute part of the infrastructure themselves. By using their own devices, conducting self-service transactions, and completing digital verifications, customers become active participants in the operational process, yet they do so without compensation. In essence, they shoulder part of the bank’s operational burden at no cost.

The ‘convenience premium’

Digital finance has introduced a new pricing concept often referred to as the ‘convenience premium,’ where customers effectively pay for time and convenience, even when operational costs have decreased. This premium reflects the value of features such as 24/7 accessibility, speed, and instant settlement of transactions between sender and beneficiary-regardless of holidays or branch closures.

In economic terms, digital finance converts convenience into a monetisable asset, charging for the efficiency and immediacy that were once intangible benefits, while the underlying operational burden has shifted partially onto the customer.

Financial inclusion vs. financial commercialisation

According to the World Bank, financial inclusion ensures that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services-such as transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance-delivered in a responsible manner. This is considered essential for reducing poverty, promoting economic growth, and integrating billions of unbanked adults into the formal financial system through digital tools.

Digital finance is often presented as a key driver of financial inclusion, highlighting its potential benefits to the broader public. However, in practice, this narrative can be contradictory as the growing trend of financial commercialisation tends to overshadow the strategic intent of financial inclusion.

Digital finance has undoubtedly improved efficiency; however, efficiency does not automatically translate into affordability. Many institutions shift costs onto users and/or effectively redistributing costs in ways that prioritise profit within digital ecosystems.

As these fees accumulate, lower-income users may end up paying proportionally more for financial services than wealthier individuals who rely on traditional banking. This phenomenon leads to a paradox often referred to as ‘Digital Financial Stratification.’

In other words, while technology reduces costs, digital platforms often redefine how those costs are distributed-frequently shifting a greater share onto end users.

Chrysalis recently brought together an unprecedented cross-section of Sri Lanka’s policy, finance, and development community at the Granbel Hotel, Colombo, for a Dialogue and Reflection Session on ‘Inclusive Climate and Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance’ (CDRFI) for MSMEs.

Convened under the Multi-Actor Partnership (MAP) approach, supported by CARE Germany and Co-funded by BMZ, the European Union, and Co-Impact Gender Fund, the event placed one question at the centre: how does Sri Lanka turn a proven community finance model into a national institution?

The answer has become urgent. Cyclone Ditwah, which tore through Sri Lanka in November 2025, left an estimated Rs. 50-85 b in damage across the MSME sector – enterprises that collectively account for 52% of the country’s GDP. Supply chains stalled. Cash flows dried up. For women-owned enterprises in the worst-affected areas, the impact was even greater, as they already faced credit constraints 32% higher than their male counterparts. Formal banks were unable to respond quickly, while available insurance products did not meet their needs. The gap was clear and immediate.

Into that gap stepped the Climate Resilience Revolving Fund (CRRF). Designed by Chrysalis with consortia governance, climate-event triggers, and repayment terms built around how small businesses actually recover, the CRRF moved recovery loans to affected members within 3 to 10 days of the cyclone – faster than any formal institution. For thousands of small producers, it was the only financial lifeline available.

‘Ditwah did not create the vulnerability – it exposed it. Sri Lanka’s MSMEs, especially women-led businesses in high-risk areas, have long been underserved by financial systems not built for their realities. The CRRF was designed to fill that gap. This dialogue is about making sure it becomes a permanent part of how this country responds to climate disasters – not a one-off intervention,’ said Chrysalis Chief Executive Officer Ashika Gunasena.

The dialogue opened with a detailed presentation of the CRRF model, which Chrysalis Programs Director Ahamed Rislan described as structurally distinct from conventional microfinance. Where traditional instruments rely on fixed-asset collateral and slow credit processes, the CRRF is triggered by climate events, governed by the consortia it serves, and engineered to release capital at disaster speed.

‘The CRRF is not microfinance with a climate label – it is built differently, and Cyclone Ditwah proved it. The model held. Now the work is to make it permanent and scale it to every MSME that will face the next storm,’ stated Chrysalis Programs Director Ahamed Rislan.

The session produced strong cross-sector momentum. The Ministry of Industry introduced SME NEXUS -the national framework for MSME growth -and signaled clear intent to embed climate resilience into its operational rollout. The government’s position was unambiguous.

‘Resilience should not begin after disaster strikes -it must be built into every MSME through policy, financing, and preparedness,’added Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Ministry Additional Secretary Anoja Herath, who was a special guest at the event.

CARE Germany Program and Contract Management Officer Hanna Bartels said that the Multi-Actor Partnership exists to do exactly this – bring every part of the ecosystem into one room so that what works on the ground can be backed by policy and capital. The CRRF has earned that support’.

Two gaps dominated the afternoon’s discussion: the absence of parametric climate insurance for MSMEs, and the lack of granular data needed to build such products. Consortia members added a third: the need for faster, more accurate early-warning information from the Government before disasters strike. Their testimony was direct.

‘After Ditwah, our supply chain was gone overnight. No bank came. No insurer called. The CRRF reached us in days. We need this to stay – not disappear when the project ends,’ said Charlot’s Apparel Badulla Founder Nirmalie Ranasinghe.

The dialogue closed with stakeholders aligned on a blended-finance architecture: concessional public capital layered with GCF and GEF funding, IFI and development partner windows, commercial bank on-lending, and climate insurance – all delivered through MSME consortia at the last mile. Chrysalis will document the operating model and convene a technical working group within the next quarter to develop a cost national scale-up roadmap.

Twenty-third July is not merely a date on Sri Lanka’s calendar but rather a recurring D-Day of a moral test for all of us tortured islanders. The anti-Tamil pogrom of that year (1983), which is notoriously memorialised as ‘Black July’, was not the beginning of our once blessed isle’s ethnic conflict. Nor was it the sole cause of our so-called ‘civil war’ (which was anything but civil) that followed. Yet it was the day when many citizens lost their faith that the State could protect them all equally – and effectively at that.

Today, 43 years later, and some 17 after the guns fell silent in May 2009, Sri Lanka still commemorates the dead and the walking wounded; although we do better with the dead… while struggling to answer the challenge of the living: ‘What on earth has truly changed, and what remains unacceptably contentious in the state of the nation?’

Our track record on this vexed issue is mixed. Successive governments have acknowledged the need for reconciliation, devolution of power, and accountability in governance. Important agencies and institutions have been created. Some instrumental gains have been made. But the central transitional justice ‘deal’ – to wit: truth, accountability, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence – remains only partially fulfilled. It was ever thus, the truth be told.

Action flashback

First things first: What has been done?

The first major structural attempt to address minority grievances was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (13A), introduced under the Indo-Lanka Accord, signed in Colombo on 29 July 1987. It created Provincial Councils and provided a framework in situ for devolution. In practice, however, powers over land, policing, and finance remained heavily constrained, and Tamil political parties have long argued that the implementation of 13A has been incomplete.

After the war ended, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was appointed in 2010. Its report recommended investigations into disappearances, demilitarisation, language reform, and measures to build trust between communities. Some recommendations were acted upon, particularly in relation to bilingual public administration and infrastructure development. But many accountability-related proposals were not fully implemented.

A more ambitious phase began in 2015, when the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government co-sponsored UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1. It committed Sri Lanka to a comprehensive transitional justice agenda and led to the establishment of several new bodies. These were the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) in 2015, the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in 2016, the Office for Reparations in 2018, and ongoing consultation mechanisms through the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM).

These institutions represented the most concrete administrative architecture for transitional justice in Sri Lanka’s history. Thousands of complaints were received by the OMP, and reparations schemes were initiated for families of the missing and war-affected communities.

Orbital scan

Next on the agenda for today: What remains undone?

The most contentious issue is accountability for wartime abuses committed by both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Sri Lankan State actors. No special judicial mechanism with international participation was established, despite the 2015 commitments. Families of the disappeared continue to protest across the Northern and Eastern Provinces, demanding credible investigations and information about the fate of their relatives.

A host of other unresolved areas abide. These span the gamut from land disputes and military occupation of civilian land; demilitarisation of the North and East; constitutional reform and meaningful power-sharing; memorialisation, including the right of respective communities to commemorate their dead without intimidation; equal language access in terms of public services; and socio-economic disparities in war-affected regions.

Academic literature across ethnic perspectives broadly converges on one point: that infrastructure reconstruction alone is not tantamount to reconciliation. Sinhalese scholars often emphasise the need to recognise the suffering of all communities, including victims of LTTE violence. Their Tamil counterparts argue that reconciliation without truth and political autonomy risks becoming a technocratic exercise. Muslim interlocutors highlight the distinct experiences of displacement, their own expulsion from the North by the LTTE in 1990, and post-war insecurity.

Post-war vs. post-conflict

So what kind of society has emerged since 2009?

Sri Lanka today is neither a post-conflict success story nor a society on the brink of renewed war. It is better described as a post-war but not fully post-conflict society. We have failed to fully convert our swords into plough-shares and our spears into pruning-forks.

On the positive side, inter-ethnic mobility has increased, younger generations interact more freely in urban centres particularly, and overt separatist politics as such has diminished drastically. The economy, tourism, and education have created new spaces of contact, accommodation and at least some exchange of ideas.

Yet, the war’s dire legacy remains embedded in institutions and political culture. Majoritarian nationalism still shapes electoral politics to some extent even under the present dispensation. Security laws continue to grant the state extensive executive powers: PTA, PTSA, OSA, oh I say!

Meanwhile, the national memory is fragmented. Diverse communities often inhabit different historical narratives, with limited shared understanding of what happened between 1983 and 2009.

The 2022 economic crisis briefly created a cross-ethnic civic movement during the Aragalaya. This suggested that class and governance grievances can unite citizens across communal lines. But that unique moment and irredeemable opportunity has not yet been transformed into a durable constitutional or social compact.

Be that as it may (and by the way, I’m asking for a friend): has the National People’s Power (NPP) Government done any better?

The NPP, now two years into its second term, came to power promising a break from the corruption, militarisation, and political patronage associated with previous administrations. Its rhetoric has emphasised equality before the law, clean Government, and a civic rather than ethnically majoritarian conception of citizenship.

Words vs. works

The question, however, is whether rhetoric has become policy.

To date, the Government has taken some tangible steps. There has been continued engagement with the OMP and reparations framework, the release of limited parcels of land, and a less confrontational approach to memorial events than under some previous administrations. Civil society groups have also noted a reduction in overtly triumphalist State messaging, especially at Independence Day celebrations and national functions.

But the deeper tests remain unmet. There has been no comprehensive truth-seeking process, no new accountability mechanism with broad credibility, and no major constitutional settlement addressing the distribution of power between the centre and the provinces. Tamil parties continue to argue that the government has prioritised economic stabilisation over political reconciliation, while Sinhala nationalist groups accuse it of making concessions that could threaten the unitary state.

In that sense, the NPP has improved the tone of engagement more than the substance of the settlement.

MIA

So why has progress been so slow?

For one, opposition has come from several directions.

Sinhala nationalist parties and organisations still resist devolution and international involvement. Sections of the military remain concerned about legal exposure. There is also Tamil scepticism born of repeated broken promises. Weak institutional capacity and political turnover have robbed the process of impetus. And the tendency of each new government has been to abandon or dilute initiatives of its predecessor.

Transitional justice requires sustained political capital over many years. Sri Lanka has instead experienced cycles of reform, backlash, and stagnation.

Be that as it may, there is the path as below that could still prevent repetition:

If Black July is to be remembered as more than an annual ritual of mourning, Sri Lanka needs a cross-community pact against recurrence. Such a pact should include:

A national truth commission with independent commissioners drawn from all major communities and supported by international technical expertise

Time-bound publication of information on enforced disappearances

Full implementation of language parity in courts, police stations, and public administration

A phased reduction of the military footprint in civilian life

rotection of the right to memorialise all victims while prohibiting incitement to ethnic hatred

Reform of school curricula to include multi-perspective histories of the conflict

Strengthening independent institutions (the Judiciary, Human Rights Commission, National Police Commission, and Election Commission) as guarantees against future abuse

A renewed dialogue on devolution and local self-government focused on practical power-sharing rather than symbolic constitutional battles

None of these measures requires citizens to agree on every interpretation of the past. They require agreement on a simpler principle: no Sri Lankan should ever again fear the State, or their neighbours, because of ethnicity, language, or religion.

Black July began with organised violence enabled by political failure and public silence. Preventing another national rupture will require the opposite: institutions strong enough to restrain power, leaders courageous enough to tell uncomfortable truths, and citizens willing to defend one another’s rights even when they do not share one another’s identity.

The challenge before Sri Lanka is therefore not only to remember 1983, but to prove that remembrance can become reform. The island has already paid the price of learning this lesson too late. The hopeful possibility, which one will argue is still within reach even today, is that a new generation of Sri Lankans may yet insist on learning it in time.

(The writer is the Editor-at-large of LMD and is a senior journalist with a Post-graduate Diploma in Politics and Governance)

As the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors (SLID) celebrates 25 years of advancing corporate governance under the theme ‘Future-Ready Sri Lankan Directors – From Compliance to Sustainable Growth,’ Delmege Insurance Brokers congratulates the Institute on this significant milestone and its enduring contribution to strengthening board leadership in Sri Lanka.

The theme is particularly relevant today. Governance is no longer simply about complying with regulations, it is about building resilient organisations that can manage emerging risks while creating sustainable value. One question is becoming increasingly important in every boardroom:

Who protects the people who lead?

In 2026, Directors face growing personal accountability for decisions relating to data privacy, cyber security, digital transformation and regulatory compliance. Increasingly, the consequences of these decisions extend beyond the organisation and directly affect individual Directors.

Three risks every Board must consider

1.Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) No. 9 of 2022

Sri Lanka’s PDPA places responsibility not only on organisations but also on those responsible for governance. Following a data breach, regulators will assess whether the board exercised appropriate oversight and implemented adequate safeguards. Directors may be personally named in investigations, even where a breach originates through a third-party service provider.

2. Companies Act No. 7 of 2007

Sections 198 and 220 require Directors to act with due care, skill and diligence. Failures in governance, inaccurate disclosures or regulatory breaches can expose Directors to personal liability. Certain penalties cannot legally be indemnified by the company, and serious breaches may even result in disqualification from serving as a Director.

3.Cyber and Reputational Risk

As organisations embrace digital transformation, boards are increasingly exposed to ransomware attacks, phishing, data theft and reputational damage. Shareholders, customers and regulators are also more willing to pursue legal action directly against Directors. Even where Directors are ultimately cleared, legal defence costs can be substantial.

Where company protection ends

Many Directors assume their company will always protect them. In reality, that protection has limits.

Directors may face legal action personally even after leaving office. If the company is financially unable to indemnify them, or where the law prohibits indemnification, legal costs and settlements become the Director’s personal responsibility. This creates a governance gap that many organisations have yet to address.

Protecting Boards in a changing risk environment

At Delmege Insurance Brokers, we believe effective governance extends beyond compliance. It includes protecting the individuals entrusted with making critical business decisions.

Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance provides financial protection against covered legal defence costs, settlements and damages arising from claims made against Directors and officers acting in good faith. Equally important, Cyber Insurance has become an essential component of enterprise risk management, helping organisations respond to cyber incidents, business interruption and data breaches.

When combined with sound governance practices, these solutions enable boards to make informed decisions with greater confidence while strengthening organisational resilience.

Delmege: Proven leadership in insurance advisory

Delmege Insurance Brokers brings proven market leadership and specialist advisory expertise to this changing risk environment. According to industry statistics published by the Insurance Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka, Delmege ranked No. 1 among Sri Lanka’s registered insurance broking companies by GWP for both 2023 and 2024, within a highly competitive market of more than 80 registered brokers.

This leadership reflects the confidence placed in Delmege by organisations across Sri Lanka. Through expert insurance advisory and tailored Directors’ and Officers’ Liability and Cyber Insurance solutions, Delmege helps boards identify protection gaps, strengthen resilience and protect both the organisation and the individuals entrusted with leading it.

Stronger corporate governance across Sri Lankan companies can help rebuild the country’s credibility with global investors, speakers told the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors (SLID) Corporate Director Summit yesterday, arguing that boardroom standards have become a determinant of national investment competitiveness as much as corporate

performance.

Opening the Summit under the theme ‘Future-Ready Sri Lankan Directors: From Compliance to Sustainable Growth,’ speakers said future boards would be judged less by compliance with governance codes than by their ability to respond quickly to disruption, challenge management, and earn the confidence of long-term investors.

Minor International Group CEO Dillip Rajakarier said every company that strengthens governance standards contributes to rebuilding Sri Lanka’s investment case, arguing that boardroom quality has become a competitive advantage rather than merely a compliance requirement.

‘Every board in this room that raises its governance standards is not just protecting your own shareholders, but you are collectively rebuilding Sri Lanka’s investment case,’ he said.

Rajakarier said investors now look beyond whether companies have governance codes and instead assess how boards perform when organisations face crises. They examine whether independent directors exercise genuine oversight, whether risk committees have the authority to challenge management, and whether board discussions encourage constructive debate rather than reinforce consensus.

He argued that boards must develop an adaptive capability that allows organisations to respond quickly to strategic shocks, saying speed has become a governance issue rather than solely a management responsibility. Drawing on Minor International’s acquisition of NH Hotels and its response during the COVID-19 pandemic, he said board structures should enable timely decisions while preserving rigour.

Echoing the investor perspective, LYNEAR Wealth Management Co-Founder and Managing Director Dr. Naveen Gunawardane said institutional investors first assess whether a company is investable before considering valuation.

He said investors scrutinise the composition of boards, directors’ industry expertise, their commitment of time and, above all, whether independent directors genuinely protect minority shareholder interests.

Dr. Gunawardane questioned the practice of directors serving on numerous boards, warning that excessive appointments could undermine effectiveness and raise doubts about directors’ ability to devote sufficient attention to each company. He also argued that independence should be judged by conduct rather than designation, particularly where boards oversee dominant shareholders and related-party transactions.

While acknowledging the importance of board diversity, Dr. Gunawardane said institutional investors ultimately place greater emphasis on competence, commitment, and genuine independence than on meeting numerical diversity targets.

Extending the discussion beyond shareholder oversight, Safesea Group Founder and Chairman Dr. S.V. Anchan said boards must incorporate geopolitical developments, technological disruption, and organisational resilience into their governance frameworks.

Drawing on the global shipping industry, he said geopolitical tensions can disrupt trade, supply chains, and financing long before their economic consequences appear in conventional data, making geopolitical risk a boardroom responsibility rather than an external concern.

Dr. Anchan said governance should facilitate timely decision-making instead of delaying action through excessive procedures and committee structures. While artificial intelligence (AI) can strengthen forecasting and operational efficiency, he said technology cannot replace human judgement, accountability, and leadership in times of crisis.

He added that future-ready boards should invest equally in people and technology while building resilient operating models capable of responding rapidly to unexpected disruptions.

Former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed said sustainability has become a governance and business imperative rather than a corporate responsibility exercise, arguing that investors increasingly allocate capital to companies that manage environmental and social risks effectively.

‘Sustainability improves long-term profitability, reduces business risk, and strengthens resilience,’ he said, adding that it also helps companies attract investment, talent, and customer confidence.

For Sri Lanka, Nasheed said embedding sustainability into business strategy presents an opportunity to build globally competitive enterprises capable of attracting responsible investment while supporting long-term economic prosperity.

Opening the summit, SLID Summit 2026 Chair Charaka Perera said directors must adapt to AI, geopolitical uncertainty, climate change, and changing stakeholder expectations, while SLID Summit 2026 Technical Chair Sutheash Balasubramaniam said the discussions would be distilled into a boardroom insights handbook to help directors navigate emerging governance challenges.

Joining a subsequent panel discussion moderated by Janashakthi Group (JXG) CEO Ramesh Schaffter, Turkish Ambassador to Sri Lanka Dr. Semih Ltf Turgut said boards must prepare for an increasingly unpredictable global environment where geopolitical developments, technological disruption, climate change, and shifting political realities can rapidly reshape business conditions.

He said directors need a global outlook, strategic foresight, and the ability to interpret geopolitical developments and their implications for business, while remaining committed to ethical governance, sustainability, and long-term value creation.

Dr. Turgut added that these principles apply equally to corporate boards, public institutions, and policymakers as organisations navigate an era of heightened uncertainty.

The Colombo Kaps, having lost their captain Kusal Mendis, who has been ruled out of the remainder of the Lanka Premier League (LPL) 2026 with a hamstring injury, and with several of their players under the weather, lost a tight LPL contest to Jaffna Kings by a mere five runs in the first of two matches played at the Rangiri Dambulla Cricket Stadium yesterday.

Mendis sustained a right hamstring injury while attempting a run during the Colombo Kaps’ match against the Kandy Royals on 19 July at the SSC Ground, and will return to the National High Performance Centre to commence his rehabilitation program, stated a media release from Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC).

Jaffna Kings made a steady start, with the opening pair Avishka Fernando and Kamil Mishara putting on 65 off 53 balls before Wanuja Sahan finally broke the stand, removing Mishara for 39. Not long after, Milan Rathnayake cleaned up Fernando for 34 to leave the Kings needing to start afresh.

Chamindu Wickramasinghe, promoted to number three, lifted the scoring rate with a flurry of big hits and crisp boundaries. Just as Jaffna Kings looked set to accelerate, Mujeeb Ur Rahman struck twice in the 16th over to halt their progress and swing the momentum back in Colombo Kaps’ favour.

Colombo Kaps were not at their sharpest in the field, putting down three catches, missing a couple of run-out opportunities, and gifting away extra runs through sloppy misfields even though their bowlers kept a tight leash on the scoring and did not allow the middle order to settle. Wickramasinghe’s entertaining knock of 43 from 22 balls (4 fours, 2 sixes) ended when Shahnawaz Dahani bowled him attempting an audacious reverse ramp. Mujeeb and Dahani took the bowling honours with two wickets each.

The Colombo Kaps began disastrously losing their first two wickets for nine that saw them struggling for momentum at 37-3 after six overs. Kamindu Mendis, leading Colombo Kaps in the absence of his namesake Kusal Mendis, was the lone spark. He looked in total control as he rotated the strike and found the boundaries with ease to bring up his 50 off 34 balls. But Traveen Mathew, who made the initial breakthrough, returned to deliver another massive blow, getting Kamindu Mendis caught at deep cover for 58 (42 balls, 3 fours, 2 sixes). Sharujan Shanmuganathan looking to free his arms was caught out at deep square leg as the Colombo Kaps lost their way, tumbling to 114-7 in the 16th over. Jaffna Kings were exceptional in the field, taking every chance that came their way, and kept a tight leash on the run rate.

Having made five changes to their line-up, the Colombo Kaps looked sloppy; their batting unit failed to gel and their earlier lapses in the field ultimately came back to haunt them. Late fireworks from Rathnayake (15 off 8) and Sahan (35* off 15) only served to reduce the margin of defeat. It was a complete team performance in the field by the defending champions, who seem to have found their feet after losing their first match.

Lizaad Williams with three wickets led the bowling honours, with Mathews and Dilshan Madushanka chipping in with two apiece. Wickramasinghe was made Player of the Match. – [ST]

Scores:

Jaffna Kings 179-6 (20) (Avishka Fernando 34, Kamil Mishara 39, Chamindu Wickramasinghe 43, Mujeeb Ur Rahman 2/33, Shahnawaz Dahani 2/25)

Colombo Kaps 174-9 (20) (Kamindu Mendis 58, Sharujan Shanmuganathan 26, Wanuja Sahan 35*, Dilshan Madushanka 2/12, Traveen Mathew 2/21, Lizaad Williams 3/30)

Hayleys Agriculture Holdings Ltd., recently marked another milestone with the opening of Hayleys Nature Nest Ltd., Sri Lanka’s first of its kind frozen concentrated coconut water manufacturing facility.

This state-of-the-art facility represents another significant step in our journey to create greater value from Sri Lanka’s rich agricultural resources. By transforming locally sourced coconut water into premium concentrated coconut water for export markets, Hayleys Nature Nest strengthens our commitment to innovation, sustainability, and value-added agricultural exports.

Beyond expanding its global footprint, this investment supports local coconut growers and communities while contributing to increased export earnings and the long-term growth of Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector. Hayleys Agriculture said as it celebrates this milestone, it remains committed to delivering sustainable, high-quality agricultural solutions that create value for stakeholders and showcase the best of Sri Lanka to the world.

The Sri Lanka Chamber of the Pharmaceutical Industry (SLCPI) has announced the reappointment of Sunshine Healthcare Lanka Ltd., Director and Chief Executive Officer Shantha Bandara as its President for the 2026/27 term at the Chamber’s 65th Annual General Meeting held at Cinnamon Grand Colombo.

The event was graced by Deputy Health Minister Dr. Hansaka Wijemuni, as Chief Guest, together with government representatives, healthcare partners, past presidents, member companies and other industry stakeholders.

Bandara’s reappointment provides continuity to a reform-oriented agenda that has strengthened the Chamber’s governance, ethical standards and engagement with policymakers and regulators. His renewed mandate will focus on converting the progress made during 2025/26 into practical regulatory improvements that support the availability, accessibility and affordability of quality medicines in Sri Lanka.

SLCPI represents more than 70 pharmaceutical importers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Its members account for over 90% of Sri Lanka’s private pharmaceutical market, while the wider industry directly employs more than 80,000 people and indirectly supports nearly 400,000.

Reflecting on the past year, Bandara said the industry had operated amid sustained domestic and global pressure. Exchange-rate volatility, disruptions to international shipping routes, rising freight, insurance, fuel and electricity costs, and constrained consumer purchasing power placed significant pressure on pharmaceutical supply chains and business viability.

Despite these challenges, SLCPI continued to engage constructively with the Ministry of Health, the National Medicines Regulatory Authority and other stakeholders, presenting evidence-based recommendations on pharmaceutical pricing, import licence renewals and continuity of supply.

A major achievement during Bandara’s first term was the adoption of new Articles of Association following extensive consultation, legal review and member engagement. The revised Articles provide a stronger constitutional foundation for the Chamber, clarify governance structures and reinforce member rights and responsibilities.

The Chamber also formally launched the SLCPI Code of Conduct, establishing a common framework for integrity, transparency, ethical pharmaceutical promotion and responsible business practices. The Code sets standards for engagement with healthcare professionals, regulators and industry partners, strengthening accountability and public confidence in the sector.

Commenting on his reappointment, Bandara said: ‘The past year was about strengthening the institutional foundations of the Chamber and ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry had a credible and constructive voice. The year ahead must be about translating dialogue into meaningful outcomes. Our priority is to work with the Government, the Ministry of Health and the NMRA to establish a regulatory and pricing environment that protects patient access while ensuring that pharmaceutical suppliers remain viable.’

He added, ‘When the pharmaceutical supply chain comes under sustained pressure, patients are ultimately affected through medicine shortages, reduced availability and fewer choices. Our advocacy is therefore not simply about the commercial interests of the industry. It is about protecting continuity of supply and ensuring that Sri Lankans have reliable access to safe, effective and quality medicines.’

The Chamber will also advocate for regulatory improvements informed by good practices in comparable emerging and neighbouring markets. The objective is to maintain appropriate oversight and quality controls while enabling the industry to operate efficiently and respond to national healthcare needs.

SLCPI will continue implementing its Code of Conduct, strengthening the Pharma Promoters Association and supporting greater professionalism and knowledge development among medical representatives and pharmaceutical professionals. It will also advance a platform for knowledge exchange, ethical discourse and regional collaboration.

‘No single stakeholder can address the challenges facing the healthcare system in isolation. Progress requires trust-based engagement between government, regulators, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical companies and patient communities. SLCPI will continue to serve as a responsible and solutions-oriented industry partner, advocating with evidence, communicating transparently and placing patients at the centre of our work,’ Bandara said.

Under Bandara’s renewed leadership, SLCPI will continue working towards an ethical, resilient and professionally governed pharmaceutical sector that contributes to a stronger and more sustainable healthcare system for all Sri Lankans.