Sri Lanka’s 🇱🇰 Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Act 2025 is one of the most shortsighted policies ever proposed.

Sri Lanka’s 🇱🇰 Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Act 2025 is one of the most shortsighted policies ever proposed.

Sri Lanka’s 🇱🇰 Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Act 2025 is one of the most shortsighted policies ever proposed. Here's why it's a terrible idea:

⭕️ Who’s affected?
Living former Presidents & widow:
• Mahinda Rajapaksa – 79
• Gotabaya Rajapaksa – 76
• Ranil Wickremesinghe – 76
• Maithripala Sirisena – 74
• Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga – 80
• Hema Premadasa (widow) – 89

⭕️ 🇱🇰 Life expectancy: 77.8 years
All are already well past 70 - several past 80.
From an actuarial standpoint, this so-called "burden" will naturally resolve itself within a few years. There is no long-term cost to justify the repeal.

⭕️ Yet, the bill completely strips away all benefits pension, staff, security previously provided under the 1986 Act.
Most democracies, regardless of political change, continue to offer modest support to former heads of state.
This move makes Sri Lanka look petty and vindictive on the global stage.

⭕️ Worse, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Rather than encouraging dignified retirement, it creates perverse incentives to:

• Stay in power longer
• Maximize personal gain while in office
• Secure corrupt deals before leaving

When no post-office dignity is guaranteed, the temptation to extract while in power increases.

⭕️ The repeal is also retroactive, impacting those who served under the previous legal framework.
This raises serious constitutional concerns.
Global legal norms discourage retroactively removing entitlements that were guaranteed at the time of service.

⭕️ If passed, Sri Lanka becomes an international outlier:
🇺🇸 US – pension, staff, lifelong security
🇮🇳 India – pension, residence, personal aides
Most democracies maintain respect and support for ex-leaders, regardless of politics.

⭕️ And what does the country gain in return?
• Tiny fiscal savings
• Major constitutional risk
• Damaged international reputation
• No real long-term benefit — age will take care of this "issue" naturally

⭕️ Bottom line:
This is not smart policy.
Not meaningful reform.
Just a populist stunt driven by short-term political gain.

Laws must be written with tomorrow in mind, not as punishment for yesterday.

The benefits under the Presidential Entitlement Act of 1986 are very limited and standard. They are basic needs to function as a former head of state.

⭕️ Imagine a former president 10 or 15 years from now, invited to an event in Colombo 🇱🇰 to attend in an official capacity as a former president, who was not provided an official residence or allowance to stay in Colombo, would receive no transport, fuel, or secretary, and would have to travel from his or her hometown wouldn't that event alone crush him financially?

⭕️ Reality is repealing these benefits hits hardest those who would not enrich themselves in office.

Laws should be written for the future, not for the past...