Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Sri Lanka’s investment policy framework needs to be fundamentally changed at the top level if the country is serious about attracting foreign direct investment and accelerating industrial growth.

 At present, too many decisions are being shaped through committees that are heavily dominated by government officials, while the private sector is brought is not invited  as an participant rather than as a genuine partner in policy formulation.

The current Committee of Development Ministers, appointed by the present President, has effectively replaced earlier mechanisms such as the CECM, the Ease of Doing Business committee, and the development committees that operated under President Premadasa. Those earlier structures, whatever their limitations, were created with a clearer sense of purpose and a stronger link to implementation. Today, however, the process appears more bureaucratic and less commercially informed.
The problem is not that the secretaries, chairmen, and senior officials involved are dishonest. On the contrary, most of them are highly respectable and sincere public servants.

 The real issue is that many of them have very limited exposure to industry, investment, and the practical realities of FDI-driven sectors.

 As a result, policy discussions often become administrative exercises rather than strategic economic planning.

Too often, the method is to gather government ministers and senior officers who may have little understanding of the industries being discussed. This creates a serious gap between policy intent and market reality. Investment promotion cannot be driven only by files, presentations, and internal approvals. It requires people who understand how investors think, what makes projects bankable, and what conditions are needed for capital to flow into a country.

This weakness becomes especially visible in major strategic projects such as the development of Trincomalee. Trincomalee is not just another regional town; it has the potential to become a major industrial, logistics, energy, and maritime hub. But such a transformation cannot be planned effectively by committees that lack direct exposure to offshore industries, marine engineering, port-linked manufacturing, energy services, and international investor expectations.

If Trincomalee is to be developed properly, the planning process must include serious private sector participation from the beginning, not as an afterthought. Business leaders, technical experts, and industry practitioners should be part of the core decision-making process, not merely invited to meetings after the broad direction has already been decided. 

Their role should be to shape policy, identify opportunities, and challenge unrealistic assumptions before time and money are wasted.
Sri Lanka has already seen enough examples of well-intentioned proposals being delayed, diluted, or abandoned because the people making decisions did not fully understand the commercial potential of the projects before them

This is particularly damaging in sectors linked to FDI, where timing, confidence, and clarity are everything.

What is needed now is a top-level policy reset. The country must move away from a system where committees are populated mainly by officials and toward a model where industry knowledge, investor experience, and practical implementation capacity are built into the structure itself. Government must still lead, but it must lead with the private sector, not merely consult it occasionally.

A stronger investment framework should ensure that the BOI, line ministries, development agencies, and sectoral experts work together under a unified national strategy. Projects that have already been studied should not be left to gather dust. They should be reviewed, updated, and converted into real investment opportunities with clear timelines and accountability.

Sri Lanka cannot afford to keep repeating the same pattern of committee-based decision-making without commercial depth. If the country wants to compete for global capital, it must create a policy environment that is informed by industry realities, not just administrative convenience.

The opportunity is there. What is missing is the courage to change the system at the top.

Sarath Obeysekera

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera