Sri Lanka’s Power and Education Reforms: A Tale of Contrasting Outcomes

“President AKD provided unwavering support, publicly defending power reforms and standing resolute against opposition—a factor instrumental in overcoming protests.”

Sri Lanka’s path to modernization reveals a startling dichotomy. While power sector reforms surged ahead through the unbundling of the CEB, education reforms remain trapped in a cycle of delays and bureaucratic friction. This analysis by Sudarshana Gunawardana explores how the National People’s Power (NPP) government’s contrasting approach—combining technical expertise with resolute political “champions” in energy, versus diffuse leadership in education—defines the success or failure of national restructuring.

 Sri Lanka stands at a critical juncture in its development trajectory, pursuing essential structural reforms across key sectors to address long-standing inefficiencies, attract investment, and align with global standards. Two flagship initiatives under the National People’s Power (NPP) government—the unbundling of the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) in the power sector and comprehensive education reforms—illustrate both the potential and the pitfalls of such endeavors. Both reforms, supported by international institutions like the World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB), were inherited and adapted from prior administrations. Yet, while the power sector has achieved meaningful progress in its initial phase, education reforms have encountered repeated delays and stakeholder resistance. This contrast underscores a vital lesson: successful reform demands resolute political determination, pragmatic leadership, and a dedicated champion capable of navigating complex interests.

Power Sector Reforms: Progress Through Political Determination and Pragmatic Leadership

The unbundling process, which separates generation, transmission, and distribution functions within the CEB to improve efficiency, transparency, and attract investments (especially in renewables, independent power transmission (IPT), and electricity markets), was advanced significantly in 2025. Building on earlier efforts under the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration, the NPP government introduced substantial adjustments to align with its policies—maintaining 100% state ownership in existing transmission and distribution grids while opening avenues for private participation in generation, IPTs, ancillary, and retail markets.

Despite opposition from trade unions (concerned about job security, terms, and potential privatization risks) and some renewable energy stakeholders (who advocated for alternative models or accelerated transitions), the first phase progressed. The Power Sector Reforms Secretariat (PSRS), established under the previous RW administration in 2024 under the Ministry of Energy, played a central role. Under the NPP, key milestones included amendments to the Electricity Act (notably No. 14 of 2025), preparation of vesting and transfer plans, and steps toward separate entities such as a system operator and transmission provider. Targets aimed for completion around mid-2025 to June 2025, with implementation extending into 2026, including voluntary retirement schemes and employee transitions.

This momentum was made possible by decisive structural and personnel decisions from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD). Recognizing the strategic importance of the sector, he established a separate, dedicated Ministry of Energy encompassing both power and energy affairs. He appointed Engineer Kumara Jayakody—a close political confidant and qualified engineer—as Minister of Energy. Complementing this, Secretary to the Ministry of Energy, electrical engineer and academic at the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Moratuwa Prof. Udayanga Hemapala, was handpicked by the President for the role. Later, following the resignation of the previous CEB Chairman Dr. Tilak Siyambalapitiya in May 2025, Prof. Hemapala was also appointed Chairman of the CEB. To lead the reform execution, the President directly appointed Engineer Pubudu Niroshan—an electrical engineer and longstanding NPP political stalwart—as Director General of the Power Sector Reforms Secretariat (PSRS). Pubudu Niroshan understands the reform requirements of the power sector as well as the overall strategic objectives and priorities of the NPP government.

This technically expert and politically committed troika—Minister Jayakody, Secretary/Chairman Hemapala, and DG Pubudu Niroshan—steered the challenging reform process with a pragmatic, stakeholder-inclusive approach. They balanced union concerns, business interests, donor requirements, and public sentiment while ensuring alignment with NPP priorities. Throughout, President AKD provided unwavering and firm support, publicly defending the reforms and standing resolute against opposition, which proved instrumental in overcoming protests, legal hurdles, and resistance to drive the first phase forward.

These reforms were inevitable to tackle inefficiencies, reduce costs, enhance sustainability, and meet donor and IMF-linked expectations.

Education Reforms: Setbacks Amid Diffuse Leadership and Bureaucratic Reliance

In stark contrast, education reforms—initiated under the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, continued under Ranil Wickremesinghe (e.g., elements of the 2023–2033 National Policy Framework), and taken up by the NPP in September 2024—have faced persistent hurdles. The package envisioned transformative shifts: moving from exam-centric to activity-based, modular, and continuous assessment models; curriculum revisions for Grades 1, 6, and 10 (with O/L changes phased later); career guidance by Grade 10; and emphasis on skills, employment readiness, and global citizenship.

Unlike the power sector’s focused Ministry of Energy, education reforms fell under the Prime Minister, who concurrently served as Minister of Education, Higher Education, and Vocational Education—a vast, multifaceted portfolio. Secretary to the Ministry, Nalaka Kaluwewa, is a career administrative officer with extensive public service experience but not a sector-specific specialist akin to the engineering appointees in energy. Critically, no clear champion for the reform process was appointed by the political authority to drive it with the same visibility and authority.

There was limited transparency regarding which elements were inherited from previous administrations and what specific changes or additions the NPP introduced. The Prime Minister claimed ownership of the process, implying these were wholly new initiatives of the current government, even as much of the framework built on prior work. In practice, the reform was largely handled by bureaucrats at the National Institute of Education (NIE), the apex body responsible for curriculum development, without a high-profile, politically backed leader to bridge stakeholder divides or provide consistent public defense.

Implementation was deferred multiple times—original elements pushed from January 2025 by a year, followed by further delays. By early 2026, the Cabinet (under President AKD) postponed controversial Grade 6 reforms (including a contentious English module that drew backlash over content and perceived external influences) until 2027. Broader preparations targeted 2025 launches for some areas in 2026, but stakeholder clashes—from teachers’ unions, parents, opposition parties, and critics alleging inadequate consultation or ideological concerns—led to protests (including satyagraha campaigns) and necessitated Presidential and Cabinet intervention. Despite a one-year extension for consultations and adjustments, resistance eroded momentum.

Like power reforms, these changes were essential to modernize the system, alleviate burdens on students, parents, and teachers, and align with global standards—also backed by WB and ADB in broader development contexts.

The Decisive Factor: Political Determination and a Pragmatic Champion

Both reforms were inevitable, donor-supported, and critical for Sri Lanka’s future. Yet their divergent paths highlight what separates success from stagnation. Power sector reforms advanced meaningfully in the first phase due to unwavering political determination from the President, a clear champion in Pubudu Niroshan—who pragmatically bridged divides—and a technically aligned leadership troika that fostered trust and defended the process publicly.

Education reforms faltered because leadership remained diffuse and heavily reliant on bureaucracy, without an equivalent high-profile, sector-dedicated champion or transparent delineation of inherited versus new elements. The absence of a similar dedicated structure, specialist appointments, or consistent top-level defense allowed opposition to prevail, resulting in repeated deferrals.

The lesson is clear: even well-intentioned, necessary reforms require resolute political determination, expert champions grounded in pragmatism—who grasp government priorities (NPP policies, donor commitments) while balancing public fears, union concerns, and sentiment—and visible commitment to deliver results.

As Sri Lanka navigates its reform agenda, replicating the power sector’s model—strong will plus pragmatic, dedicated leadership—could prove transformative across sectors, including education. The stakes are high: effective execution will determine whether these initiatives deliver lasting benefits for the nation or remain stalled by avoidable pitfalls.

Author
Sudarshana Gunawardana
Attorney at Law and Public Engagement Expert
Former Director General Government Information
Former Chairman, Independent 
Television Network Ltd.
Sudarshana Gunawardana can be reached on [email protected]
Twitter: @Sudarshana_RN