First-time parliamentarian and Attorney-at-Law Lakmali Hemachandra, a key voice in the ruling National People’s Power (NPP), is among a new generation of politicians pushing for systemic change.
In an interview with the Sunday Observer, Hemachandra discussed the party’s readiness for the upcoming Local Government elections, rebutted allegations of broken promises, and outlined the NPP’s reform agenda. She also reflected on the complexities of depoliticising State institutions, the balancing act of foreign policy, and the need for public patience in a climate of heightened expectations.
Hemachandra spoke candidly about the gendered scrutiny faced by women in politics and called for a more conscious and participatory citizenry.
Q: Let’s talk about the upcoming local Council elections. What is the NPP’s campaign strategy and what is the expected outcome? Also, how are you responding to the misinformation being circulated by the Opposition?
A: We’re confident of winning a significant majority of the local Councils. Our campaign isn’t flashy, we’re not spending heavily on posters or large-scale events. Instead, we’re focusing on grassroot-level meetings, across districts and ward-level areas. Our MPs and ministers actively participate in these small gatherings. In parallel, the NPP is running a national campaign, which includes President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s involvement.
We meet people directly, canvass door-to-door, and engage with the electorate one-on-one. On the ground, we don’t see much resistance, we believe we’re in a strong position to win all local Councils.
As for the Opposition, their campaign seems united around one theme: that the Government lied. Parties across the board, from the SLPP and UNP to the SJB, FSP, and smaller groups, are pushing this narrative. But we don’t see it resonating with the public. We don’t sense any breakdown in trust between the people and the Government.
We openly acknowledge that certain processes could move faster, and we’re working on that. But we also inherited a lethargic bureaucratic system, that we can’t change overnight. Instead, we’re working to streamline and strengthen it. We’ve taken concrete steps – recruitment, public sector wage increases, and digitalisation efforts to improve the public sector and the results of these measures will become more visible over time.
What’s important is that we haven’t been accused of corruption or abuse of power. For a Government that’s been in office for six months, we remain remarkably popular. Everyone acknowledges that we have not made policy blunders. There have only been a few protests, and those that occurred were not well attended.
Misinformation has always been the opposition’s tool. Unlike past Governments, we don’t respond with media repression or intimidation. So far, we’ve countered their misinformation with facts, and the public hasn’t fallen for their tactics.
Q: You said that progress has been slower than expected, but there have been reforms. What has the Government achieved so far, especially in depoliticising state institutions?
A: When we say progress has been slow, we don’t mean that nothing is happening. One of our key achievements so far has been the way we’ve handled the public sector. Unlike previous administrations, we have not politicised the bureaucracy or taken retaliatory action against officials with political affiliations. Our goal has been to align the public service with Government policy, and that alignment is gradually taking shape. With clear mandates from the presidential and general elections, we’ve seen improved cooperation across Institutions, and we expect further progress after the Local Council polls.
The public sector is not merely essential for service delivery, it is a pillar of national development. While it is bloated at the lower levels, there is a critical shortage of skilled personnel at the mid and senior levels. To address this, we increased public sector wages to attract and retain talent and build institutional capacity.
We’ve also taken steps to depoliticise key Institutions. For example, the police service had become highly politicised, as illustrated by the case involving former IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon. We’ve since restructured its leadership and strengthened independent oversight through the Police Commission.
In core sectors such as education, healthcare, and transport, we’ve initiated digital reforms and structural improvements. But these Institutions were profoundly broken. Our task is not only to build anew but also to unlearn long-standing, harmful practices.
These changes require time, training, and financial investment. We’re not enforcing these reforms with coercion, but we do expect the bureaucracy to align with the people’s democratic mandate.
Q: What has the Government done to support economically vulnerable communities and small businesses?
A: When we assumed office, 800,000 people were about to be removed from the Aswesuma welfare scheme. Though it was created by the previous administration, we chose not to rebrand it or discard it. Instead, we extended it until the end of 2025 and increased the benefits.
We’ve also raised allowances for students, prisoners, probation children, the elderly, and the sick. These aren’t hand-outs, they’re about keeping people connected to the economy.
When it comes to helping SMEs, we are somewhat constrained by our fiscal commitments, especially under the IMF program. Yet, we’ve taken steps to repurpose state banks, as development-oriented institutions to support small businesses.
A key failure of past Governments was underutilising their Budgets. Our target is 100 percent utilisation this year. Fiscal capacity must result in action, underspending only undermines the case for future social investment.
Q: What’s your response to concerns over the recent rise in organised crime and gang-related killings?
A: This crisis is deeply linked to the long-term breakdown of law enforcement. Since 1977, the politicisation of the police and their involvement in illegal activities has eroded public trust and institutional integrity.
Over the years, law and order has been treated less as a community service and more as a tool of control. Organised crime has expanded, often operating with previous State backing. Now, with that support gone, these groups are turning on each other, creating instability. Many recent victims of violence have criminal records, not that it justifies their deaths, but it’s important to note this isn’t random violence targeting civilians.
As a Government unconnected to these networks, we face resistance while enforcing the law. Reforming the police is a slow and complex process, especially given that the force is under-resourced and burdened by decades of politicisation. We’ve already taken steps to depoliticise the police, recruit new officers, and reshuffle leadership, yet some critics who were silent during questionable past appointments are now calling for immediate reform.
This is a long-term effort. While the situation is serious, it remains confined to organised crime networks — we are committed to ensuring it does not spill over into civilian life.
Q: There was controversy over the recent MoUs signed with India. Is the Government pursuing a land bridge connection with India?
A: No, there are no plans to build a land bridge. That idea originated with former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Our Government has not adopted it.
Q: Is there progress on joining BRICS or engaging with the New Development Bank?
A: Yes, we’re in discussions about BRICS membership and have established a good relationship with the New Development Bank. In today’s shifting global order, it’s crucial to develop new alliances. While there are geopolitical tensions, we’re committed to moving in this direction.
Q: How is the Government responding to the evolving US-China trade tensions and the Trump tariffs, especially with a Sri Lankan delegation in the US?
A: This is an opportunity to reinvent our export economy. We need to diversify products and markets. In the short term, we’re trying to negotiate tariff reductions. But our long-term strategy focuses on strengthening domestic demand and production.
We’re also exploring new markets in the Middle East and Africa and prioritising food exports. Agriculture can play a critical role in food security and export diversification.
Q: There’s been growing public concern and some confusion regarding the Government’s recent handling of solar energy, especially around tariff revisions and temporary disconnections from the national grid. Could you clarify the Government’s position on renewable energy, the solar power pricing issue, and the rationale behind recent measures?
A: As a Government, we are firmly committed to expanding renewable energy, particularly solar power. It is part of our long-term strategy to ensure energy sovereignty and environmental sustainability. But that expansion has to be done in a systematic, regulated, and rational manner. What we inherited was a highly fragmented system, with numerous private players entering the solar sector without a unified national framework. That’s where many of the current complications stem from.
There’s been a lot of noise about us “cutting solar,” but that’s not the reality. What we’re doing is rationalising the tariffs. During the economic crisis, when energy security was under severe threat and the rupee had sharply devalued, we agreed to pay a premium to solar producers. That was necessary at the time, to stabilise the grid and to ensure uninterrupted supply when fossil fuel imports were uncertain.
However, conditions have changed. The rupee has stabilised, international energy markets have shifted, and solar technology itself is becoming cheaper. So, we believe that it is no longer justifiable to continue paying those inflated rates. Bringing tariffs down now is a matter of public interest, because, under our cost-reflective pricing model, whatever we pay for generation gets passed on to the consumer.
If the Government continues to overpay solar producers, that cost will ultimately show up on household electricity tariffs. We are taking steps to review and lower the feed-in tariffs, but only for new agreements, not those already signed. Existing contracts will be honoured.
Q: The NPP has said that it plans to introduce a new Constitution. What principles will guide this process, and what changes does the party envision?
A: Our plan is to build on the foundation laid by previous Constitution-making efforts, while updating the framework to reflect the aspirations of a more democratic and development-oriented society. We are not starting from scratch, Sri Lanka has a history of Constitutional debate and proposals, and we hope to learn from that history.
But what distinguishes our approach is a clear shift in emphasis. Past Constitutional reform efforts often focused primarily on limiting State power and strengthening civil liberties, which are absolutely essential. However, we also want our new Constitution to reflect the developmental role of the State. That means not just outlining what the State cannot do, but also clearly defining what the State must do, to ensure inclusive growth, equitable public services, and long-term national development.
Q: In recent months, you’ve become a prominent spokesperson for the NPP, which has also made you a target for online criticism and personal attacks -especially as a woman in politics. How do you respond to this?
A: Yes, the personal attacks, particularly gendered ones, are unfortunate, but they’re not new. The others in Government, including the President, have faced worse attacks. While such abuse shouldn’t be normalised, it often plays out on social media, where I’ve chosen not to have a public-facing presence. For me, social media remains private, not a tool for self-promotion.
Most of the criticism I face stems from the fact that I’m a woman. I try not to let it affect me, but the broader issue is how this climate discourages women from entering politics. The media has a responsibility here, especially women in media, to foster a healthier discourse around female politicians. This isn’t only about me, it’s about ensuring that politics becomes more inclusive.
Another concern is how interviews are misquoted or taken out of context. A nuanced answer can be reduced to a single sentence, distorting its meaning and fueling misinformation. That kind of manipulation affects the quality of public discourse. Yet, much of what circulates online comes from a small echo chamber of Opposition voices. We’re aware of it, but we don’t let it distract us.
Q: How would you assess civil society’s response to the NPP Government over the past several months?
A: To be honest, I’ve found the response from sections of civil society, especially those who identify as progressive, somewhat disappointing. This is a Government that was not only democratically elected, but one that emerged from a People-Powered Movement. Our administration has shown a strong commitment to inclusivity, transparency, and rights-based governance. We’ve not abused our mandate.
Yet instead of engaging constructively, some civil society actors have chosen to position themselves in permanent opposition camps. That may be ideologically satisfying for a few, but oppositional politics for its own sake can be damaging, especially when it ends up echoing the narratives of discredited political forces that the people have already rejected.
I say this with concern, not resentment. Civil society has a critical role to play in holding power to account. But criticism should come with engagement, not disengagement. What’s the point of standing on the sidelines and refusing to participate in the broader transformation we are trying to bring about? This Government is open, accessible, and responsive. There’s a space to work together, especially on areas such as governance reform, social justice, and economic equity. But instead, what we’re seeing is a retreat into the fringes, where civil society voices are often more critical of us than they ever were of deeply corrupt regimes of the past.
It’s also worth noting that being anti-Government is now the safest position one can take, precisely because we don’t suppress dissent. You can be as critical as you like, and the state won’t retaliate. That is a strength of this administration, and I think people should be careful not to take that democratic space for granted. We are upholding that space with care and responsibility, but it is also everyone’s responsibility to protect and use it meaningfully.
Ultimately, this is a Government with a two-thirds mandate and a clear public endorsement. If civil society and progressive groups continue to ignore that and choose to isolate themselves rather than engage, they risk becoming irrelevant to the very people they claim to represent. And that, I believe, would be a serious loss, not just for politics, but for the broader democratic culture we’re trying to build in this country.
