President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's recent statement that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa should either vacate the house provided to the latter by the Government or pay rent, and Rajapaksa’s response to the same, have gone viral, reigniting the perennial debate about reducing the privileges afforded to former Presidents.

This issue, which typically stirs public opinion, gained more concern than before, especially after the economic crisis, which brought the country to the brink of financial collapse, and the need for trimming exorbitant spending was felt.

While many have welcomed the President’s move as a necessary step toward reducing wasteful government spending, there has also been significant criticism. The manner in which the President delivered the message was observed to be unbecoming of a statesman by some. Regardless of these reactions, the underlying issue is critical – as a country that barely survived a massive economic downturn, Sri Lanka is still grappling with a series of financial challenges. The issue of unjustifiable and unlawful privileges granted to both present and former public officials and politicians needs immediate attention. This concern is especially pertinent in the case of former leaders who are no longer actively contributing to the country’s governance.

The Government’s decision to reduce the privileges of former Presidents is commendable as it has public backing. And the Executive Presidency has long been a troubled part of the Sri Lankan Constitution which needs change. Former leaders are entitled to a number of benefits, which, over the years, have become a heavy financial burden on the coffers. These benefits include State-provided residences, security details, and a range of allowances that many argue are excessive. However, the manner in which these changes are being implemented is a source of concern for some. For example, although the President’s comments about Rajapaksa’s residence were made publicly, there are allegations that such a request is yet to be made officially. This raises questions about the transparency and professionalism of the Government’s approach. That is why the Government’s actions should not appear to be personal in nature. While addressing the issue of former leaders' privileges is necessary, it must be done in an official and respectful manner, without allowing it to be perceived as political revenge. The failure to do so risks undermining the legitimacy of these decisions.

While reducing wasteful expenses, especially for figures who no longer contribute to governance in an official capacity, is crucial, these issues should not overshadow more pressing national concerns, and the Government should identify top priorities that deserve its immediate attention.

The newly-elected National People's Power Government must prioritise the immediate challenges, including the high cost of essentials such as rice, coconut, and salt, the escalating cost of education, the ongoing brain drain, issues related to public sector salaries and appointments, tax evasion, and the ongoing crime wave. These are the issues that have a direct and immediate impact on the daily lives of Sri Lankan citizens and should be given priority during the early months of the Government's tenure.

It is worth noting that the government has already begun to address some of these issues. For instance, there have been discussions with various stakeholders to find solutions to professional issues, and the government has announced that rice mills failing to comply with regulations will be taken to task. Additionally, raids on the black market have been intensified, and compensation has been promised to farmers. Tax policies have also been adjusted to keep professionals in the country. While these steps are promising, it is essential that the government identifies short-term and long-term ones prioirties.

At the same time, former presidents should not be neglected. While it is important to reduce unnecessary expenses, the country can still provide them with benefits that are reasonable and not burdensome for the economy. After all, despite what political views remain about their tenures of governance, they are former heads of states. In terms of housing, for example, rather than providing large, lavish properties in the most expense areas of Colombo, former presidents could be allocated more modest residences outside the city, with secure access, adequate space for basic official functions, and enough room for their families. This would ensure that they are treated with dignity while avoiding the unnecessary burden of extravagant accommodation that drain public resources. It is not about denying former leaders their rightful retirement benefits but about ensuring that these benefits do not come at the expense of the tax-paying citizens who are still dealing with the impacts of the economic decline.