Sri Lanka’s parliament has voted overwhelmingly to remove state-funded perks and facilities for former presidents, a move that turns public anger over political privilege into law and marks another turn in the country’s post-crisis anti-corruption politics.
The measure passed 151-1, with other members absent, and strips funding for housing, allowances, pensions, transport, offices and staff for former presidents and their widows. The AP report says there are five living former presidents and one widow affected. The vote follows recent public protests that demanded an end to the arrangement.
The change also fits the political promise of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who campaigned on resentment toward politicians blamed for Sri Lanka’s worst economic crisis in 2022. That crisis left the state unable to pay foreign debt and triggered shortages of food, medicine, fuel and electricity before protests forced then-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign.
The vote lands at a moment when questions about accountability remain central in Colombo. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe, who succeeded Rajapaksa, was granted bail in a separate case on allegations of misusing public funds while in office, underscoring how the same political class is under scrutiny from multiple directions. The AP report does not link the benefits vote to any one corruption case, but the political context is hard to miss: a parliament responding to a public mood that has steadily hardened against elite privilege.
Because the decision removes public funding rather than merely capping it, the practical effect is immediate and broad. Former presidents will no longer be entitled to state-paid housing or a staff, and their widows lose the same support. In a country still managing the legacy of financial collapse, that is more than symbolism; it is a direct rollback of a long-standing entitlement structure.
The symbolism of the vote matters because the perks had become a visible marker of how long former presidents could remain supported by the state. Removing housing, transport and office support does not solve Sri Lanka’s economic problems, but it does answer one specific complaint that has long resonated with voters.
With protests still shaping the political mood, the law also serves as a reminder that parliament is responding to public expectations in a way it has not always done in the past. The measure will now be judged by whether it changes behavior in Colombo or simply removes a benefit that had become politically unsustainable.
The vote also creates a cleaner political message for Dissanayake: public funds should not continue to finance a class of officeholders that many voters now associate with crisis and waste. Whether that message translates into broader reform will depend on what other privileges and protections are targeted next.
The vote also creates a cleaner political message for Dissanayake: public funds should not continue to finance a class of officeholders that many voters now associate with crisis and waste. Whether that message translates into broader reform will depend on what other privileges and protections are targeted next.
