The queues that formed at filling stations on Sunday night should worry the Government far more than they should reassure it. Whether the shortage is real or merely feared, the public's reaction shows how little confidence they have of the Government’s ability to keep its vehicles, factories and power stations running. That lack of confidence has been earned over many years, and it will not be dispelled by a statement that stocks are adequate.
The figures speak plainly. Central Bank data show that fuel imports cost Sri Lanka US$ 4.07 billion in the first eight months of 2026, an increase of 61.6 per cent over the same period last year. August alone saw a rise of 76.5 per cent year on year. This is a country that defaulted on its external debt in 2022 because it ran out of foreign exchange. It cannot afford to be indifferent to an import bill that has swollen by US$1.55 billion in under a year.
The Government attributes the surge to the conflict in the Middle East and the resulting rise in global oil prices. That explanation is accurate, but it is not a defence. A foreign shock turns into a domestic crisis only when a country is already exposed, and Sri Lanka's exposure is neither new nor unknown. The country imports all of its oil, and its storage capacity covers only about one month of consumption. Any serious interruption to supply, or any sustained spike in prices, will be felt at once by households and businesses.
It would be unfair to say that nothing has been done. Fuel prices have been revised repeatedly, the QR quota system has been reintroduced, a four-day working week was ordered in March, and alternative crude was secured from Russia. These steps were defensible as responses to an emergency. But they amount to crisis management, not energy policy. Rationing limits demand without reducing the country's underlying dependence on imported fuel. Reports that many sheds have stopped observing the quota raise further questions about enforcement, and about whether the system can be sustained.
More troubling is the fragility of the distribution chain itself. Bowser owners have threatened to halt deliveries over a long-standing dispute on transport commission. Private suppliers say the prevailing pricing formula forces them to sell diesel at a loss, and they have restricted supplies to hundreds of stations. The Ceylon Petroleum Corporation has also said it is selling below cost. It is unacceptable that the nation's fuel supply should be put at risk by disputes that the authorities had ample time to resolve. Such matters ought to be settled well before they reach the point of a strike or a closure.
The deeper failure is one of long-term planning. Successive Governments, regardless of party, have spoken of expanding renewable energy, improving public transport and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The record of delivery has been poor. The Government, elected on a promise of reform, cannot excuse itself by pointing to its predecessors. It has the mandate and the urgency, and the public is entitled to expect results.
Several steps are overdue. The Government must publish fuel stock levels, the pricing formula and the cost of subsidies regularly and transparently, since a lack of information is what feeds panic. It must resolve the disputes with bowser owners and private suppliers without delay. It must set firm, time-bound targets for renewable power generation and public transport, with clear responsibility assigned to named officials. And it must build strategic fuel reserves well beyond the present one month of cover, accepting that the cost is a form of insurance.
The Government will argue, with some justification, that the transition away from fossil fuels is expensive, that the IMF programme limits fiscal space, and that no island economy can fully shield itself from global oil markets. These are real constraints. They are, however, reasons to begin sooner and to proceed with discipline, not reasons to postpone action until the next crisis arrives.
The public also has a part to play. Queuing and hoarding when stocks are adequate can convert a scare into a genuine shortage. But the primary responsibility for restoring trust rests with those in office. Citizens will return to normal habits only when they are convinced, on the evidence, that supply is secure.
The next shock will come. The question is whether the country will be prepared for it or, once again, caught in a queue.