It would not be an exaggeration to state that the domestic debt restructuring process, which the Government labelled as a domestic debt optimisation process, has triggered a more concerning situation among the ordinary citizens than the economic crisis, which led to the domestic debt optimisation in the first place. It was easier for the people to understand the nature and consequences of the economic crisis, because there was a considerably open discourse about those. However, only a fraction of the population has a clear idea about domestic debt optimisation and what it means to their financial stability and future. 

The Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ Trust Fund (ETF) are two of the most discussed topics in the larger discourse on domestic debt optimisation. Quoting a study, Samagi Jana Balawegaya and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa claimed that due to domestic debt optimisation, the EPF would lose about Rs.12 trillion by 2038, while several trade unions filed Fundamental Rights petitions seeking an Apex Court decision against the waiving of loans obtained from the EPF and ETF during the domestic debt optimisation. This is in a context where even the Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance (COPF) has discussed the impacts of domestic debt optimisation on superannuation funds such as the EPF and has noted a lack of consent of the depositors.

What would be the fate of the EPF and the ETF is a question that many, especially private sector employees, ask. They have a right to be concerned, for this is not the first time that the safety of these funds was jeopardised, especially without the depositors’ consent or knowledge. On more than one occasion, EPF funds were invested in various ways by successive Governments, and have suffered losses about which many are silent. Depositors demand that the Government provides an explanation or a solution which is acceptable to them. To them, it is more about their lifetime of savings as the EPF and the ETF, which would be many people’s unofficial pension, than about domestic debt optimisation’s role in the country’s economy. 

While it is understandable that a virtually bankrupt nation has to resort to certain difficult financial measures with the available resources, those cannot be at the expense of the country’s workforce, which consists predominantly of private sector workers who are not entitled to an official pension and therefore rely heavily on the EPF. Moreover, it cannot be arbitrary. If there was in fact no adequate consensus from the depositors as reports claim and the Government still went ahead with this plan, that raises serious doubts about the Government's trustworthiness and people friendliness. In such a background, we cannot blame the people for doubting the Government when it said that domestic debt optimisation would have no impact on the people's savings, and the Government has no moral right to ask the people to remain calm and cooperate. 

The lack of communication about domestic debt optimisation on the part of the Government has created a breeding ground for misconceptions and the spread of uncorroborated or exaggerated information. That is one of the most harmful developments for an already socially and economically unstable nation, and has the potential to create problems that do not exist. The Government needs to take swift measures to ensure that the people are informed in simple terms of how domestic debt optimisation could affect their EPF and ETF, what parts of rumours about this situation are true, false or are yet to be verified, and what are the measures that the Government is taking to alleviate the domestic debt optimisation’s impacts on the EPF and ETF.

Above all, the Government needs to act in a manner that instills trust in the people, i.e. it should demonstrate transparency, accountability and organised conduct, and that is the only way to expect the people’s support. Domestic debt optimisation is merely the beginning of a number of serious financial decisions that will directly or indirectly impact the people. At least now, the Government should take accountability more seriously.