EFC REFUTES COLUMNIST DHANUSHA GIHAN PATHIRANA
RIGHT OF REPLY – Published on Daily FT on 10th July 2026
EPF reforms by Employers’ Federation: A Trojan Horse masking corporate capture”
We write with serious concern regarding the article titled “EPF reforms by Employers’ Federation: A Trojan Horse masking corporate capture” published in Daily FT on 9 July 2026 (https://www.ft.lk/columns/EPF-reforms-by-Employers-Federation-A-Trojan-Horse-masking-corporate-capture/4-794404). The article contains numerous false/unwarranted allegations, and speculative conclusions that unfairly and unjustifiably impugn the reputation, integrity, and motives of the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC).
The article’s central premise is fundamentally flawed. It repeatedly alleges that the EFC has advocated for a “private sector-led” governance structure for the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and portrays the Federation’s proposals as an attempt to facilitate “corporate capture” of workers’ savings. At no point has the EFC proposed that employers or the private sector should control or otherwise exercise unilateral authority over the governance or management of the EPF.
The author fails to identify the specific document, proposal, or submission upon which these serious allegations are based. More concerningly, despite making extensive claims regarding the EFC’s position, neither the author nor the publication sought clarification, verification, or comment from the EFC prior to publication. Basic principles of fairness and responsible journalism would require that parties who are the subject of criticism be afforded an opportunity to respond, particularly where allegations of self-interest, exploitation, or improper motive are being advanced as fact.
The article demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of tripartite governance, which is based on international labour standards. A tripartite mechanism is, by definition, a representative governance structure involving employers, employees, and the Government. To characterise a tripartite arrangement as a “private sector-led” model demonstrates the author’s inability to comprehend this complex mechanism/concept or is a deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Equally troubling is the author’s repeated attribution of malicious motives to the EFC. Assertions that the Federation is seeking to exploit workers’ retirement savings to boost corporate profits, facilitate insider dealings, or create opportunities for private enrichment are shocking and morally offensive. Such allegations are not legitimate policy criticism. They are serious accusations that question the integrity of an institution that has, for decades, participated in national policy dialogue and labour relations matters in the public interest.
The use of highly inflammatory and prejudicial language, including references to a “Trojan Horse,” “predatory motives,” “corporate capture,” and “private sector exploitation”—appears designed more to provoke public distrust than to promote informed debate. The article moves beyond commentary into the realm of imputing improper motives and intentions without factual foundation.
We therefore reject the article’s portrayal of the EFC and its proposals in the strongest possible terms. The publication of unsupported allegations and mischaracterisations has the potential to cause significant reputational harm to the Federation and mislead the reader.
The EFC reserves its rights in respect of statements contained in the article that are false, misleading, damaging to its reputation, and unsupported by verifiable evidence. While we remain committed to constructive engagement on matters of public policy, we cannot allow serious allegations regarding the Federation’s integrity and motives to go unchallenged when they have been made without proper inquiry, verification, or engagement with the institution concerned.
Source: https://www.ft.lk/opinion/EFC-refutes-Columnist-Dhanusha-Gihan-Pathirana/14-794466