Stability demands action – but not theatre
By NewsLine Desk
Be that as it may, when unease gathers around a financial institution – particularly one as systemically relevant as NDB Bank – the question is no longer whether there is a problem.
It is whether confidence is being protected.
Banking, unlike most sectors, does not collapse slowly. It erodes quietly – and then suddenly. Which is why perception, governance, and credibility matter as much as balance sheets.
The emerging concerns around NDB, whether fully proven or still under examination, have already entered the public domain. That alone creates risk. Not necessarily of insolvency – but of confidence drift.
And confidence, once shaken, is expensive to rebuild. This brings the spotlight onto the regulator: the Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
Its role is not merely to act when a crisis is confirmed – but to ensure that no such crisis is allowed to take root. That requires transparency, timely communication, and, where necessary, visible intervention.
So should the President step in?
Yes – but carefully.
Presidential authority must not be seen to override institutional independence. Markets punish that instinctively. At the same time, in moments of public doubt, silence is not neutrality – it is interpreted as inaction.
As for calls for the Governor’s resignation, that threshold must be higher.
Removing a central bank governor is not a signal of strength unless it is grounded in clear, demonstrable failure or misconduct. Otherwise, it risks creating more instability than it resolves.
What is required instead is decisive clarity: • An independent, time-bound review
• Full disclosure of findings
• Accountability where fault is established
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Because in banking, the real danger is not scandal. It is uncertainty.
