In Cambodia, proposals to expand social protection coverage or increase contributions are often met with the same concern: Can the country afford it? Yet a recent learning visit to Sri Lanka suggests a more important question: Can Cambodia afford not to invest more in protecting workers and their families from illness, injury, unemployment, and old-age poverty?

A delegation of civil society representatives, trade unions, informal workers' groups, farmers' associations, and government officials from Laos and Cambodia visited Sri Lanka from 1 to 6 June 2026, to learn about its experience in labor rights and social protection. Organized by Oxfam, the visit offered an opportunity to examine how another developing country has built and sustained social protection systems over time.

The most important lesson was not that Sri Lanka is wealthier or more advanced than Cambodia. Rather, it was that strong social protection is the result of long-term political commitment and public investment.

For more than seven decades, Sri Lanka has maintained universal free public healthcare. Since 1951, citizens have had access to healthcare services regardless of income. The country has achieved notable progress in maternal and child health and disease control despite economic constraints, political transitions, and periods of crisis. This experience demonstrates that social protection is not simply a product of economic prosperity; it can also be a driver of human development and social resilience.
The visit also challenged a common argument often raised in Cambodia that stronger social protection would place unsustainable burden on employers and undermine investment. Sri Lanka's experience shows that stronger social protection and economic growth can go hand in hand.

Sri Lankan workers contribute 8 percent of their monthly salary to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), while employers contribute 12 percent. Employers also add a further 3 percent to the Employees' Trust Fund (ETF). These rates are higher than current social security contributions in Cambodia for health care, work injury, and pensions. Despite Sri Lanka’s political change and economic stress, the system has remained stable, widely recognized as an investment in workers’ security and long-term national development.

This does not mean Cambodia should apply Sri Lanka's model. Every country must design social protection systems that reflect its own economic conditions and institutional capacity. However, Sri Lanka's experience does challenge the assumption that expanding social protection is contrary to economic growth.

Another key lesson is the role of citizen participation. Strong social protection systems are not built by governments alone. In discussions with trade unions, academics, CSOs, political parties, and government officials, delegates observed how public engagement shapes debates on labor rights, social welfare, and social justice. Universities provide research and evidence, trade unions represent workers’ interests, and CSOs ground policy discussion in citizens’ realities. This ecosystem of engagement matters. Sustainable social protection reforms require not only government leadership but also informed public participation and social dialogue among workers, employers, and policymakers.

As Cambodia moves toward its long-term development goals, social protection should not be viewed as a welfare program but as public investment. It strengthens human capital, reduces vulnerability, and promotes social stability. Workers protected against illness, workplace injury, and old-age poverty are more productive and better able to contribute to economic growth.

The lesson from Sri Lanka is clear: strong social protection systems are not built overnight, nor by governments alone. They require sustained political commitment, public investment, and active citizen engagement. For Cambodia, the question is no longer whether social protection is desirable, but how quickly and effectively it can be strengthened to meet people’s needs.

Beyond core schemes such as the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF), Employees’ Trust Fund (ETF), and universal health coverage, Cambodian and Lao delegates shared three key takeaway during the final reflection. They pointed to reform-oriented government agencies, a clean and green environment that reflects a commitment to sustainability, and strong civic engagement driven by active trade unions, CSOs, youth groups and universities contributing research on labor rights, gender equality, and climate action.