Columns

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) this week began a programme called “Dasa Bala Sena” as part of the party’s reorganisation efforts.

The programme aims to recruit 10 people from every Grama Niladhari Division to respond to “mud” that is being slung at the party. The name “Dasa Bala Sena” for the programme had been initiated by Water Supply State Minister Sanath Nishantha, who died on Thursday after a fatal vehicle crash.

SLPP parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa had been actively engaged in the Dasa Bala Sena programme and had spoken to Mr. Nishantha on Wednesday evening about it. However, in the early hours of Thursday, Mr. Rajapaksa received a frantic call from parliamentarian Mahindananda Aluthgamage, who informed him that State Minister Nishantha had been killed in a road accident.

Barely able to believe what he heard, Mr. Rajapaksa rushed to the Ragama Hospital, where some of his SLPP colleagues and the late Mr. Nishantha’s wife had already arrived.

The coining of the name for the SLPP’s new programme had been one of Mr Nishantha’s final contributions to the party, for which he cared deeply.

Indian actresses at Pongal festival in Hatton: Jeevan defends move

Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Minister Jeevan Thondaman found himself subjected to severe criticism both online and offline this week for inviting South Indian actresses to take part in the national Thai Pongal festival held in Hatton.

After entertaining the audience with dance, one actress took the microphone to note that even in the Tamil Nadu State Cabinet, they did not have a ‘Young good looking minister like 29-year-old Mr. Thondaman. The clip went viral on social media platforms to the extent that Mr. Thondaman had to respond twice on platform X, formerly known as Twitter, explaining logistic arrangements and the government’s plans to uplift the Indian-origin Tamil community.

With most of the underpaid plantation workers barely making adequate money these days, struggling to put food on the table for their families, the minister claimed that he had invited the Indian actresses, utilising his contacts in South India, while private parties came forward to meet the expenses.

In a video message posted on his social media accounts, he claimed that the festival was organised by the Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, and the Ministry of Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Development. The total expenses for the whole event were Rs 5 million, and the government contribution was Rs 500,000 alone, reiterating that ‘not a single cent’ from taxpayers’ funds was utilised for any expenses related to the visit of actresses.

Online Safety Law: Superpowers spoiling for a fight

Despite the pushback from civil society organisations and media advocacy bodies, the Online Safety Bill was passed in Parliament this week with a majority vote after last-minute amendments.

Interestingly, passing the controversial legislation in the Sri Lankan Parliament also turned out to be another ‘diplomatic front’ for global superpowers—the United States and Russia—to score some points or just merely to make a point on the internal legislative process of a host country.

US Ambassador Julie Chung took the matter to social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday to say that the US “remains concerned about the potential impact of Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill, which passed yesterday without incorporating important input from key stakeholders, including civil society and tech companies who say that this legislation threatens freedom of expression, innovation, and privacy.”

In addition to jeopardising democratic values, the US ambassador stressed that vague and overly restrictive legislation can hinder investment and the development of a digital economy, undermining the economic growth that Sri Lanka needs.

On the following day, Russian Ambassador Levan Dzhagaryan issued a rare statement, saying that “regulations of the online sphere are solely a domestic issue of the Republic of Sri Lanka. In this regard, we want to highlight that in our point of view, any interference in this internal issue from aside by the foreign powers is absolutely irrelevant and unacceptable”.

Looks like the big powers are spoiling for a fight in Sri Lanka. As if they don’t have enough on their respective plates already.

NJC decries Himalayan Declaration as a move to go beyond 13A

Selfie time for South Indian actresses taking part in the National Thai Pongal festival in Hatton

The so-called “Himalayan Declaration,” believed to be the outcome of continuous engagements between the Diaspora outfits under the umbrella of the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) and Southern organisations represented by some Buddhist monks, caused some controversy recently.

Many eyebrows were raised when the stakeholders had high-level meetings with government leaders, opposition parties, and civil society organisations to brief them about their declaration.

The National Joint Committee, a Southern-based organisation, said this week that the grand plan of this declaration was to implement the 13th Amendment and go beyond it, if possible.

Claiming the Himalayan Declaration is an effort to hoodwink the people and to support President Ranil Wickremesinghe in his endeavour to fully implement the 13th Amendment, the organisation said any power decentralised by the centre should be held by the periphery, subject to the control of the centre.

It claimed that the creation of a federal or separate state in the Northern and Eastern Provinces was certainly to the advantage and benefit of the Western powers waiting like hawks to grab the country’s land and resources. “They will go to any length to get it. The role played by several diplomats during the Aragalaya period and the success they achieved have a chilling effect on all of us,” the statement said.

What has happened now is that the new leadership of the main Tamil regional party in the North is saying even 13A is not enough. Is it going to be yet another vicious circle of 13A—not enough; too much being talked about both in the North and South—a superb recipe for foreign intervention?

High drama and controversy in debate over new online bill

The hurriedly rushed passage of the controversial Online Safety Bill, which was passed on Wednesday with a majority vote, saw some government MPs, in a move to justify the passage of the flawed bill, lamenting how they were being vilified and abused on digital platforms.

Mr. Sumanthiran discussing the amendments with AG's Department officials

However, behind-the-scenes activity in Parliament this week indicated how determined the government was to ensure that the bill was passed before Parliament was prorogued on Friday by President Ranil Wickremesinghe.

On Monday, when the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage and New Citizen convened to consider the bill, opposition MPs requested further time to propose amendments to the bill. But the Committee, led by parliamentarian Lalith Warnakumara, decided to go ahead with amendments proposed by the Supreme Court.

Considering the inputs from the Public Security Ministry-appointed Committee, which held multi-stakeholder discussions, opposition MPs urged the government to withdraw the bill and publish a new one with the proposed amendments. They were told that the current bill could be passed, and later, amendments could be incorporated. Significantly, both government and opposition MPs agreed on the principle that there should be legislation on the matter, irrespective of party lines.

Parliamentary sessions had to be postponed for ten minutes to convene a party leaders’ meeting. The opposition requested to postpone the debate, but the government refused.

It was Jaffna District Tamil National Alliance parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran who raised the issue that some of the clauses in the new amendments did not comply with the Supreme Court’s determination on the bill. He came up with thirteen instances where the amendment was against the Court’s direction.

He did not stop there but proceeded to the Officials’ Box, where the Attorney General’s Department’s senior officials, led by the Additional Solicitor General, were observing the sessions. He was told that the issues raised by him were addressed in a new set of amendments.

However, several Parliamentarians pointed out that those last-minute amendments introduced at the Second Reading of the bill were not available on the MPs’ tables even by noon on the voting day, as required by Parliamentary regulations.

At the end of the debate on the Second Reading of the bill on Wednesday, Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella called for a division. Accordingly, during the voting held, 108 votes were cast in favour of the bill and 62 against. The Second Reading was passed by a majority of 46 votes. A division was also taken during the Committee Stage when Chandima Weerakkody proposed an amendment to Clause 36 of the Bill. That amendment was defeated by 51 votes to 92.

Several government MPs, including ministers, were absent during the voting. The main opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya’s (SJB) General Secretary, Ranjith Madduma Bandara, was also absent.

Following the vote, several MPs are to request the Speaker not to sign the bill immediately in a move to delay it becoming applicable law until the confusion over the amendments was cleared.