Thursday 25th June, 2026

The government has decided to scrap the long-held legal requirement to mark voters’ fingers with indelible ink at polling stations. It is in overdrive to introduce necessary legal amendments, we are told. The reasons given for its decision is that the practice of using indelible ink causes “operational inefficiencies” and “significant additional costs”. The Election Commission has claimed that the scrapping of the indelible ink requirement is its brainchild.

The JVP-NPP government is busy amending election laws and working on a new electoral system while doing everything in its power to postpone the Provincial Council (PC) elections further. If only the election monitors had continued to pressure the government to hold the PC polls rather than focusing on relatively inconsequential matters.

The use of indelible ink is not a silver bullet capable of preventing electoral malpractices, and therefore one can argue that its discontinuation may not render the electoral system any more vulnerable to practices, such as multiple voting. But whether it is prudent to do away with such safeguards against election malpractices, relying solely on the voter identification requirement is a moot point, given the fact that none of the main political parties are respecters of people’s franchise.

The UNP resorted to election malpractices and unleashed barbaric violence to retain its hold on power in the 1980s, when it used a heavily rigged referendum to make a general election disappear. The SJB, an offshoot of the UNP, is widely viewed as sharing the latter’s political DNA. The SLFP and its allies also rigged elections. In 1999, they chased away polling agents and stuffed ballot boxes in full view of the police to win the North Western PC polls. Some of the SLFP organisers responsible for violating election laws in that despicable manner are currently in the SLPP. The TNA fully endorsed the election boycott ordered by the LTTE in 2005 and even announced it. The JVP employed brutal methods such as shooting, beheading and quartering as part of its campaign to sabotage elections in the late 1980s. What guarantee is there that such political parties are any different from the proverbial cat that calmly held a lamp on a dining table only to revert to its old ways at the sight of a mouse?

As for the legal requirement of national identity cards (NICs) and other proofs of identity for voting, one may recall that the JVP seized the NICs of thousands of people during its reign of terror in the late 1980s. Some of the current JVP leaders have declared that they will not let go of power. They stand accused of working towards a one-party rule.

The Cabinet of Ministers is reported to have decided to remove provisions related to the use of indelible ink from election laws, while retaining voter identification requirements. Accordingly, the Presidential Elections Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Provincial Council Elections Act, the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, etc., are to be amended. One can only hope that the government will not turn amending election laws into a mega political project and use it as a pretext to postpone elections it is reluctant to face.

Most of all, a watchful eye needs to be kept on the amendments to be introduced, for there is no guarantee that the amendment Bills will not be stuffed with sections without judicial sanction to further the interests of the government. It has been revealed that when the Parliamentary Election Act of 1981 was amended in 1988, the words, “any member” (of a political party) were surreptitiously inserted thereinto after ratification to provide for the appointment of persons of party leaders choice to fill National List vacancies. In 2017, during the UNP-led Yahapalana government, several sections were incorporated into the Provincial Council Elections amendment Bill arbitrarily at the committee stage to provide for postponing the PC polls indefinitely. Controversy surrounds the manner in which the Online Safety Bill was “passed” in 2024. It was declared ratified amidst a noisy protest in the House.

Indelible ink is used by the countries in this part of the world as an antidote to multiple voting. Other democracies, especially in the West, have no need for it as they have reliable voter identification systems, which are however not totally foolproof. It is not prudent to presume that the franchise and the electoral process are invulnerable in this country, given the tainted records of the political parties that remain unremorseful. Hence, it is imperative that all safeguards against election malpractices be retained and strengthened.

Wednesday 24th June, 2026

The JVP-NPP government yesterday did not scruple to deprive the Opposition of an opportunity to debate some vital issues affecting the judiciary, in Parliament. The Opposition made a request to the Speaker, under Standing Orders, for a debate on the vacancies numbering four each in the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeal (CA) and an alleged move to raise the retirement ages of the SC and CA judges. But the government raised objections and put paid to the Opposition’s efforts, triggering protests in the House. It was obvious that the government members did not want even a brief debate on the aforementioned issues as they could not defend their position.

Some Opposition MPs rightly pointed out that the judicial power of the people was exercised by the legislature through courts, etc., according to the Constitution, and therefore Parliament was duty bound to debate issues, such as vacancies in the judiciary and a questionable government move to increase some judges’ retirement ages. Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Rathnayake took a swipe at the Opposition, recalling an attempt by some MPs to summon the Supreme Court judges before a parliamentary committee over a judgement during the previous government. True, the members of the SLPP-UNP government, currently in the Opposition, undermined the judiciary by criticising judges whose rulings were not to their liking and by postponing elections in violation of court orders. But two wrongs do not make a right.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association, etc., have severely criticised the alleged government move to extend the retirement ages of judges of the SC and the CA and urged it to fill the vacancies in those two courts. The Opposition has gone to the extent of claiming that the government is trying to leverage judges’ promotions, etc., to further its political interests at the expense of the integrity of the judiciary. These are issues that must be debated in Parliament urgently.

As the dynamic balance of Vata, Pitta and Kapha is to a person’s wellbeing, in Ayurveda, so is the harmonious functioning of the three branches of government, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, to a country’s democratic health. In both cases imbalance invites trouble. Unfortunately, no government has fully adhered to the principle of the separation of powers during the last several decades, and the Executive Presidency has made a bad situation worse. All Executive Presidents have meddled with the legislature and the judiciary. ‘Change’ that the current administration promised during its election campaigns has become pie in the sky. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stands accused of having the legislature under his thumb and undermining the judiciary.

JVP/NPP politicians never miss an opportunity to boast of their two-thirds majority. Minister Rathnayake yesterday reminded the Opposition of the government’s supermajority. A common trait of all Sri Lankan politicians is that they let power go to their heads. Steamroller majorities are apparently jinxed in this country. Intoxicated with power, governments exude arrogance, become aggressive, suppress dissent and dig their own political graves in the process. No government with a supermajority has secured a second term at a free and fair election in this country. The J. R. Jayewardene government, which had a five-sixth majority obtained under the first-past-the-post system, retained its hold on power in 1982 through a heavily-rigged referendum. The UNP won the 1989 general election mainly because of the JVP’s reign of terror, which prevented many people from voting and created a situation where the UNP could stuff ballot boxes. Two-thirds majorities could not save the SLFP-led United Front government (1970-1977), the Mahinda Rajapaksa government (2010-2015) and the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government. Such is the transient nature of political power and huge parliamentary majorities.

The JVP-NPP government can abuse its parliamentary majority to bulldoze its way through, but there is no way it can justify its refusal to allow issues affecting judicial independence to be debated in Parliament. It ought to remember that the power of the people is far greater than the people in power, as a saying goes.

Monday 22nd June, 2026

The JVP-NPP government, like all its predecessors, has got obfuscation down to a fine art. It muddies the water whenever issues concerning fuel prices are raised in Parliament or elsewhere. Its leaders give evasive answers to questions about fuel cost calculations in a way that makes one wonder if they stretch the truth and pluck figures out of the air to support their arguments. Curiously, their claims go unchallenged. The Opposition is apparently at sea; it lacks focus. A wag says it seems to have been affected by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

An Opposition MP has at long last realised the need to challenge the government’s claims about its fuel pricing methodology and pump prices. SLPP National Organiser and MP Namal Rajapaksa has called upon the government to disclose how fuel prices are worked out and make public a full cost breakdown so that consumers will know whether its claim of a fuel subsidy is true or false. This is something the Opposition should have done much earlier. MP Rajapaksa has also asked the government to reduce fuel prices in keeping with world oil price decreases following the signing of an interim peace agreement between the US and Iran.

Interestingly, MP Rajapaksa’s contention is at variance with the position of some Opposition parties which are protesting against a government claim that funding will not be available for “the current fuel subsidy” after June. What one gathers from the aforementioned protests is that a section of the Opposition believes that fuel is actually subsidised and the subsidy must be retained. Given these contradictory claims about the so-called fuel subsidy, what needs to be done is to pressure the government to provide fuel cost breakdowns so that they can be examined independently. Figures given by government politicians apparently do not add up where fuel prices are concerned.

Last month, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake publicly stated that a litre of diesel cost as much as Rs 720 though it was sold at Rs. 392 at that time. (The current diesel price is Rs. 407 a litre.) The President also claimed the government provided a subsidy of Rs. 100 per litre on diesel. Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya has recently repeated the President’s claim in a bid to support her argument that it is not possible to reduce local fuel prices immediately in keeping with global oil prices drops. Going by the President’s claim, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the private fuel companies suffer huge losses.

The government has chosen to remain silent on taxes and a special loss recovery levy of Rs. 50 on a litre of fuel. There have been attempts to have this levy converted into a cess so that the Treasury can recover it from the private fuel companies as well, but they have been in vain, according to some Opposition politicians. This issue must be raised in Parliament. Will the Opposition officially seek an explanation from the government?

It is believed that the government imposes an unconscionably high price mark-up on fuel to recover losses caused by the extensive use of diesel for producing extra power to compensate for the Norochcholai generation loss caused by substandard coal procured fraudulently. The CPC has admitted that it purchased diesel shipments at prices ranging from USD 281 to USD 303 per barrel at the height of the Iran war to prevent supply disruptions. Perhaps, it would not have been so desperate if there had been no coal procurement racket and the Norochcholai coal-fired power plant had operated at full capacity, producing 900 MW.

It is nothing but fair to demand that the CPC and the Finance Ministry provide accurate cost breakdowns whenever fuel prices are revised so that the public can see whether official figures add up or fuel prices are increased arbitrarily. The incumbent government, which came to power promising to usher in good governance, should uphold transparency in the process of determining fuel prices.

Successive governments have used the cost reflective fuel pricing formula, claiming that it helps determine fuel prices in a rational and fair manner. If so, the question is why they have not cared to make it legally enforceable and ensure transparency and accountability.