Connect with us

Features

Ruckus in Parliament over Online Safety Bill

Published

on

View from the gallery

by Saman Indrajith

The second sitting week of parliament this year was limited to only two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, intended for debating and passing the Online Safety Bill. When the House convened on Tuesday, opposition parties demanded a postponement of the two-day debate. They argued that many stakeholders, both local and foreign, had expressed fears that the new legislation might become a law limiting freedom of speech. Since the request went against the previously agreed agenda for the day, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena suspended sittings and called for a special party leaders’ meeting.

At this meeting, the government insisted that the Bill should be debated and passed. With those in opposition holding a different viewpoint, the Speaker had no choice but to put the question to the House and call for a vote. The subsequent vote favored the government with 83 votes to take up the Bill for debate, while the opposition could muster only 50 votes against it. Accordingly, the Bill was put forward for debate with the approval of a majority of 33 votes, amidst public protests at several places, including one by civil society organizations opposite the Polduwa Junction near Parliament.

During the two days of the debate, only a few MPs from both sides managed to speak sensibly about the content of the Bill, while the majority of Government MPs used that time to hurl obscenities and abuse at their counterparts. Deputy Minister Nimal Lanza stated that the government did not introduce this bill to ban social media, emphasizing that they are not against it.

Lanza explained, “We came to know some news which we would have otherwise missed if not for social media. It was thanks to social media that we came to know the JVP was promising to legalize prostitution, and its female cadres were calling for women not to wear bras as a promotional sign for feminism.”

SLPP Kalutara District MP Rohitha Abeygunawardena expressed the view that social media should be regulated because anyone could use it to sling mud at politicians and VIPs. He shared a personal anecdote, stating that his family members and friends used to call him Raththaran (gold) as an endearment when he was young, but social media later created the impression that he earned this accolade by snatching gold necklaces. Abeygunawardena challenged anyone to produce a copy of a police complaint against him for snatching gold chains, pledging to step down from his seat if such evidence surfaced.

Opposition and SJB leader Sajith Premadasa criticized a proposed Bill to control online publications, alleging it aimed to suppress freedom of speech ahead of upcoming elections. He quoted George Washington’s 1783 warning on the consequences of losing freedom of speech: “the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella criticized government MPs for comparing proposed online regulations to Singapore’s, highlighting Singapore’s low media freedom ranking (145 out of 170). He warned of a potential setback to Sri Lanka’s IT industry, citing concerns expressed by major internet companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple threatening to withdraw services. After two days of the second reading stage debate, the opposition called for a division. Accordingly, a vote was taken, with 108 votes in favor and 62 votes against it.

The next day, the Bill was passed in its third and final reading without a vote, despite strong protests from the opposition who objected to the government adding new clauses to the Bill, arguing that it went against the Supreme Court’s decision on the Bill’s constitutionality.

Soon after the committee stage commenced, SLPP dissident MP Dayasiri Jayasekera got up and stated that the government has not amended a clause of the draft bill as instructed by the Supreme Court in its determination.

TNA Jaffna District MP MA Sumanthiran said that what Jayasekera stated was right. In addition, he noted 13 instances where the amendments by the government override the Supreme Court determination and asked the government to stop proceeding. “This is wrong because this will not become law if you go against the Supreme Court decision. For example, the Supreme Court stated in its determination that there should be certain exemptions from this Bill. Those exemptions do not appear in these amendments. The Court, on page 59 of its determination states that SMS messages, MMS messages, and user-generated content enabled by the telecom services should be exempted from this Bill. That amendment is not here,” he said.

SLPP dissident MP Prof Charitha Herath stated that, according to Standing Order 64, the government cannot introduce new clauses outside the Supreme Court determination. SLMC leader Rauff Hakim emphasized, “This is why we have asked for additional time to study these amendments. The government cannot pass it in this manner. We cannot introduce amendments across the floor owing to practical reasons. We must put this off.”

Chief Opposition Whip Kiriella questioned whether the Attorney General had approved these amendments, pointing out the presence of the Attorney General’s representatives in the official’s box.

Amid shouts and protests, Public Security Minister Tiran Alles walked to the Chair, informing the Speaker that the Legal Draftsman stated these amendments had been approved by the Attorney General. He was instructed to convey this to the Leader of the House.

SLPP dissident MP Chandima Weerakkkody argued that the Attorney General would be held in contempt of court for going against the directives given by the Supreme Court.

Opposition leader Premadasa asserted the process should be stopped because it was illegal. Speaker Abeywardena stated that the government does not agree with the opposition’s standpoint, and the process should continue.

The government did not incorporate amendments put forward by the opposition, prompting the opposition to call for another vote. The vote received 92 votes against and 51 votes for, and as such, the opposition moved that amendments would not be incorporated into the Bill.

Minister Premajayantha continued to read the amendments, and at the end, the Speaker changed the House from the committee stage to Parliament and announced that the Bill had been passed.

JVP-NPP MP Vijitha Herath and other opposition MPs demanded a division on the Bill, insisting that a vote must be taken. The Speaker, however, stated that the time for division had lapsed, and the Bill had been passed.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe, returning from visits to Switzerland and Uganda, came to Parliament on Wednesday. On his way to his parliament office, he noticed TNA MP Charles Nirmalanathan waiting for him and asked him to follow him. Other MPs waiting there said Nirmalanathan influenced the previous week’s TNA election appointing MP S Sritharan at the Tamil diaspora’s behest. The President has tasked Nirmalanathan with encouraging diaspora investment in Sri Lanka for Northern development.

As the president was leaving parliament he saw retiring Sergeant-at-Arms Narendra Fernando and he stepped out of his car to speak to Fernando who had 42 years of parliament service. Both the President and Fernando started their parliamentary careers at the Old Parliament building, now the Presidential Secretariat in the Fort. A photograph of the president with Fernando was shot.

Wednesday marked the last parliament sitting day for the Fourth Session of the Ninth Parliament due to an announced prorogation. On Thursday, after the news came of Puttalam District MP Sanath Nishantha’s demise, there was talk of his successor. The vacancy will be filled by Jagath Priyankara, the Puttalam District Leader of Wimal Weerawansa-led National Freedom Front, expected to sit in the opposition, depriving one seat for the government side.

While certain SLPP MPs suggested the possibility of honoring Nishantha by bringing his remains to Parliament, some senior party members opposed the idea. They highlighted the overwhelming social media posts against Nishantha, with some expressing joy and others expressing anger. The seniors argued that bringing Nishantha’s coffin would not only incur significant expenses but also shift public wrath and anger from the deceased MP to the living MPs.



Features

Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka

Published

on

World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future

by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?

These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.

World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.

We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.

Making more of what we already have

Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.

Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.

The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.

Stop wasting the food we produce

Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.

Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.

Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.

Nutrition and food safety come first

Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.

Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.

Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.

A food system that can cope with climate change

Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.

Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.

Give young people a bigger role

Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.

A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.

A pathway designed for Sri Lanka

We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.

The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.

The choices we make today

The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.

So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?

The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.

A better food future begins with the choices we make today.

Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna

Continue Reading

Features

20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried

Published

on

Aftermath of the terror attack

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.

It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.

By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.

I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.

When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.

The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.

The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24

I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.

The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.

The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.

After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.

Clark

The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.

Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.

Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.

He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.

Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.

Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.

Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.

Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.

So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.

Continue Reading

Trending