Midweek Review

Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act jolts Opposition

Published

3 years ago

2023/06/7

New laws contemplated by the government appears to have caused much concern among Opposition political parties for obvious reasons. The constitutionality of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The whole process of law making raised quite a stir in the wake of the recent shocking Supreme Court determination that one-third of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is contrary to the Constitution and several dozens of amendments are required to pave the way for its passage with a simple majority. It also shows that our judges have a backbone and are not easily swayed by the incumbent all-powerful Executive President, who is only there on a ‘contract’ to complete the remainder of the previous President Gatabaya Rajapaksa’s term after he was ousted by violent protests instigated from outside.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, continuing to struggle on the economic front, is keen to consolidate its position, both in and outside Parliament.

The media has emerged as the major challenge to the government due to the failure on the part of the Opposition to adopt a cohesive political strategy.

Both the government and the Opposition seem to be in disarray and unable to come to terms with the continuing political-economic and social crisis, fuelled by external forces.

The move to introduce a controversial Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act should be examined, taking into consideration current political and economic challenges faced by the incumbent administration.

Did the Justice Ministry or the Media Ministry, at least, informally consult President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Minister of Defence, in addition to being the Finance Minister and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, on the proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act, at least after being so thoroughly educated by the highest court in the land on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill? A section of the Opposition believes the President hadn’t been aware of this move.

However, former External Affairs Minister and SLPP rebel Prof. G. L. Peiris and Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) spokesman Pubudu Jayagoda didn’t mince their words when they alleged the whole exercise was for the benefit of President Wickremesinghe. Prof. Peiris has alleged that the President intended to rein in media in line with his overall political strategy to consolidate his power whereas Jayagoda explained how the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government launched the project soon after the UNP leader’s election as the President in late July last year. Jayagoda insists that the Cabinet has cleared the Bill.

The Broadcasting Regulatory Commission and the committee tasked to investigate complaints against television and radio stations would be dominated by the President’s men to such an extent, it couldn’t be expected to discharge its responsibilities in an impartial manner. Jayagoda pointed out how two persons of the Regulatory Commission could take far reaching decisions regardless of the consequences. In case any member failed to carry out directives received from the President, he or she faced the axe.

Jaygoda questioned the absurdity in appointing the commission for a period of five years in line with the five-year presidential term. Both Prof. Peiris and Jayagoda emphasized the grave danger posed by the President exercising power over the media regardless of some sections of the media pursuing politically motivated agendas.

Against the backdrop of fierce criticism of the proposed law, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, on 02 June came up with the face saving reply that no final decision has been taken in this regard.

The former President of the Bar Association said that the issue at hand was still under discussion and a set of proposals, pertaining to the proposed Broadcast Authority Act, were in the public domain. The Minister insisted that the relevant bill is yet to be prepared.

The Colombo District lawmaker said so in his capacity as the Chairman of a Cabinet sub-committee tasked with preparing a regulatory mechanism in this regard. The Cabinet-sub-committee consists of Media Minister Bandula Gunawardena, Labour Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and Ports and Shipping Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva.

The media raised the proposed Bill with Minister Rajapakse at a briefing in the Justice Ministry especially called to address issues pertaining to the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) established in 2016 during the Yahapalana administration.

Dr. Rajapakse has assured that media organizations would be given an opportunity to make representations in this regard.

The latest controversy over the proposed Bill with a set of proposals outlining its possible content already in the public domain, should be examined against the backdrop of strong opposition to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill and Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to those disputed and much discussed Bills, a major debate is likely over the proposed Budget Office. The text of the Bill meant to specify the powers, duties and functions of the Budget Office is now in the public domain. The government certainly owed an explanation as to why it cannot seek a consensus with the Opposition at the relevant consultative committee/sectoral oversight committee in this regard. The country is in such a desperate situation, it cannot under any circumstances afford further political turmoil.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be hell-bent on bulldozing its way through the legislature, regardless of whatever consequences.

The recent sacking of Janaka Ratnayake, the outspoken and highly ambitious Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission underscored the government strategy.

Ratnayake is on record as having said before a parliamentary watchdog committee that he received the influential position for serving the Rajapaksas. But, he was removed by the Rajapaksas’ SLPP at the behest of President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Altogether 123 lawmakers voted for the motion to remove Ratnayake whereas 77 opposed. Government member Ali Sabri Raheem voted against the motion to protest against the failure on the part of President Wickremesinghe and Premier Dinesh Gunawardena to intervene on his behalf after he was caught with undeclared gold and smartphones worth Rs 74 mn and Rs 4.2 mn, respectively, while coming through the VIP/VVIP channel at the BIA, where such people are normally whisked through without any checks.

Rebel SLPP lawmaker Prof. Charitha Herath mounted a no holds barred attack on the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act. At his regular briefing at Nidahasa Jathika Sabhawa (NJS) office at Nawala. The one-time Media Ministry Secretary explained how the proposed law could be utilized against television and radio stations which refused to toe the government line.

The NJS comprises 13 MPs elected and appointed on the SLPP ticket/accommodated on its National List.

Acknowledging the need and the responsibility on the part of the government to introduce the Broadcasting Authority Act, National List lawmaker Herath questioned the intention of those behind what he called a despicable move.

The country’s radio and television stations are allowed to operate in terms of the Ceylon Broadcasting Corporation Act (No 37 of 1966) and the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act (No 06 of 1982), respectively. Herath also explained how the Telecommunications Act applied to broadcasting operations.

The MP said that no one could dispute the need to introduce a new law to regulate radio and television stations. But the proposed Bill now in the public domain revealed the government’s intention to suppress those who would dare to challenge it on whatever issue, lawmaker Herath said, warning the government of dire consequences if it pursued such a strategy.

Asked to explain, MP Herath alleged that the proposed Act dealt with radio and television stations in a manner that they were yet to be established in Sri Lanka. The architects of the new law conveniently ignored the fact that radio and television stations were in operation here for several decades and couldn’t be subjected to a new law the way it dealt with a new entrant.

“The bottom line is that the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act completely ignored Article 14 of the Constitution that guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, including publication. If the enactment of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act takes place as it is, that will deliver a deadly blow to democracy. We do not want a North Korea type situation here.”

Referring to the composition of the commission, MP Herath questioned the rationale in restricting the total number of members to five and the quorum three. Pointing out that of the five members of the proposed commission, two – a Secretary to a Ministry (most probably Media Ministry) and the Director General of Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were ex-officio, the lawmaker said the President would name three remaining members subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

Alleging that this commission would be nothing but a highly dangerous tool in the hands of those at the helm of political power, lawmaker Herath said that it could be used selectively against any media organization that took a stand contrary to that of the government in respect of any issue – ranging from national security to what the architects of this destructive piece of legislation called the national economy. The operations of the offending media could be either suspended or permanently closed down, the academic said, urging the print and electronic media to vigorously take up this issue.

MP Herath lambasted the government for seeking to prohibit the media taking up economic issues. Alleging that such provisions were political, the lawmaker said that the issue is who would interpret the term ‘national economy’ in an economically ruined country. Would it be President Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, State Finance Minister Shehan Semasinghe or the International Monetary Fund, he asked

Prof. Herath expressed serious concern over the proposed committee consisting of three persons headed by the Director General, TRC, to investigate complaints directed at radio and television stations. Pointing out that there is ambiguity pertaining to the appointment of such a committee, the MP questioned how two out of the three-member committee could decide either to suspend or permanently close down operations of an ‘offending’ broadcaster.

Impact on Parliament

However, MP Herath didn’t discuss how the proposed new law could even hinder the coverage of parliamentary proceedings as well as the reportage of shocking disclosures at parliamentary watchdog committees. Depending on the stand taken by the government on a particular issue, in terms of the Broadcasting Authority Act, action can be initiated against a television station for its reportage on a matter even discussed in Parliament.

The UNP may use the new law to suppress reportage and discussion on Treasury bond scams perpetrated in 2015 and 2016 under its watch. The SLPP may find the new law useful to pressure the media over the reportage of circumstances leading to the economic ruin due to a spate of ill- advised decisions taken by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The committee tasked with investigating complaints against media organizations may find even the exposure of serious lapses on the part of the bureaucracy offensive. A case in point is the shocking disclosures made in the relevant parliamentary watchdog committees how the officialdom addressed critical issues at hand. The recent revelation that taxes, interest and penalties amounting to Rs 904 bn hasn’t been collected by the Inland Revenue underscored the need to address this issue urgently.

During the media briefing lawmaker Herath explained how the media could be targeted on the basis of alleged abuses in the coverage of issues. In the absence of interpretation of the term abuse of power, the committee headed by the Director General, TRC would be able to find fault with any broadcaster to appease his/her political master. It would be pertinent to mention that just two out of a three-member committee is authorized to decide on the fate of a media organization. Even the criticism of the controversial postponement of the much delayed Local Government polls indefinitely may attract the attention of the Broadcasting Authority as the government propagated the myth that economic recovery should be given priority, therefore election process can wait.

Prof. Herath explained how members of the commission can be removed in case they didn’t toe the government line. Instead of the very purpose a Broadcasting Authority is required to primarily have a level playing field, the one proposed can be a threat to media freedom. In the hands of politicians who pursue destructive self-aggrandizing strategies regardless of consequences, therefore the proposed Broadcasting Authority can be a tool to harm the free media. Prof. Herath regretted that the previous attempts to establish a Broadcasting Authority hadn’t been successful.

Harsha takes a strong stand

Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) front liner Dr. Harsha de Silva is another MP who came out strongly against the proposed law. The former UNP non-Cabinet minister flayed the government over the move at a media briefing held at the Opposition Leader’s Office on Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha.

The top SJB spokesman warned that this legislation, touted as an effort to advance the mass media, actually would serve as a tool for the government to crack down on and manipulate the media to suit its own agenda.

According to Dr. de Silva, the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill contained provisions that enabled the government to exert pressure on and control media outlets that do not align with its ideology. Such measures, the economist argued were fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.

“One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the freedom to hold differing opinions. The media cannot be subject to the whims of a particular authority that operated at the behest of the government. The media should enjoy the independence to express their views”, Dr. de Silva asserted. “This right to free expression is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. The proposed Broadcasting Authority Act aims to stifle the media, and we will not stand for it”.

Dr. de Silva further cautioned that the government’s motives behind this legislation mirror its previous attempts to suppress the media through the failed Anti-Terrorism Act. The MP asserted that, having faced resistance to their oppressive measures, the government is now seeking alternative avenues to fulfill its objective of muzzling critical voices, and the Broadcasting Authority Act is their latest attempt to do so.

The concerns raised by Dr. Harsha de Silva who was once widely tipped to be the Finance Minister of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, underscored the need for a robust and independent media, one that could act as a vital check on governmental power and foster a thriving democratic society. The MP stressed the pivotal importance policymakers and citizens alike closely examine the proposed legislation and its potential implications on press freedom, ensuring that any changes made to media regulations did not infringe upon the democratic principles that underpin our society.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has alleged that the government’s latest bid was meant to create an environment in which only those who propagated the government line could operate.

Lawmaker Premadasa has said that the move to throttle the media seemed to be a critical part of the government’s overall strategy and should be considered as an extremely dangerous move against the backdrop of indefinite postponement of Local Government polls. MP Premadasa, like his opposition colleagues Prof. Herath and Dr. de Silva, alleged the licenses were to be issued on the basis of the media organizations’ loyalty to the government.

Censorship

Several decades ago, Sri Lanka exercised censorship to control the media, at a time television posed no real challenge.

Having joined The Island in June 1987, the writer remembered how print media had to submit all ‘copies’ that dealt with security and political issues to the government censor for approval. Successive governments imposed censorship to cover up military reversals in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and part of the overall strategy to deal with the second JVP-led insurgency 1987-89.

Successive governments harassed the print media and attacks directed at journalists and private media institutions over the years were part of that despicable strategy. Whatever the provocations, the assassinations of journalists cannot be condoned. Perpetrators of such heinous crimes had never been arrested. The assassination of The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga on January 08, 2009 is perhaps the case that attracted the most media coverage though there were many other attacks.

Keith Noyahr, Defence correspondent at the now defunct The Nation newspaper earned the wrath for his critical weekly column titled ‘Military Matters.’ His abduction and subsequent release in May 2008 exposed the then government though the investigation was never brought to a successful conclusion even after the defeat of that government in January 2015!

The proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill has taken the government’s battle (whichever party in power) to a new level. Now political strategy is aimed at closing down whole television or radio stations.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Broadcasting Regulatory Commission

Up Next

Off the Beaten Track

Don't Miss

Jayantha Dhanapala (1938 – 2023)

Click to comment

Midweek Review

NPP drowning in sea of scams

Published

5 days ago

2026/04/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Outgoing Treasury Chief Mahinda Siriwardena congratulates his successor Harshana Suriyapperuma in late June 2025 at the Finance Ministry

The Opposition is pressing for a one-day debate on USD 2.5 mn Treasury theft, which is more like a daylight robbery that had been kept under wraps by Treasury mandarins till ‘Free Lawyers’ made it public. However, the government is strongly opposed to the Opposition proposal. The Opposition is seeking consensus among

different parties to intensify the campaign against the government, struggling to cope up with a spate of controversies. Against the backdrop of the devastating debate on the coal scam, the NPP seems reluctant to face another over the theft of Treasury funds.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

USD 2.5 mn brazen heist at the Treasury several months ago and the bigwigs there obviously dragging their feet over the matter till it was brought to light recently, thanks to the Free Lawyers movement, which has dampened the NPP’s enthusiasm for May Day. The Treasury fiasco humiliated the cocky NPP leadership against the backdrop of damning report issued by the National Audit Office (NAO) that found fault with the government for awarding the coal tender for 2025/2026 period to Trident Champhar Limited of India in violation of tender procedures. The NAO emphasised that the Indian company shouldn’t have even been considered for the tender.

Even after the exposure of the scandalous handling of the coal tender, the NPP, in spite of some rumblings within the party, remained confident of overcoming the growing accusations regarding governance issues. But, the sudden revelation of the loss suffered by the Treasury, and pathetic efforts made by the NPP to suppress the truth, has caused irreparable harm to the ruling party. The arrogant NPP will have to use May Day to defend the government. Instead of preaching to the masses ad nauseum the corruption allegations against previous administrations, the NPP would have to explain such massive failures/corruption, particularly the loss of USD 2.5 mn.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of such an incident at the Treasury. The NPP will have to answer questions posed by ‘Free Lawyers,’ a civil society group that first raised the Treasury issue. On behalf of ‘Free Lawyers,’ its President Maithri Gunaratne, PC, former Governor of several provinces Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon, and Attorney-at-Law Shiral Lakthikala, targeted the government over the unprecedented Treasury heist. The Opposition, too, censured the NPP, with SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, MP, Chairman of Public Finance Committee (CoPF) Dr. Harsha de Silva, MP, and United Republican Front (URF) taking the lead.

The NPP’s excuses, based on claimed raids carried out by hacker/hackers targeting the Treasury, are untenable. The NPP’s position cannot be defended or supported against growing criticism. The coal scam and Treasury fiasco dominated social media, with the Opposition, as well as ordinary citizens, having a field day at the expense of the NPP, a political party that accused its opponents of waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement. Its successful propaganda campaigns, at the presidential and parliamentary polls, in September and November, 2024, respectively, were centered on fighting corruption.

Their anti-corruption platform appealed to the people for obvious reasons. Against the backdrop of bankruptcy, declared in May, 2022, after failing to meet debt commitments, the electorate rallied around the NPP that thrived on waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, perpetrated by previous governments. Having bagged the executive presidency in September, 2024, the NPP assured the electorate that the Parliament would be cleansed of evils at the general election. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake declared that the people have been vested with the responsibility of cleansing the Parliament. Dissanayake went a step further when he addressed a public gathering at the 18th mile post on the Negombo-Colombo road. The NPP leader, who also leads the JVP, asserted that there was no need for an Opposition in Parliament and the House should be filled with NPPers.

Dissanayake based his assertion essentially on two failed No-Confidence Motions (NCMs) moved against Ravi Karunanayake and Keheliya Rambukwella in 2016 and 2023, respectively. The NPP/JVP leader found fault with Yahapalanaya and the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government for protecting the two wrongdoers, hence the call to cleanse Parliament.

The results of the parliamentary election proved that the electorate responded very favourably to Dissanayake’s call. Of the 225-seat Parliament, the NPP secured 159 seats, including 18 National List slots. Having accused previous governments of shielding wrongdoers, Dissanayake easily directed the NPP’s steamroller parliamentary group to defeat the NCM moved against Energy Minister Punyakumara Dissanayake (National List) on 10 April, just a few days after the NAO report exposed the coal scam.

First ex-MP as Treasury Secy.

If its own hands are clean, there is no doubt that the NPP now deeply regrets the appointment of ex-NPP National List MP Harshana Suriyapperuma as the Secretary to the Treasury and the Finance Ministry. That appointment was made in June 2025 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Mahinda Siriwardana who, along with Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, played a significant role in the country’s post-Aragalaya recovery programme.

Suriyapperuma, who had served as Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning for just seven months, before being appointed the Treasury Secretary/Finance Ministry Secretary, is under heavy fire for suppressing the truth. No less a person than CoPF Chairman Dr. de Silva publicly accused Suriyapperuma of trying to undermine his committee. The SJB has demanded Suriyapperuma’s immediate resignation. Dr. Anil Jayantha succeeded as Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning.

Those who inquired into the crisis-hit Treasury are of the belief that 53-year-old Suriyapperuma lacked the much required experience to fill the shoes of Mahinda Siriwardana. Perhaps, the breach at the Treasury could have been averted if an outsider was not brought in place of Siriwardena. The recent reportage of the incident revealed that Suriyapperuma had been aware of the breach and sought to avoid appearing before the CoPF. The NPP could have responded to the developing situation differently if an ex-MP hadn’t been entrusted with the task of steering the Treasury/Finance Ministry. To make matters worse, President Dissanayake holds the Finance portfolio.

Although the government declared that the theft of USD 2.5 mn had been reported to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) after initial detection made in January this year, controversy surrounds the failure on the part of law enforcement authorities to bring it to the notice of the courts. Maithri Gunaratne, appearing in Hiru last Saturday (25), questioned why the police failed to inform the relevant Magistrate if the government lodged a complaint in that regard.

Australia has confirmed irregularities in payments owed to their government. Regardless of NPP efforts to blame it on hacker/hackers, the truth is clear. Payments have been made to an account that hadn’t been in the original agreement between the governments of Sri Lanka and Australia. That is the undeniable truth that the NPP cannot suppress by propaganda.

The NPP should be ashamed that such a fraud had been perpetrated on a country still struggling to cope up with the economic destruction caused by the UNP- and the SLFP-led governments with the help of “mission impossible” type roles played by outside interests, especially during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure using the JVP/Aragalaya.

The world knows how the UNP perpetrated the Treasury bond scams with the direct involvement of the then Governor of the Central Bank Arjuna Mahendran, in February 2015 and March 2016. Regardless of that intolerable scam, the UNP made a desperate attempt to retain the services of the Singaporean as the Governor of the Central Bank. Party leader and the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe demanded the re-appointment of Mahendran. That despicable move had to be dropped due to massive Opposition protests and growing public discontent over the Treasury bond scams.

The first Treasury bond scam carried out on 27 February, 2015 caused a direct loss of approximately Rs. 2 billion. On the instructions of Mahendran, the Treasury suddenly and arbitrarily changed the process of issuing Treasury Bonds. According to media reports at that time, higher interest payments, over the next 30 years, caused a further loss of around Rs. 145 billion.

Then Mahendran struck again. Caused further direct losses of more than Rs. 4 billion to the government through the fraudulent increase in interest rates as a result of the Treasury Bond issues on 27th March, 2016 ,and 29th March, 2016, in order to provide an undue advantage to connected primary dealers by indulging in further pre-meditated bond scams.

NPP on back foot

The ruling party put on a brave face with lawmakers and various others trying to play down the incident at the Treasury. Some pathetically tried to compare various accusations directed at the Rajapaksas with the incident at the Treasury which they conveniently blamed on hacker/hackers.

The NPP is facing an explosive mixture of issues. Both the coal and Treasury scams have brought immense pressure on the national economy and caused automatic deterioration. The resignation of Punyakumara aka Kumara Jayakody over the coal scam indicated that defeating the NCM moved against him was a strategic political blunder. Had the NPP asked the tainted first time Minister to step down and appoint a Presidential Commission to go into the coal scam, the NPP could have averted a major disaster. However, the Energy Minister and the Energy Secretary Udayanga Hemapala had to resign before the Parliament took up the NCM. Had the top NPP leadership bothered to peruse the executive summary of the NAO presented to Parliament on 7 April, the Party wouldn’t have tried to defend the minister.

Having championed a corruption-free political party system and then won both the presidential and parliamentary polls on that platform, the NPP executed the shocking move to move 323 containers out of the Colombo Port, in January 2025, without even any cursory checks. Those who perpetrated that operation used continuing port congestion as an excuse to clear red-flagged containers without mandatory physical checking. The NPP recently thwarted a bid by Opposition lawmakers, representing a parliamentary committee inquiring into the illegal release of containers, to summon President Dissanayake.

That committee, headed by Justice Minister Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, owed an explanation as to why President Dissanayake, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, shouldn’t appear before a House committee. President Dissanayake very often addresses Parliament on crucial issues. As the Minister in charge of Finance, the President should offer an explanation regarding the high profile container issue that tarnished the NPP’s image.

Three major issues in hand, namely the release of 323 containers, coal scam and theft at the Treasury, regardless of what various apologists say on mainstream and social media, have caused irrevocable damage to the party, let alone escapades involving the likes of Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, Minister Lal Kantha, etc. The impact on the NPP can be ascertained only at an election. With the public increasingly aware of the growing accusations against it, the ruling party will do whatever possible to put off long delayed Provincial Council elections. Facing the electorate against deepening discontent among the public seems to be a frightening situation. It would be interesting to observe how a House committee, headed by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, appointed to explore ways and means to conduct Provincial Council polls, address the issue at hand.

When compared with the three major issues, the resignation of Asoka Ranwala, as the Speaker, in December, 2024, over his failure to produce the much-touted educational qualifications, seems unnecessary. Of course, Ranwala’s case attracted tremendous public attention at that time as the public really believed the NPP wouldn’t deceive them. Ranwala’s lie shocked the public. NPP theoretician Prof. Ranjith Nirmal Dewasiri had no qualms in publicly attacking Ranwala in the wake of the NPP defending the Speaker. But, subsequent NPP actions revealed massive manipulations that shamed the first post-Aragalaya government.

Having accused Ranil Wickremesinghe of squandering as much as Rs 16 mn to join his wife Prof. Maithree in the UK in September, 2023, the NPP has ended up facing far more serious accusations. The incident at the Treasury should be sufficient for the Opposition to move NCM against the government. Of course, the NPP got the numbers in Parliament to easily defeat the NCM but the consequences would be devastating. Those who still talk of recovering the missing USD 2.5 mn must be living in a dreamland. The UNP is labelled with Treasury bond scams (2015 and 2016) and the SLPP faulted with tax cuts (2019) and sugar tax scam (2020). The NPP will have to live with the coal scam and Treasury theft. The NPP will no longer be able to parade on political platforms as paragons of virtue. It would be pertinent to mention that the Presidential Commission appointed to probe the procurement of coal, since 2009, would be able to produce a report to meet the NPP’s expectations. All indications point to that and 2026 is going to be far more challenging, both in and outside Parliament, than the previous year.

NDB fraud

Examined together, the massive fraud at the National Development Bank (NDB), perpetrated during the 2024-2026 period, and the Treasury incident, they underscore the vulnerability of the entire banking system. The 13.2 bn NDB fraud and theft of USD 2.5 mn from the Treasury exposed the regulator, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, in respect of the NDB. The situation at the NDB cannot be examined without taking into consideration that Ernst & Young is the external auditors of the NDB and its Managing Partner Duminda Hulangamuwa functions as Senior Economic Adviser to President Dissanayake. People haven’t forgotten that Hulangamuwa had been mentioned as the possible successor of Mahinda Siriwardena before the NPP brought in Suriyapperuma. The Central Bank and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) come under the purview of the Finance Ministry now embroiled in the expanding Treasury fiasco.

The Board of Directors at the NDB consists of Sriyan Cooray (Chairman), Kelum Edirisinghe (Director / Chief Executive Officer (Executive), Bernard Sinniah (Director /Non-Independent), Sujeewa Mudalige (Director /Independent), Kushan D’Alwis (Director/Independent), Kasturi Chellaraja (Director/Independent), Shweta Pandey (Director /Independent), Hasitha Premaratne (Director/Independent), Sanjaya Mohottala (Director (Non-Independent) and Shanil Fernando Director (Independent).

The issue at hand is how such a fraud went unnoticed for a considerable period of time and whether the top management simply ignored warning signs and the failure on the part of the regulator to intervene. Those who have read Mahinda Siriwardana’s ‘Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival: Reflections on the Journey from Crisis to Recovery’ would know the circumstances leading to the 2022 economic collapse. Soft spoken Siriwardana meticulously discussed how the then Central Bank leadership as well as the so-called economic leadership of the Pohottuwa party deliberately deceived President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Siriwardena’s narrative is explosive. The book, launched before his retirement, with the participation of President Dissanayake, underscored the responsibility on the part of the political leadership and those running the banking system. Obviously Siriwardena’s work had no impact on the current dispensation as well as the top banking management.

The Opposition sees an apparent opportunity to heap pressure on the NPP as it contemplates counter measures. Their challenge is how to take remedial measures without jeopardizing the government. The IMF declaration that it is closely watching the theft of USD 2.5 mn from the Treasury must have added pressure on the government, ripped apart by the situation at the Treasury. Let us hope the government and the Opposition reach consensus on ways and means to improve financial discipline. Overall, the Parliament cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for enactment of laws and ensuring financial discipline and the fact that Sri Lanka needs to start repayment of debt in 2028.

Midweek Review

Is language social or psychological phenomenon?

Published

5 days ago

2026/04/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

This essay was presented at The Philosophy Group of the University of London about 20 years ago. The thought provoking essay published in The Island on 22 April by Usvwatte-aratchi- Some languages confine you; some languages free you prompted me to try to get this essay published if possible. It may help the readers to further their ideas about the importance of usage of language.

Personally, I have firsthand experience in this subject. I was exposed to two different cultures and two languages. In my formative years I was brought up in a certain culture and spoke the language pertaining to that culture/language (Sinhalese -Sri Lanka). I spent all my studying and working life (55 years) using a different language in a different culture (English -England). I must mention that this was not recently. It was the early 1960’s. I can claim that I have enough knowledge and experience to justify this essay topic. In this essay I shall be investigating some of the social aspects of language with the aid of some opinions put forward by some philosophers. Then I shall be making an attempt to see what psychology has to offer before I draw my own conclusions. I am treating social aspects as part and parcel of the culture. In my view these are inseparable entities, unless one chooses to forget his or her cultural upbringing to suit a particular society.

Adoption of different culture

Socially, learning a different language and adopting a different culture is quite possible. In this case what dominates is one’s attitude or the circumstances. Attitude is psychological. I am convinced that circumstances may lead to a change of attitudes. Having said that, we must not forget that there are individuals who have not taken the trouble to learn the language of the culture in which they live. This has created a lot of socio-psychological problems in the community in which they live. It is obvious that the problem is one of communication. The main tool of communication is language. Philosophers and psychologists have spent many years investigating how language helps us to communicate and also how it may lead us to misunderstand our own fellow human beings. Understanding others (family members, members of the community in which we live, and the strangers we meet) is one of the most important aspects of living.

An awareness of the problem of language goes back to the early Greek philosophers. Parmenides gave us the first example of an argument from language to the world, saying that if we speak of a thing it must exist, since we speak of a thing at various times, it must continue to exist in a particular form. It is recently that language itself has come to be studied in a systematic way. The two landmarks in this respect were the development of Linguistics and the philosophy of language in the 20th century. The great philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has admitted that until he became a middle-aged man, he did not think about language per se, but regarded it as ‘transparent’. I am sure this is true with most of us although we are not of Russell’s caliber when it comes to philosophy. And one may not have to wait until one reaches one’s middle age.

Linguistics and philosophy of language

It will help us if we understand the difference between Linguistics and philosophy of Language. What linguists discover may be applied to philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology or physiology. But as a discipline of study, it remains independent of them. The philosophy of language is different. One of the modern philosophers John Searle (1932-2025) thought, by contrast to linguistics, philosophy tries to solve philosophical problems by analyzing the ordinary use, meaning and relations of words in a particular language. Searle goes on to say that language is crucial to understand human experience. In my opinion this is a very valid comment. At a very practical level we spend a lot of time sharing our experiences. Verbal communication is vital in this area. According to Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking(1936-2023) the influence of language on philosophy has been profound and almost unrecognized. He indicates, if we are not to be misled by this influence, it is necessary to become conscious of it, and to ask ourselves deliberately how far it is legitimate.

It is appropriate to bring in Ludwig Wittgenstein(1889-1951) at this point. He brought in the subject predicate theory of language. For example, if we say “John is king”. Where John is the subject and king is the predicate. Here existence requires substance. For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of something. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether. Wittgenstein supports Saint Augustine’s view that words are names of objects and that combinations of words have the sole function of describing reality. For example, if we point at a certain object, say a table and try to say to a child “this is a table”, the child will be confused as to what we are pointing at. Is it the colour, the tabletop or one or more of its legs This is called the ostensive definition method of teaching. Ostensive definitions lead to a variety of interpretations. The child may understand a particular case of this definition but there is no guarantee that she will be able to make a transition from one case to others like it.

Plato’s theory

J G Herder (1744-1803) pointed out the object to which we make reference may be defined by numerous different terms. How then can we justify direct, one to one correspondence-either of so many to one, or of one to so many? How are we going to deal with situations where a term describes something non-existent or only possible? Plato’s “Forms” theory cannot be applied here as anything that we can speak of already exists as a Form. Critics of this theory ask the question: “how can the world be crowded with so many imaginary objects?” We use words to describe and define. Is there any room for slang language? This comes in handy in our day to day social communication. Ostensive definition raises the questions that require a constant selection of what counts as relevant. In Aldous Huxley’s novel Chrome Yellow, the character Old Rowley is confused as to: Does ‘pig’ refer to the quality of having a curly tail? Or standing in rows to eat? Or being pink skinned and fat? Or wearing no clothes? When we use the word “piggishness” is it something inherent to pigs, or simply, a matter of how we choose to describe them?

How can we relate the above ideas and theories of language to our daily living? Daily living is a psychosocial activity.

Perceptions

The nature of language reflects the nature of our perceptions, and these are far from straight forward. Franz Brentano (1838-1917) developed his theory of intentionality: that every mental phenomenon has a relation of direction to its object, i.e. perceptions, desires, imagination etc. are related to what is perceived, desired or imagined. I presume this can be applied to any language irrespective of the culture (our social conditioning). Say for instance the images of art and the writings are given the ability to represent objects by imposing the intentionality on the object. Thus, when we assert that we see or believe something, we impose, by convention and intention, (that is true if and only if it is the case) on the statement, and these conditions are not contained intrinsically in the sounds that make it up, but in our perception of belief about the fact. I begin to wonder how this can be applied to non-physical and unseen situations. Sometimes our feelings and attitudes are unknown to the observer. A person may shout because he is angry but you cannot see the anger, only its physical expression. We will not be able to see the prior event that has led to the anger and the utterance. This shows that there is a limit to how much is revealed simply by observing a word and its context; there is often more than that can be said.

How can we account for unexpected linguistic behaviour? This has both social and psychological implications.

For a long time behavioural theorists believed that every development of the human being was controlled by environmental and social factors. This is similar to an ostensive explanation of meaning. It implied that everything was learnt through training and association. But Noam Chomsky (b.1928) was not happy with this idea. He thought language is a complex phenomenon and which is not taught bit by bit or systematically to infants. It is successfully acquired by (almost) everybody. From my own experience it is true to say that the difficulty in learning a second language is a very different process from that experienced with the first language. Chomsky argued that the first language is not in fact learned, but rather acquired through exposure to a particular language. According to him all languages share the same basic structure, and he called this “deep structure”, which may be expressed as surface structures through a process called ‘transformation’. Chomsky’s theory helps us to assume a universal system of grammar, which may generate an infinite number of particular sentences within a language. This explains how we may create sentences within a language we have never encountered before from a limited set of grammatical rules and this appears to be a rational scientific approach.

Social or psychological phenomenon

The argument/discussion whether language is a social or a psychological phenomenon requires much more investigation than this essay warrants. I have briefly brought in various philosophers’ work, which are invaluable to this topic in terms of philosophy of language. In conclusion I am tempted to state my own experiences as a bi-lingual person. When it comes to my first language, which is Sinhalese I don’t think I learned it. I heard my parents speaking it and I picked up a few words and I constructed my own sentences and gradually became proficient by accumulating more words. Of course, the proper grammatical use of even my own language was taught in school and not by my parents. Learning my second language i.e. English took a different form. I was taught to speak, read, and write English at school and I had to work harder at this than my first language, because my English was confined to the classroom situation only, i. e. I learnt English in a non- English environment. First language came naturally and the second one I had to learn to fit into the social and the education structure that prevailed at that time. Compulsion can motivate us to learn!I had no choice but to adopt myself culturally and linguistically as a university student in England and then as a university teacher in England. Apart from the native English students, I have taught students from different countries. European, African and Asian. I had the opportunity to intermingle with them and learned various different cultural and linguistic aspects. After almost a half a century in England, I am back to my own culture (language, customs, food etc) where I was born and started my life. I am still proficient in my own language Sinhalese. No conscious effort needed.

After all the foregoing arguments and philosophy that I have put forward, my own conclusion is Chomsky’s theories are more plausible to me than other theories on this issue. It is difficult to be exact and say whether language is a social or psychological phenomenon. From the above arguments, we can see that culture and language of a given society are tightly bound. This leads us to psychological adjustments in order to fit into a society. Who can deny that even the philosophers mentioned above have not been subjected to their own cultural environment?

by Prof. Sampath
Anson Fernando
Formerly University of
The Arts London