Thursday 19th February, 2026

The Parliament of Sri Lanka has earned notoriety for Dorothy Dixers or pre-arranged questions that the ruling party backbenchers ask ministers to help highlight the government’s ‘achievements’ and tear the Opposition to shreds. This practice is not peculiar to Sri Lanka, but here the situation has manifestly got out of hand. The NPP MPs are always given ample time to ask free-kick questions, which are legion, but the government frontbenchers invariably obstruct the Opposition members who throw curveballs that ministers cannot face. Some ministers even request weeks to answer easy questions, demonstrating a callous disregard for the parliamentary process and accountability.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa raised some pertinent questions in Parliament yesterday. Demanding to know why the government had issued a gazette, placing the National Commission on Women (NCW) under the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs, he pointed out that the integrity of the commission which was expected to function as an independent body to protect, promote and advance women’s rights, would be undermined if it was placed under a particular ministry. He tabled the gazette notification at issue, disputing the government’s claim that no such document existed. While the Opposition Leader was demolishing the NPP’s arguments, some government members rose to their feet, shouting and accusing him of violating Standing Orders.

Party leaders should have some leeway when crucial matters are discussed in the House, where a lot of time is wasted on innocuous matters. The NCW is expected to safeguard the rights of women who account for about 52 percent of the country’s population. Parliament, therefore, should allocate enough time for discussions on matters pertaining to the NCW and allow the Opposition to express its views freely. After all, politicians act sensibly only when they are out of power. They take leave of their senses when power goes to their heads. Therefore, the public has a right to know the Opposition’s views on matters of national importance. There is nothing stupider than to go by what the ruling party politicians say about issues that adversely affect their own interests.

Governments with steamroller majorities tend to shout down their political opponents in Parliament. We have witnessed this for decades. Powerful regimes, intoxicated with power, cherish the delusion that popular mandates are special licences for them to do as they please and that an electoral defeat deprives the Opposition of its right to express its views and question government policies. The J. R. Jayewardene government did everything in its power to railroad the Opposition of the day into submission, but in vain. The Mahinda Rajapaksa government did likewise and went so far as to debilitate the Opposition by engineering dozens of crossovers. The JVP tore into those regimes, condemning their dictatorial actions, endeared itself to the public, and succeeded in turning the tables on the main parties and capturing state power. Unfortunately, the JVP-led NPP government has failed to be different.

Those who are familiar with the Westminster traditions are aware that the Opposition plays a vital role in a democracy, and deserves the opportunity to speak and raise questions in Parliament because that is a prerequisite for ensuring scrutiny, accountability and democratic legitimacy. The Opposition is duty-bound to question government actions, challenge executive decisions and take up policy flaws. Sri Lankan politicians ought to learn from the UK House of Commons, where the Opposition enjoys the freedom to question and criticise ministers. There are also “Opposition Days” allocated in the House of Commons for discussions on subjects chosen by the non-government parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). The JVP-led NPP came to power, promising a radical departure from the country’s rotten political culture. Sadly, it is moving along the same old rut as its predecessors it vehemently condemned for undermining democracy.

Aristotle has said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Those who seek to suppress dissenting views in Parliament only demonstrate that they do not measure up to the Aristotelian standard.

Wednesday 18th February, 2026

The legal fraternity is up in arms over last week’s murder of a lawyer and his wife in a Colombo suburb. On 13 February, two gunmen shot lawyer Buddhika Mallawarachchi and his wife Nisansala dead inside their car near a supermarket at Akuregoda, where the Defence Headquarters Complex is located. The killers used a T-56 assault rifle and a pistol in the attack. There was absolutely no need for an assault rifle to kill the unarmed victims. Those who ordered the killing may have sought to make the attack as spectacular as possible, probably to send a chilling message to others.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) sprang into action, cranking up pressure on the government and the police to bring the killers to justice forthwith. It resorted to a one-day boycott of court proceedings in protest, urging the government to ensure the safety of lawyers and the public. The BASL reaction jolted the police into arresting some suspects with underworld links.

Hardly a day passes in this country without a shooting incident that snuffs out a life or two. Last year saw about 114 shooting incidents, which reportedly claimed 60 lives. About seven persons have been shot dead so far this year, according to media reports. The police have pathetically failed to prevent crime. They are busy doing political work for the incumbent government to the extent of making one wonder whether they have any time left for their regular duties and functions, including crime prevention. The CID is apparently labouring under the misconception that its raison d’etre is to protect the interests of the incumbent government and its members.

The police have drawn heavy flak for seeking to muddy the water over Friday’s killings by making some claims that have been construed as attempts to blame underworld rivalry for the double murder and imply that Mallawarachchi had underworld links. They may have sought to use their stock excuse of underworld rivalries in a bid to cover up their failure to neutralise the organised criminal gangs.

Attempts are made in some quarters to turn public opinion against lawyers who defend drug dealers, rapists, homicidal killers and other such criminals. It is a well-established legal principle that every person accused of a criminal offence has the right to be represented by a lawyer. This constitutes one of the core safeguards of a fair trial. The idea is to prevent offenders from being denied a proper opportunity to defend themselves, often through counsel, and condemned. Since the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, they must have a full chance to defend themselves, including through legal counsel. After all, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises the right of an accused to have legal assistance. So, no lawyer should be vilified for representing any offender, even if the latter has perpetrated a heinous crime. There have been instances where lawyers refused to appear for some criminals. Such action violates the aforesaid legal principle.

Some government ministers have claimed that the incidents, such as the killing of Mallawarachchi and his wife, are isolated ones that cannot be considered threats to national security. They are being overly pedantic about the distinction between public security and national security. Obviously, public security and national security are different though the differences between them are often taken for granted. Technically, public security concerns the safety of citizens whereas national security concerns the protection of the state from major strategic threats. However, governments in this country use public security and national security interchangeably when it serves their purpose. According to the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, even public security issues are treated as threats to national security. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was introduced to protect the state and national security, is used to arrest and detain offenders who can be dealt with under ordinary laws.

The government and the police must get their act together instead of splitting hairs and trying to obfuscate the real issue of growing vulnerability of the public vis-à-vis the rise of the underworld.

With criminal gangs becoming more powerful and demonstrating their ability to strike anywhere at will, and with the police failing to prevent crime, what the situation would be if the LTTE were still active militarily is anyone’s guess.

Tuesday 17th February, 2026

The JVP-NPP government is on cloud nine over the results of an opinion poll. Verité Research Mood of the Nation poll indicates that the government’s approval rating rose to 65 percent in early February 2026, compared to 62 percent recorded a year earlier. The disapproval rating remained low and unchanged from February 2025.

Interestingly, the results of the aforesaid poll have been published close on the heels of the Opposition’s claim that according to a recent survey commissioned by the government, the approval rating of the ruling JVP-NPP coalition has plummeted to a mere 25%.

In this country, opinion poll results and astrological predictions heavily influence politicians’ decisions. In 2014, all opinion surveys commissioned by the then UPFA government overestimated President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s popularity, and leading astrologers also predicted an easy win for him in a presidential election. Rajapaksa therefore faced a presidential election prematurely in 2015, only to suffer an ignominious defeat.

All those who flaunt the results of opinion surveys ought to realise that the snapshots of public opinion have complex, inherent limitations. Margins of error only cover sampling uncertainty and don’t fully capture all real-world complexities statistically. There’s always a possibility of inaccuracy in the results of the opinion polls. Pollsters, sociologists and psephologists are aware of the fickle nature of public opinion and practical difficulties in gauging it accurately due to several factors, such as sampling bias and errors, non-response bias, low participation, shifts in opinion after polling, respondent misreporting, interpretation and media influence, etc.

An election is the best way to figure out the approval rating of a government in a credible manner. If the JVP/NPP takes the Verité Research poll results seriously, it should hold the much-delayed Provincial Council (PC) elections fast. True, the PC polls have been caught between two electoral systems. They cannot be held under the Proportional Representation (PR) system because of the new election laws. The Mixed Proportional system, under which the PC elections have to be held, is in abeyance because the delimitation process has not been completed. The Election Commission (EC) has said that the delimitation of electorates will take about one year. The government can easily overcome this legal hurdle by amending the PC Elections Act to enable the EC to hold the PC elections under the PR system.

The Opposition has been urging the government to hold the PC polls expeditiously. So, it will be possible for an amendment to the PC Elections Act to be moved unanimously. In fact, all the political parties currently represented in Parliament, save one or two, are responsible for the indefinite postponement of the PC polls. In 2017, they facilitated the passage of an amendment to the PC Elections Act during the UNP-led Yahapalana government to put off PC elections. They are duty bound to right that wrong.

Meanwhile, the Opposition’s claims about ‘secret surveys’ commissioned by the government and their results that are not favourable to the ruling coalition should be taken with a pinch of salt. Similarly, it needs to be found out whether the outfits that conduct surveys that indicate a huge increase in the popularity of governments have vested interests.

Here is an unsolicited word of caution. Those who take opinion poll results seriously should learn from what befell a New Zealand politician about two decades ago. Believing in a pre-poll survey prediction that he would win an election hands down, Keith Locke of the Green Party became so cocky that he swore at a public rally that he would run naked in public if his opponent won. Locke lost the election, and came under pressure to fulfil his pledge. He made good on his promise, but had himself covered with a body painting and wore a G-string! So, those who uncritically accept opinion poll results and base their decisions thereon would be well advised not to repeat Locke’s mistake or have G-strings ready.