Midweek Review

Does SF’s unexpected move portend confrontation?

Published

3 years ago

2023/08/23

Sarath Fonseka

During a violent protest campaign to oust President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last year, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka threw his weight behind the project. Fonseka was the only parliamentarian allowed to address large crowds as they gathered near the President’s House on the morning of 09 July, 2022. The Field Marshal didn’t mince his words when he urged the military not to crack down on violent public protests, obviously staged by outside forces with financial and other resources, to oust the then government. Overwhelmed by the massive gathering, the Army quietly abandoned the President’s House, paving the way for Ranil Wickremesinghe’s succession, on whose orders the military then swiftly cleared the President’s House, Presidential Secretariat and other government buildings. Now Sarath Fonseka wants to take on the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government. The People’s Revolution is meant to inspire a countrywide protest campaign. But the task seems difficult in the absence of an environment conducive for such a project without the clandestine backing of outside elements.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, MP, recently declared his intention to chart a new political course amidst continuing turmoil in the Opposition. The war-winning Army Chief, 72, on 11 August, launched a campaign of his own, at the expense of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), as further differences emerged in the breakaway UNP faction. How could Gampaha District SJB lawmaker Fonseka, the current Chairman of the party, initiate a protest campaign, dubbed ‘People’s Revolution,’ targeting waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement?

The Sinha Regiment veteran declared that the national economy couldn’t be restored, under any circumstances, unless the utterly corrupt governance system was done away with.

The protest, held outside Viharamahadevi Park, drew a mixed crowd. The deployment of a sizable police contingent, backed by anti-riot squads and water cannons, was meant as a warning sign not to test the government’s will. The writer quite comfortably felt that the protesting group didn’t have the intention of blocking the road, or marching on any government building. Some displayed placards demanding proper implementation of the ‘Aswesuma’ social security scheme, leave EPF and ETF out of the debt-restructuring process, and media freedom.

The former Yahapalana minister Fonseka seemed alone in that crowd in the absence of any other known face. The SJB Chairman appeared to have lost faith in his own party, struggling to counter President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Regardless of his own party being reduced to just one National List slot (Wajira Abeywardena) at the last parliamentary election, Wickremesinghe has managed to consolidate his position in Parliament.

MP Fonseka’s move should be examined taking into consideration the presidential election due next year. Would parliamentarian Fonseka consider himself as a candidate at the next presidential election? Having served as Regional Development, as well as Minister of Wildlife and Sustainable Development, during the Yahapalana administration (January 2015-November 2019), is he really interested in another go at the presidency. Or will it be used as a bargaining chip to join the increasingly confident possible UNP-SLPP future government. Remember the old adage there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics. Garadihewa, as his name denotes, is from a true warrior stock, and, with a sixth sense in battle, he no doubt proved his mettle by leading the fight to defeat the world’s most ruthless terror outfit against the advice of all pundits, and carried out the war even after the Tigers nearly killed him in his own den with a suicide bomber, who inflicted life threatening injuries on him.

In our humble opinion, may be Fonseka should have quit when he was far ahead with an almost unblemished record as a General. Now this once true lion, having jumped headlong into the political cesspit, is no longer fighting brave tigers, but many more two legged hyenas, jackals and whatnot.

Similarly, see what has happened to our erstwhile cunning comrades in the JVP, FSP and their trade union cabal. Remember they were ready to lay down their lives for the country, but are now more like kittens as if on cue from Uncle Sam, despite New Delhi and Washington clearly running roughshod over us. Even Comrade Kumar Gunaratnam seems to be enjoying the best of both worlds in Australia and Sri Lanka. We should not also forget the NGO quislings, who clearly know on which side their bread is buttered.

The protest at Viharamahadevi Park gravely underscored the war veteran’s dissatisfaction at the way the SJB is addressing the burning issues. The brief but fiery speech delivered there meant that he didn’t have faith in the top management of the party. It would be pertinent to mention that in the run-up to the last presidential election, in 2019, Fonseka, on numerous occasions, declared that he was prepared to contest that election if Ranil Wickremesinghe was not in the race. Then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, too, indicated his desire and was chosen by a group of academics as the best challenger to SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa. But MP Fonseka’s overtures were ignored. Maybe Fonseka felt he could contest the presidential poll.

Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka contested the January 2010 presidential election as the common candidate. Having spearheaded the Army-led all-out offensive to defeat Tiger terrorism, during a three-year-long campaign, backed by the Navy and Air Force, Fonseka declared his intention to contest the first national level election, after Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE, in May 2009. Fonseka had the backing of a US-led coalition that consisted of the UNP, TNA, JVP and the SLMC. There hadn’t been a previous instance of the UNP and JVP forming a political alliance. In their haste to bring the Rajapaksa presidency to an end, they quite conveniently forgot that their partner, the TNA, served the separatist LTTE agenda until the very end. They disregarded how the TNA recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people in 2001 and set the stage for the final showdown, eight years later.

But, Sri Lanka’s greatest ever Army Commander couldn’t deprive Mahinda Rajapaksa of a second consecutive term. Rajapaksa polled 1.8 mn votes more than Fonseka, though the latter comfortably secured all the predominantly Tamil speaking districts, including Digamadulla, thanks to the TNA’s support. The SLMC also played a crucial role in the East on his behalf.

The then General Fonseka’s performance in the Northern and Eastern electoral districts proved beyond any doubt that unsubstantiated war crimes accusations, propagated by interested parties, didn’t hold water.

SJB’s woes

MP Fonseka seems to have distanced himself from the SJB, struggling to cope up with defections and its failure to reach consensus on a common strategy. The elevation of Ranil Wickremesinghe as the President, in July last year, to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, has undermined not only the SJB but the SLPP that elected him.

Wickremesinghe lured SJB MPs Manusha Nanayakkara (Galle district) and Harin Fernando (National List) to accept Cabinet portfolios in May 2022. They switched sides immediately after Wickremesinghe accepted the premiership from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. In spite of their treachery, the government couldn’t entice other members of the SJB parliamentary group. Nanayakkara and Fernando, having repeatedly accused Gotabaya Rajapaksa of being the direct beneficiary of the April 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, joined his government without qualms. In the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa being forced to flee the country, due to a well-organized violent campaign to oust him, with massive protests, while law enforcers merely stood by idly, in July 2020, Nanayakkara and Fernando joined Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet.

MP Fonseka has declared his intention to contemplate a different path in the wake of two more elected on the SJB ticket, namely Kumara Welgama (Kalutara district) and Patali Champila Ranawaka (Colombo district) seeking to chart their own courses. Welgama and Ranawaka launched the Nawa Lanka Nidahas Pakshaya and the United Republican Front in 2020 and May this year, respectively.

The SJB won 54 seats, including seven National List slots, at the parliamentary election. Even before the SJB settled down, as the main Opposition party, one of its NL members, first time entrant to Parliament, Diana Gamage, switched her allegiance to the SLPP. Diana Gamage didn’t even bother to hide her contempt for the top SJB leadership when she declared her support to the controversial 20th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in late October 2020. She simply dismissed the SJB’s decision to vote against that Amendment, meant to further strengthen the executive, as irrelevant. Further deterioration of the SJB parliamentary group can be disastrous as Wickremesinghe steps up pressure on the breakaway faction, ahead of the presidential election.

Fonseka switched allegiance to Sajith Premadasa immediately after the UNP split that followed SP’s heavy defeat at the presidential election. Fonseka contested the last general election on the SJB ticket, amidst simmering controversy over the circumstances under which the then Election Commission allowed the Ape Jathika Peramuna to be named as Samagi Jana Balawegaya in 2020. Diana Gamage’s husband, Senaka de Silva formerly of the Army, had been a one-time influential member of General Fonseka’s staff when he contested the 2010 presidential poll. The cashiered junior Army officer had been the leader of Ape Jathika Peramuna at the time the breakaway UNP faction, under Sajith Premadasa’s leadership, negotiated for the taking over of that party. In the wake of MP Diana Gamage voting for the 20th Amendment, a major issue erupted after the SJB demanded an explanation from her as to why she voted for Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s amendment, regardless of the party decision to move against it. Diana Gamage threatened to take back the party. The bone of contention is whether Diana Gamage could have taken things for granted just because her husband gave up his party for the benefit of Sajith Premadasa’s group.

SP declares his prez candidature

In May this year, the SJB hurriedly named its leader, Sajith Premadasa, as its presidential candidate. The party announced the decision on May 16, following a meeting of its decision-making Working Committee. The announcement was made in the wake of speculation that President Wickremesinghe contemplated introducing a simple amendment to pave the way for presidential election. Declaring that there was no one they could have faith in, except party leader Sajith Premadasa, former UNP MP Sujeewa Senasinghe proposed their leader as the presidential candidate. One-time State Minister and SJB Gampaha District MP Harshana Rajakaruna made a joint proposal in this regard that received the unanimous approval of the Working Committee. A one-page statement, issued by the SJB soon after the meeting, said that MPs S.M. Marikkar and Chamindra Wijesiri, Rehan Jaywickrema and President’s Counsel Upul Jayasuriya and several others appreciated the Working Committee decision.

Did the SJB at least unofficially consult other political parties, which contested under its symbol at the last parliamentary poll, before the announcement on the 2024 presidential candidate was made? The SJB cannot afford to ignore efforts made by the SLMC and the Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) to pave the way for a consensus between the SJB and President Wickremesinghe. The SLMC and three political parties, represented in the TPA, contested the last general election on the SJB ticket, therefore the main Opposition party should be mindful of the interests of its constituents. Its failure to address the concerns of partners, as well as individual members, can be quite catastrophic ahead of the next presidential election.

President Wickremesinghe stands to gain by the SJB’s shoddy approach to the next presidential election, followed by parliamentary polls. Undeterred by being reduced to just one seat in the 225-member Parliament, the UNP leader seemed quite convinced of his chances at the next presidential election with the backing of a section of the SLPP parliamentary group. A debilitating SLPP split is now almost certain with Power and Energy Minister Kanchana Wijesekera openly declaring his support for the UNP leader. The Matara district parliamentarian is on record as having said that the majority of the SLPP parliamentary group supported President Wickremesinghe’s candidature. Lawmaker Wijesekera has repeatedly declared that though the UNP and the SLPP currently carried out meetings separately, a tie-up between the SLPP and President Wickremesinghe is inevitable.

If Wijesekera is proved right, the main contenders at the next presidential election would be UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and the former UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa. If that happened, the electors would face the challenging task of choosing one as essentially the two leaders’ economic strategies won’t clash. Would Wickremesinghe’s current policies be acceptable to the SLPP? Perhaps the UNP leader is not looking at a formal agreement with the SLPP but a consensus with a sizable breakaway group ready for its chances with the UNP leader. Whatever the bombastic declarations made by Wickremesinghe’s depleted group, the UNP hadn’t been able to engineer crossovers from the SJB as intended. Over a year after receiving the presidency, Wickremesinghe hadn’t been able to win over a single SJB MP. Manusha Nanayakkara and Harin Fernando switched allegiance to the government at a time Gotabaya Rajapaksa served as the President. Facts are stubborn. In fact, the President totally depends on the SLPP for his survival in Parliament. Their relations are in deepening crisis due to the inordinate delay on the part of the President to accommodate SLPP nominees in his Cabinet. That particular SLPP request has been on the backburner for over 11 months. That is the truth.

With the JVP-led Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) certain to field a candidate of its own, the rebel SLPP group (Prof. G.L. Peiris-DA [Dallas Alahapperuma] led 12-member group) plus Uttara Lanka Sabhagaya, too, would be compelled to contest, thereby causing further setback to the Opposition effort. The decision-makers will have to examine two key issues: (1) can there be an understanding among the GL Peiris-DA led group and Uttara Lanka Sabhagaya? And (2) is there a likelihood of an alliance involving the SJB, SLPP rebels, including Uththara Lanka Sabhagaya?

Tough times

Having lost badly to Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2010 presidential election, Fonseka sought to contest the general election on the UNP ticket on his terms. Wickremesinghe however swiftly rejected Fonseka’s move. That prompted Fonseka to contest the election, under the JVP-led Democratic National Alliance (DNA) ticket. It was nothing but an odd marriage of convenience. The DNA managed to secure seven seats. The DNA parliamentary group consisted of Sarath Fonseka, Arjuna Ranatunga (no longer in active politics), Tiran Alles (National List/the incumbent Public Security Minister) and four JVPers, including incumbent leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The subsequent arrest of Fonseka and denial of his parliamentary seat under questionable circumstances prompted the war hero to form the Democratic Party aka DP. That party suffered a catastrophic setback in its debut at the 2015 general election with its leader Sarath Fonseka failing to get elected from Colombo. The DP couldn’t poll 30,000 votes countrywide. Fonseka’s party couldn’t at least secure a National List seat and was relegated to history. However, Yahapalana Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe rescued the former Army Chief by accommodating him on his National List. Fonseka was brought into Parliament on the UNP National List, in early 2016, and accommodated in the Cabinet of Ministers, though Wickremesinghe simply ignored calls to appoint him the Law and Order Minister.

Could Fonseka have averted the 2019 Easter Sunday attack if he was tasked with the Law and Order Ministry? At the time of the Easter Sunday suicide attacks, Ranjith Madduma Bandara served as the Law and Order Minister. Fonseka suffered due to his running disputes with the then President Maithripala Sirisena who strongly opposed giving that particular portfolio to the wartime Army Chief under any circumstances. They failed to iron out differences though Sarath Fonseka was granted the Field Marshal’s rank during Sirisena’s tenure as the President. Sirisena owed a public apology for his failure to award the same to Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda and Air Marshal Roshan Goonatilleke.

The 2019 presidential poll campaign saw UNP candidate Sajith Premadasa declaring Fonseka as the Defence Minister, if he ended up victorious.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka Mp Sarath Fonseka

Up Next

Inner Man in Cold Storage

Don't Miss

Eastern and Western education

Click to comment

Midweek Review

NPP drowning in sea of scams

Published

7 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

7 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