Connect with us

Editorial

National List: convenient for political parties, gravy for those appointed

Published

on

Business tycoon Dhammika Perera’s swearing last week as a National List MP of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) evoked a great deal of interest for a number of self-evident reasons. Among these was that fact that he has publicly claimed to be the country’s biggest taxpayer. This has been seen on youtube by hundreds of thousands of viewers. Whether Perera claimed this in his personal capacity or whether it included the companies he controls – and there are a great many of them both listed and unlisted – has not been clarified. Apart from that claim, it is very well known that he is a major shareholder in a clutch of listed companies including the Hayleys conglomerate, the thriving ceramics sector (Royal Ceramics, Lanka Tiles, Lanka Walltiles etc), his own Vallibel Group together with LB Finance, one of the country’s biggest finance companies. He also owns significant stakes in the banking sector. On top of that are his interests in the gambling industry in which the foundation of his fortune lies.

The SLPP’s decision to nominate Perera to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of ruling clan sibling, Basil Rajapaksa, was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Center for Policy Alternatives and some other petitioners. They included a former Chairman of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Chandra Jayaratne, who has post-retirement been a vigorous public interest activist. As many as five fundamental rights actions challenging Perera’s appointment were filed after his appointment was gazetted by the Elections Commission. Last Monday he undertook before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that he would not take his oaths as a Member of Parliament until the court had reached a determination on the actions before it. The court ruled in Perera’s favour by a divided decision. He is now an MP and likely to take a cabinet seat in a new Ministry of Technology and Investment Promotion created for him. Many subjects, previously covered by the President, have been assigned to this ministry.

Perera has not been sworn a minister at the time this commentary is being written. He has been quoted in the media saying that he expects a “suitable ministry” saying that he headed by Board of Investment during civil war – he was also Secretary Transport under the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency – and that he was confident of providing solutions during the current crisis as well. The NewsWire website quoted him saying “at a time when people are losing jobs, I have entered Parliament to create job opportunities.” Whether an appeal is possible against the determination of the Supreme Court, generally considered as final, is still an open question. It has been speculated whether the petitioners will seek a hearing by a fuller bench in the light of their success in convincing one of three judges may be pursued. For this to be possible, the order made in Perera’s favour must be studied. The word on Friday was that this had not yet been done and requires further examination once the court order, dictated on the bench, is available.

However that be, questions now arise on the value of the 30 MPs appointed to Parliament on the National Lists of the various parties running for election. During the early post-Independence years, then Ceylon had six Appointed MPs to represent “unrepresented interests” in the 101-Member Legislature. Under this arrangement, MPs were appointed from communities like the so-called ‘estate Tamils’ disenfranchised by the first Parliament, Burghers, Malays and even British interests of that time. Older readers may remember that Mrs. Bandaranaike appointed the well known paediatrician, Dr. L.O. Abeyratne to Parliament to represent the country’s children. Previously, Mr. SWRD Bandaranaike appointed Mr. Asoka Karunaratne on a caste basis. All that, of course, is now water under the bridge. Today we have as many as 30 National List MPs and it would be difficult, with the exception of Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, to find anybody who had adorned parliamentary benches in a National List capacity. The existence of these positions have almost exclusively served narrow interests of political parties and their leaders.

The primary ground of the challenge on Dhammika Perera’ s appointment lies in article 99A of the Constitution. This says that the Commissioner of Elections shall by notice requite the secretary of a recognized political party or an independent group that secures National List places at a general election to nominate persons to be appointed (being persons whose names are included in the list submitted to the Commissioner of Elections under this Article or any other nomination paper submitted in respect of any electoral district by such party or group at that election) to fill such seats and shall declare elected as Members of Parliament the persons so nominated. (Emphasis added). Dhammika Perera does not belong to either such category. The Island editorially commented last Thursday (June 23) that there is a serious discrepancy between a section of the Parliamentary Election Act No. 1 of 1981 and some provisions of the Constitution governing National List appointments. These have been permitted to long continue.

Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka entered Parliament on the UNP National List having run for election under the banner of another party. Mr. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, who subsequently served as prime minister, entered Parliament on a UPFA National List slot without his name being on that party’s National or any other nomination paper, filling a vacancy created by a resignation. This was challenged (also by the CPA) but not taken up by the Sarath Silva Supreme Court for three years and was eventually withdrawn. There is no escaping the conclusion that the National List serves as an instrument of convenience for political parties and a source of gravy for those appointed under it. Should it continue?



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Fickle public mood

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Aragalaya funds and Namal’s demand

Published

on

Monday 16th February, 2026

SLPP MP Namal Rajapaksa has called for a special presidential commission to investigate undisclosed funds received by various individuals and organisations linked to Aragalaya. One may recall that Aragalaya ceased to be a genuine, leaderless people’s protest campaign after being hijacked by some political forces with hidden agendas. Now that a sinister move to pressure the then Speaker of Parliament to violate the Constitution at the height of Aragalaya has come to light, one cannot but endorse the demand for an investigation into the so-called money trail.

However, Namal may go on shouting until he is blue in the face, but his call for an investigation into the Aragalaya funds will go unheeded for obvious reasons. The JVP-led NPP owes its meteoric rise to power mostly to Aragalaya, which was born out of a tsunami-like surge of public resentment at the mainstream political parties that had been in power since Independence. Therefore, the JVP-NPP government will not do anything that may help bolster the SLPP’s efforts to portray Aragalaya as a conspiracy against the Rajapaksa rule and the country. The Gampaha High Court judgement in the MP Amarakeerthi Athukorale murder case has already shed light on the seamy side of Aragalaya. Twelve persons have been condemned to death for murdering Athukorale and his security officer during the violent phase of Aragalaya in 2022.

The SLPP managed to retain its hold on power by craftily elevating Ranil Wickremesinghe to the presidency amidst political upheavals in 2022, and therefore it had two years to investigate and find out where the money for Aragalaya had come from and who the beneficiaries of those undisclosed funds were. Why didn’t Namal call for a presidential commission to probe the Aragalaya funds then?

A probe into Aragalaya must not be limited to the money trail. A high-level investigation must be conducted into former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s claim that he came under pressure during Aragalaya to act in violation of the Constitution over the appointment of the Acting President.

Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, who was Senior Advisor (Media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, has disclosed in his book, ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ (‘Power of Aragalaya’), that on 13 July 2022, Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Gopal Baglay visited Abeywardena and asked him to take over as president, but the latter said in no uncertain terms that he would never violate the Constitution. Abeywardena has revealed that soon after Baglay’s departure, a group of Sri Lankans led by Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, arrived at the Speaker’s official residence and asked him to take over the presidency. When he repeated what he had told the Indian envoy, Sobitha Thera sought to intimidate him into doing their bidding. The group consisted of another Buddhist monk, some Catholic priests, and a trade unionist, according to Abeywardena.

According to Prof. Maddumabandara, Baglay told Abeywardena that if the latter took over the presidency, protests could be brought under control within 45 minutes. Prof. Maddumabandara has told this newspaper in a brief interview that only a person who had control over the protesters could give such an assurance. One may recall that it was the JVP that led the protesters who surrounded Parliament in July 2022. Minister K. D. Lal Kantha himself has admitted that the JVP tried to lead the Aragalaya protesters to capture Parliament, but without success.

Why hasn’t Namal called for a probe into Abeywardena’s damning allegation? Will he pledge to order an investigation into the alleged move to plunge the country into anarchy if the SLPP forms a government? He has his work cut out to convince the discerning people that his call for an investigation into the Aragalaya funds, at this juncture, is not aimed at diverting public attention from the ongoing probes against him and his family members.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Big Brother coming?

Published

on

There is already a substantial and growing corpus of analytical work criticising the proposed anti-terror laws, which are no less draconian than the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) they are expected to replace. What the campaigners for democracy and good governance expected of the JVP-led NPP was the abolition of the PTA and not another set of bad laws in its place.

Unsurprisingly, many legal experts have voiced serious concern over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Prominent among them is former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, and Foreign Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris, who presented a well-argued critique of the proposed anti-terror legislation, at a media briefing on Thursday. He and some other senior Opposition politicians called the PSTA a grave danger to democracy. Anyone who has studied the proposed anti-terror laws will have no difficulty in agreeing with him and other critics of the PSTA.

One of the main campaign promises of the JVP-led NPP was to abolish the executive presidency. During their opposition days, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and other JVP/NPP seniors were instrumental in having the powers of the Executive President reduced through the 17th, 19th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution. They also vehemently condemned the PTA, demanding its abolition. Now, an opportunity has presented itself for the JVP/NPP leaders to carry out what they wanted their predecessors to do—abolition of the executive presidency and the PTA. But they are soft-pedalling the dictatorial powers vested in the executive presidency and trying every trick in the book to retain the PTA in the form of the PSTA. If the proposed anti-terror laws are ratified—perish the thought—President Dissanayake will have more dictatorial powers including the one to ban any organisation simply by issuing a gazette notification to that effect. What guarantee is there that the government will not abuse that power to ban political parties the way President J. R. Jayewardene did; he proscribed the JVP in the early 1980s by falsely accusing it of being involved in anti-Tamil violence. The JVP stands accused of working towards the establishment of a one-party system. There is hardly anything an outfit like the JVP will not do to retain its hold on power.

Another serious issue Prof. Peiris has rightly flagged is that the PSTA seeks to empower the Defence Secretary to issue detention orders to have suspects in judicial custody transferred to police custody. Thus, the JVP, whose leader—President Dissanayake—appoints the Defence Secretary and has the police under its thumb, will be in a position to circumvent the judicial process and have anyone detained for a maximum of one year.

Pointing out that the proposed PSTA has categorised 13 offences as acts of terrorism although they can be dealt with under other laws, Prof. Peiris has argued that the PSTA is riddled with ambiguities. This, he has said, blurs the critical distinction between ordinary criminal offences and acts of terrorism, which require “clear and unambiguous definition with no scope for elasticity of interpretation.” Grey areas in any legislation are minefields; they lend themselves to misuse, if not abuse, and therefore must be eliminated in the name of democracy and the people’s rights and liberties.

Another danger in the proposed PSTA is the sweeping powers to be vested in the Defence Secretary, a political appointee, including the one to designate ‘prohibited areas’, Prof. Peiris has revealed. Entering such places will constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment up to three years and a fine of up to Rs. 3 million. One cannot but agree that such provision will have a chilling effect on media personnel as they will be prohibited from photographing, video recording and sketching or drawing them.

The deplorable manner in which the JVP/NPP is trying to safeguard the interests of the incumbent dispensation on the pretext of protecting the state against terror makes one hope and pray that Sri Lanka will not end up being like Oceania in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, with Big Brother watching every citizen menacingly. Pressure must be brought to bear on the government to deep-six its PSTA forthwith.

Continue Reading

Trending