Connect with us


Prez undermining EC ahead of elections: SLPP rebel group



Prof. G.L.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The rebel SLPP group yesterday (04) accused President Ranil Wickremesinghe of trying to bring the legislature under his control ahead of presidential and parliamentary polls scheduled for 2024 and 2025.

Addressing the weekly media briefing at Nawala, top Opposition spokesperson and former External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris alleged that Wickremesinghe’s recent threat to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to ascertain the status of the Constitutional Council (CC) was in line with his strategy to keep the legislature under his thumb.

Prof. Peiris said the executive posed a threat to the legislature as well as the judiciary against the backdrop of the moves to introduce a new Act to govern Parliament, undermine CC and clip the wings of Cabinet ministers. He cited the recent sacking of Sports Minister Roshan Ranasinghe (SLPP Polonnaruwa District) as a case in point.

Referring to the proposed parliamentary Act, the former minister pointed out that the President with just one UNP National List MP in the current Parliament, was bent on bringing the whole administrative structure, at every level, under his direct control. Prof. Peiris asserted that the President seemed determined to push ahead with his contentious strategy, regardless of consequences.

The former top law academic said that the way President Wickremesinghe responded to the CC’s refusal to endorse multiple extensions to former IGP C.D. Wickremeratne revealed the UNP leader had absolutely no regard for the 21st Amendment enacted on Oct 21, 2022 with an overwhelming 2/3 majority. The academic acknowledged that the President was pursuing an agenda inimical to parliamentary democracy in spite of clear opposition to such undemocratic behaviour both in and outside Parliament.

The ex-Minister alleged that President Wickremesinghe conveniently failed to fill a longtime existing vacancy in the vital Election Commission (EC). Recalling how the President moved against the previous EC after having failed to force the independent commission to put off Local Government polls on its own, Prof. Peiris expressed fears the delay seemed to be deliberate. The one time internationally recognized law academic accused President Wickremesinghe of planning to sabotage the EC in the run-up to the presidential polls late next year.

“We are quite concerned about Wickremesinghe’s motive in continuing with one vacancy in the five-member EC,” Prof. Peiris said, pointing out that P.S.M. Charles, one-time member of EC, received appointment as Governor of the Northern Province on May 17, 2023. Prof. Peiris said that President Wickremesinghe posed quite a threat to the parliamentary system.

Responding to The Island queries, Prof. Peiris emphasized that the SLPP should be held accountable for the developing crisis. Having invited Wickremesinghe to accept premiership on May 12, 2022 at the height of the public protest campaign, the SLPP accommodated the UNP leader as Finance Minister on May 25, 2022 before electing him the President in late July, of the same year, Prof. Peiris said.

The former law professor added that the President operated on the premise that regardless of the SLPP’s stand, the majority of members, including the entire Cabinet, would abide by his stand on any contentious issue. This was proved when President Wickrememesinghe sacked Sports Minister Ranasinghe who had the guts to stand up to Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC).

The former minister urged the genuine Opposition to sink whatever differences to meet the President’s challenge. The President has repeatedly shown that he didn’t care about the Constitution and intended to consolidate his position in preparation for the next presidential poll.

Prof. Peiris warned that Wickremesinghe would go all out against the media, both print and electronic, as he stepped up pressure on the Opposition.


SC: Anti-Terrorism Bill needs approval at referendum and 2/3 majority to become law



Certain sections inconsistent with Constitution

By Saman Indrajith

Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa informed Parliament yesterday that the Supreme Court (SC) has determined that some sections of the Anti-Terrorism Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution and, therefore, the Bill had to be passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum.

Rajapaksa said that the Supreme Court had determined that the Sections 3, 4, 40, 53, 70, 72 (1), 72 (2), 75 (3) and 83 (7) of the draft Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.

The SC has determined that sections 3, 40, 53, 70, 72 (1), 75 (3) should be passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum if they are to become law.

Sections 4 and 72 (2) of the Bill have to be amended as per the SC determination.

Section 83 (7) requires passage by a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

However, the SC had stated that it could be passed by a simple majority if the recommended amendments are accommodated, Rajapaksa said.

Opposition MPs say the Anti-Terrorism Bill is being introduced in an election year to repress Opposition parties.They said the proposed law is a threat to democracy itself.

“This Bill is being presented not at a time of terrorism prevailing in the country but during an election period. The Bill has not defined nor analysed what a terrorist is. Anyone can be arrested,” SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara said.

The MP said both the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the controversial Online Safety law were meant to quell democracy.

Continue Reading


Harin’s claim that SL is part of India: Govt. says it is his personal opinion



Manusha accuses Wimal of having taken parts of Fernando’s speech out of context

By Saman Indrajith

Labour and Foreign Employment Minister Manusha Nanayakkara told NFF leader Wimal Weerawansa in Parliament to refrain from taking chunks of others’ speeches out of context and misinterpreting them for political mileage.

The Minister said so following concerns raised by Weerawansa over a recent statement by Tourism Minister Harin Fernando on India-Sri Lanka relationships.

Weerawansa said that Minister Fernando had recently stated that Sri Lanka was a part of India. “Was it Minister Fernando’s personal opinion or the government’s official standpoint? Was it the opinion of the Cabinet?”

Chief Government Whip Minister Prasanna Ranatunga said what Minister Fernando had stated was the latter’s personal opinion.

Minister Nanayakkara: “If anyone has read the entire statement made by Minister Fernando this type of question would not have arisen. The Tourism Minister was referring to historical relationships between India and Sri Lanka to ask Indians to visit Sri Lanka.

A distorted version of the speech by Minister Fernando is being circulated on social media. Certain parts have been removed while some words have been introduced to this edited version. Ones should read the statement in its entirety to understand it. We have not discussed this in the Cabinet meeting” Minister Nanayakkara said.

Continue Reading


US backs Lankan journalists vis-a-vis Online Safety law



Kumar Nadesan, Chairman Board of Directors of the Sri Lanka Press Institute (left) Elizabeth Allen ( Centre) and US Ambassador Chung (pic courtesy US embassy)

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Elizabeth Allen on Monday (19) declared US support for journalists here against the backdrop of enactment of ‘Online Safety Bill’

She spokes about press freedom and related issues at the Sri Lanka Press Institute Press Club.

A statement issued by the US Embassy quoted Allen as having said the U.S. Embassy is all in on supporting your incredible work. Sure, we might bump heads over a story now and then, but above all, we’re your biggest fans. We’re all in on programmes that hone your skills because we believe in your right to pursue journalism freely and fearlessly.

I want to thank you for protecting the rights and freedoms of journalists here in Sri Lanka and around the world, ensuring all citizens enjoy the right to express their ideas and opinions openly and freely. Even in difficult times, you continue to press forward and ask difficult questions. Your commitment to seeking out the truth and shouting it from the rooftops remains a democratic staple, and I truly appreciate what you do.

It’s only fitting that I begin my remarks this afternoon by telling a story that I think is relevant in light of today’s topic about the media’s role in a democracy.

Over a century ago, American media coined the term “muckraker” for journalists who delved into societal issues, exposing corruption.

Although the term carried a somewhat negative connotation, labeling these journalists as mere “gossip mongers,” today, we honor them as the pioneers of investigative journalism.

These muckrakers played a pivotal role in ushering in the Progressive Era, a time of significant social and political reform in American history.

Even President Theodore Roosevelt referred to them as “muckrakers,” criticizing their focus on society’s flaws through figures like Lincoln Steffens, whose work shed light on corruption and spurred a nationwide call for accountability and reform.

Steffens’ book ‘The Shame of the Cities,’ published in 1904, made him renowned for uncovering corruption within American cities, highlighting the nefarious links between political leaders, businesses, and organized crime.

His fearless journalism raised critical awareness about the urgent need for governmental and corporate accountability. Steffens wasn’t acting as a public relations officer for the government; his role was to uncover the truth; however unpleasant it might be.

Faced with the stark realities Steffens presented, American officials and the public were compelled to confront a pivotal question: ‘Is this the kind of country we aspire to be?’ The resounding answer was no.

Steffens’ work didn’t just expose wrongdoing; it sparked a nationwide demand for reform and played a crucial role in fostering a dialogue about the essential role of investigative journalism in ensuring power remains accountable.

This story showcases how freedom of the press and freedom of expression are not just fundamental human rights, they are also vital contributors to a country’s development and growth.

This brings me to my main point: how the global media space supports democracy and fosters peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.

In my mind, the correlation is obvious: When a government constricts the rights and freedoms of its citizens, the future and the development of the country will naturally suffer.

Globally, we’re witnessing serious and escalating challenges to media freedom. The United States stands firmly for the freedom of expression, advocating for press freedom both online and offline, and ensuring the safety of journalists and media workers worldwide. Unfortunately, these essential freedoms are under threat globally, including concerns raised here in Sri Lanka.

When governments intensify efforts to withhold information from the public by restricting internet access and censoring content, we must speak up. Notably, when Sri Lanka’s Parliament passed the Online Safety Bill in January, the United States voiced concerns over its potential effects on freedom of expression, innovation, and privacy.

It’s common to hear arguments against unfettered freedom of expression. Critics claim the media is biased, aiming to embarrass governments and undermine public trust. Others worry that without checks, freedom of expression may fuel the spread of misinformation. Some argue that an unchecked press can incite tension and compromise security. And there’s concern that continuous reports on corruption, violence, and political strife can tarnish a nation’s image, deterring investment and hampering development.

However, the media’s bias should lean towards the public’s interest, acting as a guardian to ensure that leaders fulfill their duties. This principle holds in Sri Lanka, the United States, and globally.

The challenge of negative press, often labeled as “fake news” or “biased journalism,” is not new. For generations, governments and the media have navigated a complex, sometimes adversarial relationship. This dynamic isn’t unique to any one nation; in the United States, for instance, presidents from both major political parties have experienced their share of friction with the press. This tension, a hallmark of democratic societies, plays a crucial role in fostering transparency and encouraging effective governance. It’s a familiar scene: politicians and journalists engage in heated exchanges, especially when leaders feel their actions are misrepresented, leading to accusations of inaccuracies and biased reporting.

The press’s duty is to deliver facts as they stand, shedding light on the government’s achievements as well as spotlighting areas where policies or programs fall short. This transparency not only informs the public but also strengthens the nation as it encourages constructive action and improvement.

And suppressing voices only complicates matters further. Attempting to conceal issues rather than addressing them is akin to hiding a broken tool rather than fixing it. True progress comes from collaborative dialogue, even if it means embracing the messiness of public discourse.”

Continue Reading