Monday 17th November, 2025

Politics and conflicts are as inseparable as conjoined twins. However, conflicts are not inherently negative or harmful. They, if handled properly, promote creativity and innovation, with disagreements driving people to reconsider assumptions and propose fresh ideas and make better decisions collectively, as in advanced democracies. If mismanaged, they could lead to bitter acrimony and clashes, paving the way for binary approaches to contentious issues, thereby making it well-nigh impossible to adopt consensual solutions, as Sri Lanka’s experience since Independence has shown.

The ongoing budget debate, which is now at the committee stage, has descended into verbal battles, if not slanging matches, between the government and the Opposition. The NPP/JVP is apparently labouring under the misconception that Budget 2026 is flawless, and therefore needs no revision. The Opposition would have the public believe that the budget is not worth the paper it is written on, and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake wasted four and a half hours of parliamentary time by presenting it. The two sides hardly see eye to eye on anything in the budget. They are clashing, apparently unconcerned about the prospect of a recurrence of the economic crisis, which only a truly national effort can resolve once and for all.

On Saturday, SJB MP Dayasiri Jayasekera and some government MPs clashed in Parliament over an increase in budgetary allocations for the President. Jayasekera said funds allocated under President Dissanayake’s expenditure head had risen to as much as Rs. 12 billion, and it was the highest ever budgetary allocation for a President. That amount included allocations for ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ programme as well, the government MPs said. Jayasekera claimed President Dissanayake’s security convoy consisted of more than 20 vehicles, and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya’s security personnel also used an equal number of vehicles, although the NPP had criticised the previous Presidents for such costly security arrangements. Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala denied Jayasekera’s claim.

The real issue is not the amount of funds allocated for the President or the size of the President’s security contingent or the number of the President’s foreign trips. Instead, it is why the NPP has chosen to remain silent on its solemn pledge to abolish the executive presidency. The NPP manifesto, “A thriving nation: A beautiful life” promises to abolish the executive presidency and restore the Westminster system.

The JVP campaigned really hard against the executive presidency while in opposition. In the late 1980s, it even plunged the country into a bloodbath and destroyed public assets worth billions of rupees in a bid to have the executive presidency done away with, among other things. Thereafter, it made the abolition of the executive presidency a condition for coalescing with the SLFP and joining the UPFA government in 2004. It backed Mahinda Rajapaksa in the 2005 presidential race on the strict condition that he would introduce a new Constitution, doing away with the executive presidency. Rajapaksa reneged on that promise, and the JVP thereafter backed Maithripala Sirisena, who pledged to restore the parliamentary system, and helped him become the President. His promise also went unfulfilled. Now that the JVP has been ensconced in power for one year with a two-thirds majority in Parliament, it can take action to fulfil its pledge to scrap the executive presidency. But it pretends that it never made such a promise!

November is the month when the JVP commemorates its leaders and cadres, killed during its second abortive uprising (1987-1990). JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera, other party stalwarts and rank and file died in an armed struggle against Indian expansionism, the 13th Amendment, the Provincial Council (PC) system, the executive presidency, the open economy, etc. But three and a half decades later, the JVP is pandering to the whims and fancies of India and has embraced neoliberal economic policies, which it once condemned vehemently. It has also undertaken to hold the delayed PC polls. The slain JVP members would spin in their graves if they knew of the present-day party leaders’ volte face on the goals for which they met violent deaths at the hands of counterterrorism operatives.

Some SJB MPs have faulted President Dissanayake for having evaded the NPP’s promise to introduce a new Constitution, in his budget speech. Similarly, the Opposition has not remained intensely focused on this vital issue, which has got buried in political rhetoric.

Budget 2026 is under intense scrutiny. It is being viewed through various lenses, and opinion is divided thereon, as is the case with all budgets in this country, where political battles pass for economic debates. A section of the business community has praised the NPP government’s budget, and its positive response will surely go a long way towards building investor confidence. However, not all economic analysts are well-disposed towards the budget. They have taken exception to some expenditure and revenue proposals. Issues that are usually raised about budgets are political and economic, but this time around, there is a legal one.

The government’s decision to grant plantation workers an attendance incentive of Rs. 200 each a day from state funds has stirred a controversy. It has gone down well with the estate workers, who are crying out for relief. In fact, nobody is opposing a wage hike for the plantation workers, whose lot must be improved. However, it is being argued in some quarters that there is no legal provision for allocating state funds for that purpose, and the budget proposal at issue, if implemented, could lead to a transgression. Some SJB MPs are among the proponents of this view. Their argument is not without some merit, which the Finance Ministry should take cognisance of.

The knee-jerk reaction of the government to the criticism of its wage proposal has been to lash out at the Opposition, claiming that it is trying to scuttle the proposed incentive scheme. Government politicians and their propagandists should have countered the argument in question instead of taking on the proponents of it. They have thus given a political twist to an otherwise legal issue that needs to be discussed in Parliament extensively. Binary thinking hinders practical progress in a debate on any vital issue, and all views should be taken into consideration for a viable solution to be adopted.

Opposition and SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa has made a statement on the proposed wage hike for estate workers. Agreeing that all estate workers deserve the wage hike the government has proposed, he has said that ideally the plantation companies should bear the cost thereof fully. He has suggested that some of the uncultivated land in the plantation areas be distributed among estate workers so that they, too, could become tea smallholders.

Currently, 60–70% of plantation land is owned by the state and private companies, yet they contribute only about 30% to the national tea production. In contrast, small-scale tea estate owners, who hold about 30% of the land, contribute 60–70% of the country’s total tea output, Premadasa has pointed, claiming that transferring uncultivated land to unemployed youth and plantation workers will stand them in good stead and give a fillip to the country’s economic development. Most estate sector youth opt for what is known as livelihood diversification and migrate to cities seeking non-farm work. This is bound to aggravate the labour shortage in the plantation sector.

Previous governments were accused of paying lip service to the plantation workers’ cause, but the incumbent administration has plucked up the courage to grasp the nettle. However, there is a complaint that the views of the plantation companies on wage revisions and their impact have not been heeded.

There have been some studies on the issue of plantation sector wages, but they are far from thorough, and the remedies so far adopted have been piecemeal. There is a need for a comprehensive study on the issue and a discussion on its findings with the participation of all stakeholders, especially the government, representatives of the plantation companies, and trade unions and other organisations representing plantation workers’ interests. Such a realistic assessment of the situation will help find a sustainable solution to the plantation workers’ wages and ensure the wellbeing of the estate sector, which is experiencing various difficulties and challenges.

Saturday 15th November, 2025

Sri Lankan lawmakers, more often than not, are in the news for the wrong reasons. Most of them do not seem to take their legislative duties and functions seriously if their flippant attitude as well as misconduct is any indication. Their theatrics and facetious remarks that pass for witticism make their parliamentary speeches assume the characteristics of low comedies. Worse, debates are replete with unparliamentary language, which has apparently become the norm.

No wonder the Speaker often sees red and issues warnings to the unruly MPs, albeit in vain. The errant MPs do not care to mend their ways. Sadly, they receive more media attention than the few others who conduct themselves properly and speak sense during parliamentary debates. The blame for this sorry state of affairs should be apportioned to the media. Perhaps, social media is more to blame, for the MPs who behave like overgrown schoolboys, do it for the algorithm. Their rage-baiting tactics seem to work.

The Speaker’s job may be as stressful as that of a traffic policeman on a chaotic road in Colombo. Hardly a parliamentary sitting passes without the Chair having to censure a few dozen MPs for unparliamentary conduct. Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne yesterday warned the MPs against the use of billingsgate in the House for the umpteenth time, according to our front-page lead news item today. His consternation is understandable.

Efforts of successive Speakers to enforce discipline have been in vain. Theirs has been a Sisyphean task. Strangely, the leaders of the political parties, represented in Parliament, remain unconcerned although it is their duty to ensure that their members maintain parliamentary decorum.

One of the main reasons why the people voted for the NPP overwhelmingly in the last parliamentary election, giving it a supermajority, is its pledge to cleanse Parliament. The NPP embarked on what it called a Parliament clean-up campaign and craftily tapped into people’s resentment at the legislature. But there has been no radical departure from the rotten political culture the people have rejected. Parliamentary debates descend into slanging matches, with the MPs trading insults liberally. Questions from the Opposition often go unanswered. Vital agreements the government enters into with other countries are not presented to Parliament. The rights of the Opposition are not respected. Yesterday, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa said he had been denied an opportunity to clarify his party’s position on the government proposal to grant an attendance incentive to estate workers with state funds.

What both the government and the Opposition must bear in mind is that the people’s patience is wearing thin, and anti-politics is on the rise. They must work together to restore public trust in Parliament. People do not reason when they are driven by a deep distrust towards the formal political institutions, political parties and office-holders, as was seen in this country about three years ago. In Madagascar, a popular uprising led to the collapse of not only an unpopular government but also a fragile civilian rule, two months ago. That East African nation now has a military junta to contend with.