Connect with us

News

Speaker reads MPs the riot act over wasting parliamentary time

Published

on

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne yesterday warned MPs against deliberately wasting parliamentary time by raising irrelevant questions and engaging in disruptive behaviour.

Making a special statement at the commencement of parliamentary sittings, Speaker Wickramaratne reminded all MPs of the proper procedures for raising questions under Standing Order 27(2), stressing the need for strict adherence to established parliamentary protocols.

Citing recent concerns about time mismanagement and procedural violations, the Speaker urged party leaders to ensure that questions submitted under this provision are confined to matters of genuine public importance and follow the prescribed format. He warned that non-compliance could result in procedural action.

Following is the full statement by the Speaker:

In a country where a representative parliamentary system operates, the primary responsibilities of a Member of Parliament, as a representative of the people, include representation, law-making, public finance control, and oversight. Of these, the responsibility of representation is particularly significant, as it enables MPs to draw the attention of Parliament to public concerns and seek resolutions through the executive using various mechanisms. These include questions requiring oral answers, questions not requiring oral answers, questions raised during adjournment debates, and motions raised during such debates. Also significant are questions raised under Standing Order 27(2), where—after giving formal notice to the relevant minister—a question may be asked by the Leader of the Opposition or a leader of a recognised political party on a matter of public importance.

Accordingly, I am prepared to clarify the issues that have arisen from time to time in the House regarding questions raised under Standing Order 27(2), particularly with reference to the situation that occurred in this House on May 9, 2025, and to inform the House of my decision on the matter.

The opportunity granted under Standing Order 27(2) is meant for obtaining answers—via brief prior notice to the relevant ministers—on specific matters of public importance. Therefore, it is essential that the issue be one of clear public significance and suitable for a short response.

Furthermore, such questions must be limited to a single, specific issue and must fall within the jurisdiction of a single minister. In keeping with longstanding tradition, such questions should be submitted to the relevant minister before 12 noon on the preceding day to allow sufficient time for a prompt response.

However, since the beginning of the 10th Parliament, many questions submitted under this provision have deviated from these principles. They have often lacked public importance, included multiple sub-questions, required highly detailed data, extended beyond a single minister’s purview, or been repeatedly submitted in similar formats. Additionally, although the Standing Orders do not permit supplementary questions in this context, MPs frequently present follow-up queries under the guise of seeking clarification. I have observed that even MPs other than the party leader submitting the question attempt to participate, often disrupting proceedings.

I would also like to emphasise that many such issues could be more appropriately raised as oral or written questions, or during adjournment debates or motions.

As a result of the current situation, a significant amount of time is consumed by raising, answering, and following up on questions—leading to delays that prevent completion within the allocated time. This has consistently disrupted the main business of the House and deprived scheduled speakers of their allotted time.

The issue of questions under Standing Order 27(2) was discussed extensively at the Parliamentary Business Committee meeting held on March 21, 2025. Based on the relevant Standing Orders, existing traditions, and rulings by the Speaker, it was agreed by both the government and the Opposition to proceed according to these norms.

Nevertheless, the continued failure to comply with these guidelines has caused numerous time management issues. I therefore emphasise the urgent need for all future questions under Standing Order 27(2) to strictly conform to the prescribed procedures.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I urge all party leaders to ensure that future questions under this provision adhere to the proper format. I also inform the House that I will be compelled to take action in accordance with the Standing Orders regarding any questions submitted outside of these rules.

Accordingly, I direct the attention of all party leaders to these concerns and look forward to your full cooperation in conducting the business of the House without disruption, in line with the Standing Orders.



News

INS Airavat makes port call in Colombo

Published

on

By

The Indian Naval Ship (INS) Airavat arrived at the Port of Colombo for Operational Turnaround on 01 Jun 26. The visiting ship was welcomed by the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) in compliance with time-noured naval traditions.

INS Airavat is a Landing Ship Tank, commanded by Commander IP Patil.

During their stay in the island, the ship’s crew is scheduled to take part in a series of professionally enriching events and camaraderie-building programmes organised by the Sri Lanka Navy.

The Indian naval personnel will also tour several historic and prominent tourist attractions across the country before the ship concludes her deployment.

Continue Reading

News

BASL asks govt. to abandon plan to raise retirement ages of CA and SC judges

Published

on

… tells Prez such arbitrary change neither necessary nor desirable

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon the controversial plan to increase the retirement age of the judiciary, including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In a statement issued by the BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and its Secretary Nalin de Silva, the BASL pointed out that the proposed increase of the retirement age of the judiciary would undermine the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence in the Judiciary, which is essential for the maintenance of the Rule of Law and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.

The text of the BASL statement: “The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as “BASL”) notes with grave concern reports in the public domain that the Government is considering the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution to increase the age of retirement of Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

It is the considered view of the BASL that the age of retirement of the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which has stood at 63 years and 65 years respectively from the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution, should not be changed arbitrarily and that such a change is neither necessary nor desirable.

To do so will result in the loss of public confidence in the integrity of the legal system and of the Government’s commitment to preserve and protect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Members of the public are likely to question the motives of the Government in bringing in a Constitutional amendment solely for this purpose.

Your Excellency is no doubt aware that the cadre of the Judges of the Court of Appeal was increased from 12 to 20 Judges (including the President of the Court of Appeal) and that of the Supreme Court from 11 to 17 Judges (including the Chief Justice) by the 20th Amendment to the constitution certified on 29th of October 2020. With such enhancement, workwise, there cannot be a real requirement to extend the retirement ages of these judges.

Your Excellency is aware that altering the retirement age of judges of the apex courts would have to be done through a Constitutional amendment. For many years Sri Lanka’s Constitution has been subject to ad hoc amendments, sometimes in order to cater to the political needs of the government in power and often contrary to the interests of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the judiciary.

Extending the retirement age of the sitting Judges of these Courts at this point of time is likely to be viewed by the public as a blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary. We believe that to go ahead with such an ad hoc move will also be an affront to the Honourable Judges of those courts.

If the Government goes ahead with such a move it will set a dangerous precedent for future Governments too to introduce ad hoc amendments to the Constitution in respect of the functions of the Judiciary.

The independence of the Judiciary and the public confidence reposed in it, are indispensable pillars of the Rule of Law and the democratic framework of our Republic. In that regard, it is of paramount importance that the Judiciary must not only remain independent in fact, but must also be seen by the public to be wholly independent, impartial, and free from even the slightest perception of influence, favour, accommodation, or impropriety.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka is therefore constrained, in the discharge of its duty to uphold and safeguard the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary, to respectfully express its serious concern regarding any such proposed amendment, which is neither in the interests of the Judiciary and nor of the people.

In the circumstances, the BASL respectfully urges Your Excellency not to proceed with any proposed constitutional amendment seeking to increase the retirement age of the members of the Judiciary including Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

We remain confident that Your Excellency will give due consideration to the importance of preserving and protecting the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence in the Judiciary, which is essential to the maintenance of the Rule of Law and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.”

Govt. declines to respond

A member of the Cabinet yesterday declined to comment on the BASL’s letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The Minister said that he wouldn’t comment for the time being.

Continue Reading

News

New US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka

Published

on

12.5% additional duties on goods imported from Colombo

The US has proposed additional duties of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, including Sri Lanka, over their alleged failure to curb trade in ‌goods made with forced labour.

The proposal made by US Trade Representative’s (USTR) office in terms of Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation to be released, news agencies reported, pointing out that the Trump administration was seeking to rebuild its emergency tariffs, which were struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

The USTR said it determined that it would impose 10% duties related to ⁠the forced labour investigation on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5% on the remaining 45 countries that were investigated.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

According to the trade agency, the USTR found that Sri Lanka has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition.

The USTR noted that the results of its investigation indicate that the acts, policies and practices of Sri Lanka related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition are unreasonable and burden or restrict US commerce.

Accordingly, it has proposed to impose 12.5% additional duties on goods imported from Sri Lanka.

The USTR said it also was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports ‌to ⁠enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, though the duties and volumes were not disclosed.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10% temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down US President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

On Monday, the USTR proposed ⁠a 25% duty on many Brazilian goods as a result of a Section 301 investigation into the country’s digital trade practices and preferential tariffs. The trade agency is also expected to soon unveil the findings of another major Section 301 probe into ⁠the buildup of excess industrial capacity in 16 trading partners, including China.

In the forced labour findings, the USTR said it would exempt from the tariffs a number of products, including energy, rare earths and certain ⁠other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

Continue Reading

Trending