Tuesday 18th November, 2025

The NPP government is busy building walls of secrecy. It has already erected quite a few of them around vital pacts and MoUs it entered into with some foreign powers. This is in sharp contrast to what President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and other JVP seniors asked the previous governments to do while they were Opposition MPs. They demanded that such agreements and MoUs be made public immediately.

The Opposition has called upon the government to disclose the contents of a defence MoU it has entered into with the US recently. After all, the NPP came to power, promising to practise good governance, which means a government or any other institution exercising its authority responsibly, transparently and effectively to serve the public interest while respecting accountability, the rule of law, participation, responsiveness, and fairness. The government has made a mockery of its commitment to upholding good governance by refusing to reveal the contents of all MoUs and agreements it has signed with India, the US, China, Japan, etc. Previous governments presented all pacts they inked with their foreign counterparts to Parliament.

Secrecy is antithetical to accountability. The NPP government never misses an opportunity to make a show of its mandate, and therefore it ought to respect the people’s right to know what it has committed the country to, through MoUs or agreements with foreign powers vying for global dominance.

India facilitated the NPP’s ascent to power by inviting Dissanayake and some other JVP leaders to New Delhi as state guests and conferring international legitimacy on them in the process, before last year’s elections. There is said to be no such thing as a free lunch. The US also did likewise, with its ambassador frequently visiting the JVP headquarters. The JVP leaders have indicated a desire to emulate China’s one-party model following a tour of Beijing. JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva has been quoted by the media as saying, after returning from China, that the Chinse Communist party told him that a government had to remain in power for at least 15 to 20 years to implement meaningful reforms in Sri Lanka.

Foreign powers love to have neophytes in power in strategically located countries, for such leaders are easy to manipulate. The US and its NATO allies have made a cat’s paw of the Ukrainian government led by Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian-turned-politician, to further their geo-strategic interests. What enabled Zelensky’s meteoric rise to power was a massive wave of anti-politics, fuelled by an effective propaganda campaign conducted through Western-owned social media platforms.

No government can remain in power forever, and its leaders have to face the consequences of their actions one day, as the experiences of the political leader both here and abroad have shown. The present-day leaders would do well to be mindful of this fact and act accordingly. JVP stalwart and Kaduwela Mayor Ranjan Jayalal is heard telling a CEB trade unionist, in a leaked audio clip, that the government is not afraid of killing and will not let go of power. The former also asks the latter to examine the JVP’s history carefully. It is hoped that the fate that has befallen ousted Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina will serve as a lesson to the Sri Lankan politicians who think they can hold on to power no matter how. A special tribunal has sentenced Hasina to death for crimes against humanity.

Politicians take leave of their senses when power goes to their heads; they cherish the delusion that they are above the law and can act according to their whims and fancies with impunity. Let them be warned that not only the walls of secrecy around pacts or MoUs but also the well-fortified defences around the residences of rulers can collapse like the Walls of Jericho when irate people take to the streets.

It is imperative that the government present all the MoUs and agreements, signed between Sri Lanka and other countries under its watch, to Parliament without further delay.

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.