- NPP’s political embarrassment on NCM
The Speaker of Parliament is traditionally regarded as the guardian of the dignity, impartiality and integrity of the Legislature. They are expected to stand above party politics, protect the rights of both Government and Opposition Members and ensure that Parliamentary rules apply equally to everyone. Hence, it becomes a major embarrassment at the august House when the Speaker DrIdampitiyegedara Wanigasuriya MudiyanselageJagath Wickramaratne faces a no-confidence motion (NCM) containing 50 allegations of misconduct.
When the custodian of Parliament’s dignity becomes the subject of allegations of misconduct, the Institution itself is put on trial. The Government’s handling of the controversy raises uncomfortable questions about accountability, transparency and political double standards.
In the past too, there were instances of Speakers facing allegations but they were allowed to be debated despite repulsive unruly scenes and behaviours. Speaker Mohamed HaniffaMohamed was accused of a Rs nine million illicit deal to cover up the impeachment motion against President Ranasinghe Premadasa in which Mohamed was allegedly one of the signatories. Mohamed was accused by the Opposition as ‘Judas’.
The amiable Speaker Karu Jayasuriya also faced unruly scenes of throwing chairs and chilliepowder in the House. Dr Wickramaratne is facing allegations ranging from the alleged misuse of official accommodation and public resources to questions concerning missing household linen, vehicles, fuel allowances andthe handling of Parliamentary information.
The controversy has acquired an almost embarrassing dimension because of the seemingly mundane nature of some of the allegations. Bed sheets, pillow cases and towels, normally insignificant items in the administration of a public institution, have become subjects of a major political and anti-corruption investigation.
But this is no longer simply a controversy about missing linen. It is about the management of public property, the use of Parliamentary privileges, and, above all, the standards of accountability expected from the person occupying the Speaker's chair.
Among the allegations contained in the NCM is that the Speaker obtained a second official residence at Lauries Road, Colombo 4, despite already being entitled to the Speaker's official residence at Rajamalwatta, Battaramulla.
The motion further alleges that Parliamentary funds continued to meet expenses connected with the Battaramulla residence, including the salaries and allowances of eight staff members, reportedly exceeding Rs 760,000 monthly.
There are also allegations concerning the removal of bed sheets, towels, pillow cases and other items from the official residence without proper authorisation, as well as the alleged use of additional Parliamentary vehicles and fuel beyond approved entitlements.
The controversy deepened when the inventory register relating to the missing household items was reported missing.
These are allegations, not established findings of guilt. The Speaker must be afforded the opportunity to respond, and the investigations must follow the due process. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the allegations makes public scrutiny unavoidable.
There is an unmistakable irony in the country's Parliament becoming embroiled in a controversy over household linen. The Institution that regularly debates corruption, public expenditure and financial accountability is now having to answer questions about its own administrative arrangements.
The expression 'washing dirty linen in public' has acquired an entirely new meaning in this episode.
The National People’s Power (NPP) bigwigs sought amendments to the motion, arguing that certain matters could have a sub judice implication because of ongoing legal proceedings.
The Opposition refused to dilute or withdraw the motion, arguing that the allegations should be debated in Parliament.
The dispute even reached the floor of Parliament on Tuesday (3), when Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and other opposition MPs raised concerns over the failure to take up the motion. The opposition has also indicated that it would bring the matter to the attention of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The NPP came to power promising a departure from the political culture of privilege, corruption, nepotism and THE misuse of public resources. Its political identity has been built substantially around the promise of clean governance and a new standard of public accountability.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which provides the ideological and organisationalfoundation of the Ruling movement, has spent decades criticising successive Governments over corruption, wasteful expenditure and the misuse of State resources.
It is therefore understandable that allegations against the Speaker have become politically sensitive for the Ruling coalition.
The Speaker is not an ordinary Government MP. He occupies a Constitutional position that requires impartiality and independence from the political interests of the Ruling Party.
Opposition MPs have repeatedly accused the Speaker of favouring the Government in Parliamentary proceedings. Those accusations must be examined separately from the allegations of administrative misconduct. Nevertheless, the combination of the two controversies has placed his impartiality under greater public scrutiny.
A Speaker cannot command public confidence merely because the Government has sufficient numbers to protect him. His authority ultimately depends on the confidence of Parliament and the public perception that he administers the House fairly.
The Government must also recognise that protecting the dignity of the Speaker's office is not necessarily the same as protecting the individual occupying it from legitimate scrutiny.
Parliament should not become a laundry room where political parties wash away uncomfortable allegations through Parliamentary majorities. Nor should the Speaker's chair become a shield against scrutiny.
The Institution that represents the people’s sovereignty deserves better than a controversy in which the missing linen has become more visible than the principles of good governance.
Ideological retreat on SOEs liquidation
The Finance, Planning, and Economic Development Ministry announced the liquidation of 33 non-operational State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), that have remained inactive for extended periods and posed a heavy burden on the national Treasury.
Among the Enterprises identified for closure are Mihin Lanka, Selendiva Investments, Lanka Cement, the Magampura Ports Management, the Commonwealth Games Hambantota and several other inactive institutions. These are not necessarily profitable Enterprises being sold to private interests. They are largely dormant entities whose original purposes have disappeared or whose operations have become financially unsustainable.
Most of them were often established with ambitious promises of national development, self-reliance and public service. Yet, many gradually turned into expensive white elephants, consuming billions of Rupees in public funds while delivering little economic or social value.
The liquidation decision is particularly significant because of the political identity of the Government taking the decision. The JVP/NPP came to power with a strong ideological commitment to public ownership, State intervention and the protection of national assets. Its political tradition has frequently portrayed privatisation and the transfer of public enterprises into private hands as a surrender of national economic sovereignty.
Liquidation may be ideologically inconvenient, but, economic survival sometimes demands pragmatic decisions. The Government must also explain an important distinction between liquidation, restructuring, privatisation and the abandonment of public responsibility. Liquidating a non-operational company does not necessarily mean selling a functioning public asset to a private investor. Nor should the closure of dormant enterprises be interpreted as a blanket rejection of State ownership.
For the JVP/NPP leadership, this is undoubtedly an ideological challenge. The Party that once criticised previous Governments for selling or restructuring State assets must now explain why it is undertaking liquidation and commercial reforms. Trade unions and sections of the left movement will definitely question whether these decisions represent a departure from the Government's socialist economic philosophy. Political consistency should not mean economic irresponsibility.
The NPP could turn this apparent ideological contradiction into a political strength if it demonstrates that its economic decisions are guided by national interest rather than doctrinaire thinking.
However, liquidation must not become another opportunity for corruption or the undervaluation of public property. The Government has a responsibility to publish the complete list of enterprises being liquidated, their outstanding liabilities, asset valuations, creditor claims and the estimated savings to the Treasury.
Closing a company should not mean allowing its property to disappear into private hands through questionable transactions. The process should be independently audited, with Parliament exercising oversight.
A socialist Party does not have to preserve every State-owned company to prove its commitment to social justice. Nor does closing a defunct enterprise automatically make a Government capitalist. Ultimately, the people's interest must take precedence over the survival of institutions, political loyalties and ideological traditions.
Police powers and custody deaths
Sri Lanka appears to be entering an interesting new era of law enforcement. The Police want more powers, Ruling politicians want stronger security laws, and citizens increasingly want one simple guarantee that they will come out of a Police station alive.
The Human Rights Commission records show 49 reported deaths in Police custody and another 30 deaths following confrontations with the Police between January 2020 and March of last year (2025).
There is also an emerging problem of terminology. A person arrested by the Police is called a suspect, not a criminal. But, in some Police stations, the distinction appears to become rather academic. The suspect may enter under suspicion, face interrogation under suspicion and, in the worst circumstances, end up dead before a court has had the opportunity to determine guilt or innocence.
The irony is particularly striking when one remembers that the present political leadership promised to abolish oppressive laws and strengthen civil liberties.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act has unlimited possibilities and the ordinary citizen has only one remaining Constitutional right: the right to hope that his/herarrest will not become his/her last journey.
Welcome to the new security paradise. The State is protected. But who protects the citizen?
The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations
---------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication