brand logo

Parental guidance of ulterior motives

14 Oct 2022

President Ranil Wickremesinghe joined the ongoing discussion about taking children to protests by instructing the authorities to look into why children were taken to the 9 October Galle Face protests. However, during these discussions, he also made a remark that attracted criticism – that taking children to protests is equal to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s use of children as human shields during the civil war. There is nothing wrong with paying attention to children’s safety and directing the authorities to look into the reasons as to why parents took their children to protests; not just the President, many parties, even those who support the “aragalaya” (the people’s struggle), have raised concerns about the same. However, there is a noticeable, vast difference between the intentions behind these concerns.  The President is trying to equate the parents that took their children to a protest, which remained peaceful until the Police used excessive or unnecessary powers, to the LTTE Leader that intentionally exploited children for armed conflicts, despite grave and unavoidable risks associated with such. In this context, it is obvious that the main intention behind this poor comparison is to portray these parents as people who deliberately put their children at risk for personal, or political, according to the Government, agendas. The President’s interest in ensuring children’s safety appears to revolve more around the Government’s need to further defame and discourage “aragalaya” activists, than around looking at how children could face difficulties during protests.  However, the general public that discussed the same incident see the children’s safety issue for what it is, and hence demand that legal action be taken against the police officers who instigated a tense situation at the protest venue and used power that was not necessary to deal with peaceful protestors. That is the difference between the Government’s priorities and the people’s priorities – while the Government is always looking for a way to weaken the people’s right to express opposition, even if it means downplaying serious issues such as children’s safety at the hands of the Police in a situation that could have been handled without violence, peaceful protestors are trying to change the system, at least through correcting the conduct of public institutions such as the Police. In other words, it is a struggle between a government that is trying to keep its power by any means necessary, and people that are trying to live in a country where democracy and the rule of law reign.  In addition, if the President is so concerned about children’s safety, it is not the children’s participation in peaceful protests with their parents that he should prioritise. Children in this country are facing much graver threats as far as their right to receive proper education and health services are concerned. There is also a massive malnutrition issue among children. Last but not least, the future of the country’s next generation seems extremely unpromising due to the economic crisis, and children are at risk of mental health issues due to the same reason.  Unfortunately, the President does not seem to notice or understand any of these issues. Had he understood their gravity, he would have realised long ago that the ultimate demand of these protests is a government that can provide better living conditions for Sri Lankans, including for children. If the President could understand the fact that his prime duty is to change the country’s economic and social situations for the better, and not to suppress the people who demand such, he would be able to make his Government bring about the change the people sought to achieve through the protests. If he continues to follow this path, he will only face more protests that are more difficult to manage, more demands for elections, and more pressure from the international community.


More News..