The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, by the Corporal Punishment (Repeal) Act, No. 23 of 2005 — twenty years ago — corporal punishment was removed from our law. That is not new. What this new Bill seeks to do is to take the prohibition of corporal punishment to a much stricter, heavier standard. The Hon. Minister made a lengthy speech; I agree with all she said. However, Hon. Deputy Speaker, there is an issue in this Bill’s very serious, sensitive, practical, legal, ethical aspects, and in the implications for teachers, parents and children. Clause 308A(1)(b) reads:

¶ 02 “(b) non-physical act with knowledge that it is likely to cause humiliation however light,”

¶ 03 For that, years of imprisonment can follow. Why? Because of the phrase “however light.” Let me quote the English: “however light.” Hon. Minister, you are a teacher; I am a lawyer, a lecturer, a father of three, and the husband of a teacher — I have experience here. You cited examples such as a girl coming to school with a short skirt, or with painted nails, or improper shoes, and how prefects, teachers, principals and discipline masters act. Those practices have existed. Some measure of intervention is necessary.

¶ 04 But under 308A(1)(b), the definition is overly broad. Even telling a child in class, “Your marks are low; you must work harder,” could be said to cause humiliation. Your example, “Your skirt is short; lengthen it,” also falls within this. If an amendment is made, it should be to define “humiliation.” On what basis will we imprison? Who will be prosecuted? Who will be arrested by Police? Whose employment will be interdicted? The teacher? The parent? The school prefects? If this Bill is passed this evening — your Government has the numbers to pass it — while we oppose corporal punishment, we must recognize that discipline in schools and homes is culturally significant. We are not asking for physical punishment; we oppose it. But this Bill also targets non-physical acts. It says “with knowledge that it is likely to cause some degree of humiliation.” It need not actually occur — the likelihood suffices.

¶ 05 Hon. Minister, please read again. Neither this Bill nor the Penal Code elsewhere defines “humiliation.” How will a magistrate be guided? Each magistrate may give a different meaning. The Penal Code defines what is “grievous hurt,” what is “simple hurt,” but not “humiliation.” As a medical professional, you know diagnostic terms benefit from clear definitions. We repealed criminal defamation for adults as a sign of progress. Yet here, for children, we introduce criminal liability hinging on undefined humiliation.

¶ 06 Another issue: the definition of “child” as under 18 is acceptable. But our law permits consensual sexual activity from age 16. Those aged 16–18 can lawfully engage in certain activities. If a 16+ child engages in sexual conduct and parents or teachers discover it, there will be natural reactions — scolding firmly, pulling by the ear. The child may then claim humiliation and complain to the Police against the parent. With today’s communication-savvy children, one call is enough.

¶ 07 Hon. Prime Minister, Hon. Deputy Speaker, Hon. Leader of the House, I say responsibly: the lack of definition for non-physical acts and humiliation will create unnecessary problems for teachers, parents and those in charge. You cannot hit — we accept that. But the problem lies here: the definition is too broad and unnecessary; it can cause serious issues.

¶ 08 I have submitted a Committee Stage amendment — it has been circulated — to insert the concept of bona fide. Why? So that if a teacher, parent or prefect acted in good faith and is unfortunately ensnared, the Police and courts can consider that protection. Otherwise, an absolute provision will impose impractical, unnecessary burdens, undermining the noble objective of freeing children from corporal punishment.

¶ 09 We must also consider process: upon a complaint, Police must accept it and investigate; an arrest may follow even for alleged mental humiliation. The case will be filed; a teacher may be interdicted; a public servant parent may be interdicted under Establishments Code provisions; lives get disrupted. Court delays mean years at home under suspension before an eventual finding on what “humiliation” means. That is the danger. Corporal punishment is already prohibited; penalties can be enhanced. But 308A(b) introduces “some degree of humiliation” in non-physical acts without definition — that is the problem. I urge the Government to reconsider, and to accept my bona fide amendment.

¶ 10 We, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, support stronger laws to end corporal punishment; our members participated in the oversight committee yesterday. But please rethink and refine this.

¶ 11 I also wish to raise concerns about judicial transfers and promotions by the Judicial Service Commission. While we accept the Commission’s powers, the processes for transfers and promotions should be transparent. Judges should be able to understand criteria, scoring and reasons.

¶ 12 Next, an important matter of public interest: the Hon. Deputy Minister Gamagedara Dissanayake has said in Dinamina that a three-member committee appointed in July 2025 has uncovered an Rs. 8,000 million fraud in the Central Cultural Fund. He must table the report if it exists. Prior committees — including one chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Wasantha Jinadasa (now Governor), with senior administrators — found no specific individual culpability; the CIABOC on 11.11.2022 also said there was insufficient material under the Bribery Act on file BC/1528/2014. If there is now a new report, table it; if not, statements without basis breach our parliamentary code.

¶ 13 Hon. Deputy Speaker, returning to the Bill: I acknowledge the Minister’s earnest intent and practical understanding as a teacher. But the Bill, as drafted, is too harsh and overly broad on non-physical acts; it will burden teachers, parents and prefects. Please confer again with the drafters and the Attorney-General. This will also affect Dhamma schools and religious institutions where clergy instruct children. Afterwards, issuing any caution may become legally risky. We absolutely oppose physical punishment; our concern is the breadth of “non-physical” humiliation.

¶ 14 Thank you. I trust the Government will act judiciously to protect children while not criminalizing reasonable, good-faith guidance by adults.