10th Parliament· 154 sittings on record · 30,475 speeches · latest 10 June 2026

The Hon. (Dr.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne

Jathika Jana balawegaya· Colombo· 24 September 2025 ·Debate: Debate: Penal Code (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading

Justice & Human RightsWomen & Children
AI summary generated by gpt-5.5

Dr. Kaushalya Ariyarathne supported the amendment prohibiting corporal punishment, arguing that psychological humiliation must be included because Article 11 of the Constitution, the CRC, international guidance, and Sri Lankan case law recognize degrading treatment beyond physical harm. She rejected proposals for exceptions such as “loving punishment,” stating that such language would create ambiguity and undermine the legislative objective. She emphasized that discipline can be maintained through non-violent methods and linked childhood violence to broader social violence, torture, and normalized humiliation in society.

Verbatim record (translated)

Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, as a society we say we reject violence, war, and physical and psychological abuse. Yet, tragically, we still accept beating children with switches of welan, naran, and siyambala. How unfortunate is that?

¶ 02 This is a very important and historic amendment; I am honoured to speak. I respect the views expressed since morning, including those of the previous Hon. Member and of Hon. Ajith P. Perera, and I support the amendment. The Opposition raised two points: humiliation/psychological aspects, and good faith. On good faith, section 74 of our Penal Code already provides how acts done in good faith are treated generally; I will not elaborate.

¶ 03 But humiliation and psychological harm are crucial. Article 11 of the Constitution refers to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—without limiting it to physical or mental. The CRC also speaks of physical or mental violence. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument to exclude psychological harm. The claim that there is no interpretation is unfounded; internationally there is ample guidance. The CRC’s General Comment No. 8 (42nd session) explains psychological violence to include belittling, humiliating, revenge, threats, inducing fear, and the like.

¶ 04 In Sri Lanka’s jurisprudence, in the “Polpithigama case” (Priyantha Dias v. Ekanayake), the Supreme Court held that even humiliating words by police officers can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under fundamental rights. So do not create bogeymen that interpretation is impossible.

¶ 05 Some now ask for an exception for “loving punishment”—acts done affectionately that nonetheless cause pain or discomfort as a correctional method. If so, we must then define what “love” means—does “lovingly” saying “sit down,” “admonishing,” and “lovingly slapping” all qualify? This illustrates the problem.

¶ 06 When drafting a law, the legislature’s objective matters, and courts will revisit that. Hence, placing our intent on the record is important. In H.M. Karunapala and others v. Jayantha Premakumara Siriwardhana, the Court stated:

¶ 07 “It must be recognized that rejection of corporal punishment is not a rejection of the concept of discipline.”

¶ 08 There are many positive, alternative discipline methods globally to instill discipline without authoritative violence. The danger lies in the “but”: “Don’t punish, but children must be trained.” That “but” hides risks.

¶ 09 In a 2016 research book I co-authored with Vidura Munasinghe, Thilini Chandrasekara and Daniel Selamaya, “Understanding Violence in Post-war Sri Lanka,” on police torture, we learned that social violence often roots in childhood experiences. Prof. Gananath Obeyesekere (1984) explained how concepts of shame and fear are instilled at different life stages through socialization in the family, teachers, and finally police—authorities who normalize behaviour through humiliation, threats and punishment. Prof. Malathi de Alwis discussed how gender, caste, disability and other hidden structures operate within violence, and Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence shows how we internalize oppression—e.g., believing “children must be beaten to be good,” a colonial mindset.

¶ 10 We should act not only because of case law or international obligations but because we promised societal renewal—a lasting social transformation. One Opposition Member said laws alone will not change society. True—but we believe society will change.

¶ 11 As Dr. Kiran Grewal writes, unless public attitudes to violence as an accepted means of maintaining social order change, we cannot eradicate torture. We speak against hazing, police torture, and on peace and war. If so, it is unjust to expect that children—our future—will not become violent adults while we subject them to violence today.

¶ 12 I will end with a verse from the Dhammapada, which a judge once quoted in a judgment:

¶ 13 “Attānañ ce tathā kayirā yathāññamanusāsati Sudanto vata dametha attā hi kira duddamo.”

¶ 14 If we instruct others, if we try to discipline others, first we must discipline ourselves. Our society bears pain; let us not pass that pain to children. Children deserve the best.

¶ 15 Thank you.

Provenance

Source
Hansard, Wednesday, 24 September 2025 ·No. 1759815459006615 ·English daily/uncorrected Hansard
Page · column
not yet extracted — page/column anchors are not in the current dataset; the source PDF is the citable location.
Permalink
/lk/speeches/20882

Cite as: The Hon. (Dr.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 24 September 2025. No. 1759815459006615. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/20882