The Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Attorney-at-Law
Hon. Rauff Hakeem clarified that the COVID-19 cremation policy was decided early, after the second death, and was not originally based on Prof. Meththika Vithanage’s later views on groundwater transmission. He argued that a committee should be appointed to examine all scientific claims and criticized officials for withholding information under the Right to Information process, saying this obstructed the search for truth. He also objected to remarks portraying the absence of a Muslim Cabinet Minister as a positive development, noting that Muslims had held Cabinet positions since Independence.
Verbatim record (translated)
Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I thank all colleagues who joined this debate on my motion, and I also thank the Minister for his reply. I must clarify a few matters. Our party’s Secretary of the NPP, Dr. Nihal Abeysinghe, from the outset took a correct scientific position; we respect him for that.
¶ 02 Today, he referred to Prof. Meththika Vithanage, a geologist, who suggested—based on a conjecture—that the coronavirus could spread through groundwater, which influenced this decision. In truth, the initial decision was taken by March 30, right after the second death. I personally spoke by phone with then Judicial Medical Officer Dr. Channa Perera. He strongly argued with me and said they had taken a decision and would not accept anything we said. He took a decision contrary to guidelines and enforced it; that policy continued. Prof. Meththika Vithanage came much later; by May she joined the group. Therefore, it cannot be said this was based on her conjectures. If someone with expertise presents scientific evidence, that is another matter; this is precisely why we seek to appoint a committee—to hear from all, including her, and have claims scientifically justified.
¶ 03 Hon. Minister, you mentioned officials and said there is no room now for decisions taken under political influence. Yet when requests were made under the Right to Information Act, officials responded that the information was not available and withheld it—even at the RTI Commission’s appeal stage. We regret that. It is because such key officials, holding important positions, obstructed the search for truth that we have brought this motion. We expect justice to be done.
¶ 04 One more point. We did not come to exploit this debate to attack the government over its deficiencies. However, to justify the absence of a Muslim in the Cabinet by praising it as a virtue is shameful. Since Independence, Muslims have held Cabinet portfolios. To speak as if it is a matter for celebration that Muslims have now lost that place is disgraceful. I take my leave. Thank you.
¶ 05 Question put, and agreed to.
Provenance
- Source
- Hansard, Friday, 7 February 2025 ·No. 1739786070060795 ·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/23204
Cite as: The Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Attorney-at-Law. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 7 February 2025. No. 1739786070060795. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/23204