The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, today’s debate is on extending the Emergency Regulations. The Opposition clearly stated they oppose the extension. If so, they must present reasons within this Chamber. I sense an unease in their conscience: historically, emergencies were understood as anti-democratic, infringing fundamental rights. That is how we learned it.

¶ 02 When I was at Law College, then Attorney-General Sunil de Silva explained Emergency thus: if during an emergency a pipefitter walked on the road carrying a pipe, a peace officer could treat it as a firearm and even shoot. Such abuses did occur—pipefitters were transformed into “thugs” and suppressed in an anti-democratic manner.

¶ 03 But here is my question: several Opposition speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, have already spoken. The President proclaimed the emergency specifically to provide relief related to the “Ditva” cyclone. We have used it solely for that purpose. The Opposition has not cited a single example of use beyond that. If so, why oppose? We need a short further period to allow the Commissioner of Essential Services to intervene swiftly, not necessarily from Colombo but across the country. If they once claimed “That is the President’s mandate, you cannot question it,” we now say we are open to discussion with the President. But today we ask for time strictly to meet disaster-related needs.

¶ 04 Today is also a historic day: our policy “A Prosperous Country – A Beautiful Life” is vindicated. We promised to abolish parliamentary pensions granted after five years. The Supreme Court determination on the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill was announced today. Petitioners argued the Government arbitrarily brought the law to punish opponents. The Supreme Court—per the Chief Justice—held it is not arbitrary, but rooted in a clear electoral mandate given at the Presidential and General Elections. Thus, the people mandated repeal of the Parliamentary Pensions Law No. 1 of 1977, and the Bill can be passed by a simple majority. The Speaker announced this determination. We tell the people: today, a key aspiration of the mandate has been realized.

¶ 05 Some here donned waistcoats and shawls and grandstanded “for Buddhism.” We saw how during elections they claimed the 9th Article would be gone and Buddhism finished if we came to power—hauling snakes of lies, telling people not to observe precepts. Who protects Buddhism and other religions today? It is the National People’s Power Government. When the Mihintale chief monk could not hold the procession in 2025, the President intervened to ensure it was held, and he was conferred the honorific “Maha Mahendra Prasadini.” We held the Vesak festival in Nuwara Eliya; the Indian Prime Minister and our President spoke, and the Sarvagna Relics were brought to Gangaramaya. Show us one instance where we acted against Buddhism—or against any other religion. Let us then see who the “Devadatta Thera” really is.

¶ 06 Another matter: Namal Rajapaksa was summoned by the CID to ascertain whether he had links to the underworld figure “Kehilbeddara Padme.” Immediately there was a hue and cry about “323 containers.” On 10 September 2025 I received a letter of demand from Namal Rajapaksa claiming I had said he has underworld links. I replied on 22 September inviting him to file suit so I could present the facts. He spent nearly four hours at the CID yesterday answering whether he had such links. Months have passed; still no case against me. He has demanded Rs. 500 billion from me in the letter of demand; I invite him again—file suit so I can prove in court how the Rajapaksas rode with the underworld.

¶ 07 On the so-called “Renters’ Bill”: some scream that this Government has brought a rental law causing chaos. In truth, we presented a draft “Resident Protection Bill.” Then Mohamad Ali Sabry and Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe rushed to attack it. I checked: the identical Bill was brought to this House in 2024 by the then Government. Those same proponents now attack it for petty political gain. Ali Sabry claims on Facebook he was not in Cabinet when it was brought; now Wijeyadasa spins another tale. What politics is this?

¶ 08 We respect the people’s mandate. Where our Bills met opposition, our subject Minister Saroja Paulraj has held them back. This Bill too is open for public comment. That is what a democratic government does.

¶ 09 Let me read Clause 111(6), because the public must hear the truth: “Nothing in this Act shall prevent a landlord from taking legal action under the general law or Rent Law to evict a tenant or to recover possession of premises let under the Rent Law.” That is the title-point they distort in public. We have paused the Bill; based on other legal considerations we will decide whether to proceed. To the bankrupt Opposition: bring arguments—if anything is violated, state it here. Today is a day the Opposition has no answers; they have tied themselves in knots. I conclude.

¶ 10 Thank you.