Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, today the Opposition’s arguments differ slightly from one or two months ago. The emergency was declared after Cyclone “Ditva” struck from late November, to prepare the state, mobilize officials, manage state funds and assets, and act faster than normal processes allow. The cyclone affected 21 districts and damage was assessed by international bodies as comparable to several times a tsunami in asset loss.

¶ 02 When the cyclone hit, the Opposition Leader himself repeatedly demanded an emergency. The Government listened and acted. Now they ask why continue? Because the machinery established—appointing an Essential Services Commissioner, coordinating relief, housing for fully damaged homes, and assisting displaced persons—must continue to operate swiftly beyond mere troop deployment in floods.

¶ 03 The Opposition tries to evoke the dark memories of past abuses under emergency in the 1970s–1990s—abductions, disappearances, killings in both North and South, and media repression—done by their former leaders. But judge us by the last two months: show one instance where we used emergency to crush protests or dissent. Development officers protested outside the Presidential Secretariat; in the past, governments tear-gassed and beat protesters. We engaged and resolved issues without using emergency powers. Even when the Opposition Leader was at risk, we did not use emergency to retaliate.

¶ 04 Insults and vulgarities hurled at leaders have been constant, inside and outside Parliament. We have not used emergency to silence anyone. We will not use it against education reform protests either. This emergency is for disaster response only.

¶ 05 Allegations that we place ourselves above the law are baseless. If there are real complaints—of theft, fraud, or unequal case handling—bring them through proper channels. Unlike in the times of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Mahinda Rajapaksa, cases are not buried.

¶ 06 Finally, I must address the chronic use of obscene language against the Prime Minister and Speaker. A few MPs persist, and I genuinely believe it reflects a mental health issue. I respectfully suggest the Opposition’s chief organizer privately refer them to appropriate medical care; such conditions can be treated. Thank you.