The Hon. (Dr.) Nishantha Samarawira

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, today’s topic pertains to Regulations made under the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act concerning the shared use of telecommunications infrastructure. However, I do not feel that any Opposition Member has spoken with even a tenth of understanding about the subject. Their entire discussion has been on other topics.

¶ 02 Through these Regulations, we expect a significant public benefit by enabling operators to share telecom infrastructure. This is environmentally friendly, facilitates urban planning, and avoids duplicative, high-cost infrastructure by enabling shared use, generating capital expenditure savings that can be passed to the public. Also, there was mention of monopolies; such regulation is necessary to break monopolies, not create them.

¶ 03 However, looking at today’s debate, much time was spent on the issue of the Deputy Secretary-General of Parliament. The discussion against that decision has been at a very low level, which also harms him.

¶ 04 What we must note is this: the matter came before the relevant Committee after certain petitions submitted since late 2023 by various groups raised issues about that position. Information was requested under RTI; based on information disclosed, matters were discussed by the Staff Advisory Committee. On that basis, a temporary prohibition was imposed in a lawful manner. He has a proper opportunity to face formal disciplinary inquiries. Charge sheets have been served. All of it has taken place within the proper parliamentary process. Now see what the Opposition says.

¶ 05 What has happened to the Opposition? They cannot discuss anything without appending obscene portions. Whatever the topic, they have developed a trend of adding obscenity. They spoke even of “obscenifying” education. In truth, it is not education that has been obscenified; it is the Opposition. We, in addition to our core Government programmes, now have to undertake a new project: to counter the Opposition’s obscenification. At this point, they cannot speak a word without including vulgarities. They try to spread their speech among the public via obscenity. But the people reject it. Using parliamentary privilege for that is a very low-level effort.

¶ 06 We have built a political brand—humble, open to discussion, law-abiding, transparent, with empathy and responsibility. That brand is “AKD.” “AKD” is not just a name; it is a brand that represents a people craving transparency, responsibility, and rule of law.

¶ 07 But what is the Opposition today? A group that talks filth and obscenity. This is the worst state the country is facing—how did such people get elected? People’s innocent call was for a “system change.” Many rejected the old order and gave us power for that. The old system ignored the law and discipline and respected no one. People mandated us to change it.

¶ 08 Today, we are also discussing the hunger strike by teacher development officers. The Opposition is trying to trap the Government into illegal acts. There is no need for that. We will act lawfully and with discipline. Why cannot they accept lawful processes?

¶ 09 The Opposition cannot build a brand of quality against the “AKD” brand. They can only build a brand of common obscenity—a “PKB” brand opposing “AKD.” Throughout today, there has been no qualitative debate. As new MPs, we regret this. In my maiden speech too, I said Parliament must not become a place for venting random falsehoods and personal frustrations. It must remain qualitative, for both Government and Opposition.

¶ 10 Even today, the Opposition fell to a very low level—raising points unrelated to the debate topic, injecting obscenity and insults. The Standing Orders say you cannot level allegations at individuals. Yet that is happening. I request the Hon. Speaker to look into why such space is being permitted. Though we regret a day wasted, it does not truly harm us; but it is sad to work with such an Opposition.

¶ 11 Thank you, Hon. Presiding Member.