The Hon. R. G. Wijerathna
R. G. Wijerathna raised an Adjournment question on post-cyclone relief following the “896” cyclone, asking what arrangements will be made for compensation for partially and totally damaged houses, relief for affected businesses and its timeline, and attention to insurance compensation and loan relief for damaged property. He defended the Government’s initial disaster response and contrasted it with delays in past landslide resettlement cases in Nuwara Eliya, while criticizing Opposition allegations. He cited National Audit Office findings on the Disaster Management Centre, including unutilized funds, incomplete legal transfer of its headquarters, inactive early warning towers, delayed amendments to the Disaster Management Act, and incomplete multi-hazard profiling, arguing these showed longstanding administrative weaknesses in disaster management.
Verbatim record (translated)
Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, the question I present at today’s Adjournment is as follows.
¶ 02 In consequence of the “896” cyclone, the Government has carried out initial relief measures for the affected people. However, the next steps that require attention following that disaster must be addressed. Accordingly:
¶ 03 01. What arrangements has the Government made to pay compensation for houses that suffered partial and total damage due to this disaster?
¶ 04 02. What relief will the Government provide for businesses affected by the disaster, and what is the expected time frame for providing such relief?
¶ 05 03. Will the Government give attention to insurance compensation and loan relief for property damaged due to the disaster? If so, in what manner?
¶ 06 Hon. Presiding Member, we all know a disaster occurred recently and that it was a natural disaster. However, thereafter, various individuals in the Opposition levelled allegations and made many irresponsible statements about how our Government provided relief to the affected people, without any accountability.
¶ 07 Our country has faced natural disasters in earlier periods as well. When we study history, we can see how they acted at those times. In my Nuwara Eliya District, after the landslide at Ketiya Pathana, hundreds of families lived in camps, or rather in tents, for 14 months. They could not be given land to resettle. Likewise, after the Ramasara landslide, those displaced people lived almost a year in a tent in an open area. Eventually the tents collapsed, then they were moved to temples, and only thereafter were relief measures started. The same pattern applied in the Meegahakivula landslide. Those who failed to take prompt action during past natural disasters today question us about how we provided relief to the affected. That is why I raised this question.
¶ 08 I also wish to quote several matters contained in reports presented by the Auditor General’s Department, i.e., the National Audit Office. First, from the 2019 audit report on the Disaster Management Centre: “A sum of Rs. 2 million granted by the Ministry of National Policies and Economic Affairs for preparing disaster risk maps for 10 towns and Rs. 2 million granted by the World Food Programme were not utilized and were returned.”
¶ 09 Next, it states: “Although the headquarters building of the Centre was constructed in 2010 at a cost of Rs. 1,034.39 million on land belonging to the Department of Meteorology, as at the end of the year under review, the legal transfer of the land and building to the Centre had not been completed.”
¶ 10 From the 2020 annual audit report on the Disaster Management Centre: “According to information audited, although Rs. 89,764,707 had been spent for 77 early warning towers, as the satellite technology was inactive, maintaining operational status of the 77 towers expected from that function had not been successful.”
¶ 11 Further: “Although amendments to the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005 had been undertaken since 2008, as at 31 December 2020, the relevant amendments had not been presented for approval of Parliament.”
¶ 12 On multi-hazard profiles: “For the period 2016–2019, Rs. 247 million had been allocated from the Treasury to prepare multi-hazard profiles for disaster management, of which Rs. 201 million had been provided for this activity. However, the task had not been completed, and Rs. 53 million of the allocations received had been spent for purposes outside the intended objective.”
¶ 13 What do all these audit reports say? They reveal inefficiency and the lack of proper attention. Those who have nothing substantial today try to mislead and agitate the people with lies. They even ask people in camps the very next day after a circular is issued, “Did you get the Rs. 25,000?” We all know, once a circular is issued, certain time is required to implement measures accordingly. Despite knowing this, they attempt to mislead the public. Hon. Presiding Member, I look forward to a successful reply from the Hon. Deputy Minister.
Provenance
- Source
- Hansard, Tuesday, 20 January 2026 ·No. 23200 ·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/9105
Cite as: The Hon. R. G. Wijerathna. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 20 January 2026. No. 23200. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/9105