Topic
Corruption & Governance Reform
2,708 speeches · 349 speakers
Party share
By the speaker's party · counts only, no scoring. "Unattributed" = speeches not resolved to an MP.
Most active on this topic
| # | Member | Speeches |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hon. Bimal Rathnayake, M.P. JJB | 91 |
| 2 | Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney at Law, M.P. SJB | 86 |
| 3 | Hon. Mujibur Rahman, M.P. SJB | 80 |
| 4 | Hon. Ajith P. Perera, M.P. SJB | 70 |
| 5 | Hon. Chaminda Wijesiri, M.P. SJB | 68 |
| 6 | Hon. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, M.P. JJB | 68 |
| 7 | Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna, M.P. Independent Group 17 - Jaffna | 67 |
| 8 | Hon. Sajith Premadasa, M.P. SJB | 65 |
| 9 | Hon. Chamara Sampath Dasanayake, M.P. NDF | 64 |
| 10 | Hon. Wasantha Samarasinghe, M.P. JJB | 64 |
Speeches
2,708 on this topic- 3 February 2026 The Hon. Nishantha Jayaweera JJB AI summary Hon. Nishantha Jayaweera stated that matters raised by Hon. Wasantha Samarasinghe have been referred to the CID and that investigations are ongoing. He said support for a forensic audit will be provided in line with the Auditor General’s guidance, and that the CID is proceeding accordingly. Oral Questions and Ministerial Answers Read →
- 3 February 2026 The Hon. Chaminda Wijesiri SJB AI summary Chaminda Wijesiri said his question had been delayed due to postponed answers and requested fairness in scheduling new questions. He asked the Deputy Minister about the sugar tax fraud, specifically the amount of revenue lost and actions taken since the current Government assumed office. He queried whether evidence files reportedly held by Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe were being used to prosecute those involved, whether they had gone missing, and what concrete steps the Government was taking to bring offenders to justice. Oral Questions and Ministerial Answers Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC SJB AI summary Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper raised concerns about the Bill’s provisions on the election and removal of university Deans, arguing that removal powers should include a clear statutory procedure, due process, and preferably a requirement that the Council act on the Board’s recommendation. He referred to the 2015 report on university governance and autonomy, noting that its recommendations had not yet been operationalized. He also argued that education reform must address systemic pressure from examinations and tuition by aligning pathways with labour-market needs, recognizing students’ abilities, and ensuring dignity and social value across all occupations. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. (Dr.) Anil Jayantha - Minister of Labour and Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning JJB AI summary The Minister said the proposed amendments to the Universities Act aim to improve administrative efficiency and democratic governance in universities, following consultations with university stakeholders. He explained that Deans would be elected from an expanded pool including Senior Lecturers Grade I, while Heads of Departments would continue to be appointed through broader and less subjective processes. He also linked the reforms to wider education policy, emphasizing vocational education, competency-based progression, and skills development as part of building human capital. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. (Dr.) Madhura Senevirathna - Deputy Minister of Education and Higher Education JJB AI summary Deputy Minister Madhura Senevirathna supported amendments to the Universities Act, No. 16 of 1978, saying they introduce clearer and more democratic procedures for appointing, limiting the terms of, and removing Deans and Heads of Departments. He rejected claims that the Bill undermines university autonomy, and said wider higher education reforms are being developed through a National Committee with stakeholder consultations and a national policy to be published for public comment. He also cited increased 2026 budget allocations, higher student stipends, recruitment approvals, and infrastructure funding as measures aimed at improving universities, student welfare, and international rankings. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Sugath Wasantha de Silva JJB AI summary Welcoming amendments on university administration, the Member said appointments such as Deans should be made through more democratic processes to reduce subjectivity, nepotism and cronyism, and indicated that similar reforms should later extend up to Vice-Chancellor appointments. He also argued for democratizing university access for persons with disabilities, stating that all eligible students should be able to enter any degree stream and citing barriers in lecture halls, libraries and hostels. He noted Government measures including a Higher Education Ministry policy on inclusion and an additional Rs. 5,000 monthly allowance above Mahapola for university students with disabilities, and said access should also be expanded for groups such as members of the Sri Lanka Thalassaemia Association. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. (Dr.) Hiniduma Sunil Senevi - Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs JJB AI summary The Minister supported amendments to Sections 49 and 51 of the Universities Act, arguing that they would depoliticize and democratize the appointment and removal of Deans and Heads of Departments. He said Faculty Boards and University Councils should have clearer authority over these posts, with term limits and removal powers introduced to prevent prolonged control and administrative distortions. He emphasized that such positions affect academic careers, recruitment, promotions, study leave, scholarships and disciplinary processes, and rejected claims that the reforms undermine university autonomy. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara raised concerns about RM Parks (Private) Limited, including the storage of 23,000 metric tons in allegedly unsuitable locations and the treatment of a female officer who investigated the matter, stating that her duties had been suspended and she had been reassigned to a garage. He also disputed Minister Kumar Jayakody’s statement that he had not met anyone in Russia, claiming the Minister met SUEK company officials at 1.00 p.m. and tabling related information for parliamentary attention. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara criticised the Government’s proposed university amendments, arguing that they would politicize appointments of deans and department heads and worsen declining university rankings. He called instead for a comprehensive reform of the Universities Act, including globally comparable posts such as Deputy Vice-Chancellors for research, academic affairs and international affairs. He also raised concerns about judicial independence, questioning the appointment of a High Court Judge as Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Justice while hearing politically sensitive cases, and urged action to protect judicial processes from politicization. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara argued that the Government’s approach to university appointments contradicts its stated policy of reducing political influence, citing alleged politically linked appointments to vice chancellor positions. Referring to a university governance workshop report, he said the Government had selectively adopted provisions on appointing Heads of Departments through Councils, which he claimed could increase politicization. He criticized changes to eligibility and term limits for Heads of Departments and Deans, arguing they could create shortages of suitably experienced staff and weaken university administration. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Ravindra Bandara AI summary Ravindra Bandara supported the Universities (Amendment) Bill, arguing that it expands democratic participation in dean selection and introduces term limits rather than promoting authoritarianism. He rejected Opposition criticisms on education reform, stating that current reforms aim to strengthen public education without burdening parents, unlike earlier proposals he said would have shifted costs to families and privatized aspects of schooling. He also addressed estate worker wages, saying an additional Rs. 400 would be provided from 10 February through company and Government contributions, and described contrary claims about work norms as misinformation. The speech further criticized vulgar language and conduct in Parliament, corrected the term “Malaiyagam community,” and cited economic indicators such as investment, tourism, remittances, and stock market performance as signs of progress. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Upali Pannilage - Minister of Rural Development, Social Security and Community Empowerment JJB AI summary Minister Upali Pannilage supported amendments to the Universities Act, stating that the reforms would democratize university governance by broadening eligibility for Deans, introducing term limits, shifting appointment of Heads of Departments to University Councils, and widening representation in Senates. He said the changes were intended to reduce centralized decision-making and improve transparency, drawing on consultations with the university community. He also outlined government measures on university vacancies, student welfare, scholarships, hostels, disability support, research funding, loans for higher education, and digitalization. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Nalin Bandara Jayamaha SJB AI summary Nalin Bandara Jayamaha criticized the Government’s handling of the Health and Education Ministries, arguing that ministers were interfering in other portfolios while neglecting their own responsibilities. He questioned recent administrative changes at the National Institute of Education, alleging politicization of its governing bodies and mismanagement of qualified academic staff. He also challenged the Government’s proposed education reforms, particularly material he claimed was inappropriate for Grade 6 students, and demanded that any reforms be brought forward transparently rather than through internal conflicts or protests. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Sivagnanam Shritharan ITAK AI summary Hon. Sivagnanam Shritharan rejected allegations made by Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara and others that he misused land, received funds from the Poonakari solar power project, or held improper assets, and demanded that any such claims be substantiated with bank and transaction details. He questioned why complaints lodged with the FCID and the Bribery Commission had not been concluded, and called for transparent investigations involving relevant officials. He also linked the allegations to broader political pressures and raised concerns over land dispossession, militarisation, unreleased lands, and attacks on Tamil representatives, urging that justice be upheld through proper inquiry. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition SJB AI summary Sajith Premadasa questioned whether proposed university regulations constitute genuine “system change,” arguing that changes to Dean and Head of Department appointments are insufficient without reforming appointments of Vice Chancellors, UGC officials, University Councils and Institute Boards. Citing a governance report co-authored by Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, he contrasted earlier calls for depoliticization and merit-based appointments with the present proposals. He also objected to a UGC Chairman’s letter instructing Vice Chancellors to halt ongoing appointments before the law is passed, calling it an unlawful interference with existing statutes and a move toward centralized control over universities. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Nimal Palihena JJB AI summary Hon. Nimal Palihena supported amendments to the Universities Act aimed at reforming the appointment of Deans and Heads of Departments in state universities. He said the Bill broadens eligibility for Deans, introduces three-year terms renewable once, and transfers greater oversight of Head of Department appointments from Vice Chancellors to University Councils to improve transparency and limit concentration of power. He rejected claims of arbitrary removals or politicisation, while noting the Government is open to future reforms to strengthen independence in university governance. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. (Dr.) Kavinda Heshan Jayawardhana SJB AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Kavinda Heshan Jayawardhana argued that the Bill’s provisions on university appointments and removals could increase political influence through Councils and Vice Chancellors, and urged safeguards for a depoliticized university system. He criticized recent education policy reversals, questioned UGC limits on recognition of new programmes by degree-awarding institutions, and said these restrictions reduce higher education opportunities and increase foreign exchange outflows. He also demanded accountability over the Grade 6 textbook controversy, asked whether the interim report had been tabled in Parliament, and questioned the use of Penal Code processes if the issue was minor. He further raised concerns about readiness for Grade 1 and education reforms, citing inadequate digital infrastructure, limited textbook printing and teacher training, and questioned phone-based school initiatives in light of international restrictions on phones and social media for children. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Anura Karunathilaka - Minister of Ports and Civil Aviation JJB AI summary Moving the Universities (Amendment) Bill for second reading on behalf of the Education Minister, the Minister said it seeks to improve university governance by introducing seniority-based procedures and term limits for Heads of Departments and by requiring removals to follow Council action on the Vice Chancellor’s recommendation under UGC-prescribed due process. He said the Bill would broaden eligibility for Deans beyond serving Heads of Departments to senior academic staff within faculties, with safeguards to protect Faculty Board primacy in removals. He cited consultations following the 2012 FUTA action and recent feedback from FUTA and academics as supporting the general direction of reforms to make university leadership more transparent, democratic, and accountable. Debate: Universities (Amendment) Bill - Second and Third Reading Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law JJB AI summary Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara stated that the Government, including the President and its Members, is committed to protecting the independence of the Attorney General’s Department and all institutions while upholding the rule of law. Responding to concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition and commentary on social media, he said he is accountable to the President for his ministerial responsibilities and would not act on unverified allegations, but assured that action would be taken against offences regardless of position or status. Standing Order 27(2) Questions: Attorney-General Independence, Gold Jewellery Return Read →
- 23 January 2026 The Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition SJB AI summary Sajith Premadasa objected to remarks implying a personal association between the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in the context of discussing the Attorney General’s independence and decision-making. He sought an opportunity to respond and challenged the propriety of such a characterization during the debate. Standing Order 27(2) Questions: Attorney-General Independence, Gold Jewellery Return Read →