Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra, Attorney-at-Law

## Summary The speaker accused Opposition members of acting in the interests of a private company rather than the public, alleging they were being paid to advocate on behalf of a specific firm in parliamentary debates. She argued that tender awards should be based solely on meeting prescribed qualifications, pricing processes, and tender conditions, citing the President's acknowledgement that a tender was awarded to a company associated with Dilith Jayaweera as an example of a process-based outcome that raises no objection. The speaker called on the Opposition to fulfil its democratic mandate by offering genuine government scrutiny rather than conducting debates she characterised as commercially motivated. She concluded with a rebuke that such conduct undermines the Opposition's own legitimacy and brings parliamentary discourse into disrepute.

Speaking in defence of the government's position on an Opposition adjournment motion concerning a coal tender, Ms. Hemachandra argued that the Opposition had failed to identify any specific procedural irregularity, noting that no appeal had been lodged against the tender award and that quality-related shipment rejections do not in themselves constitute corruption. She challenged the Opposition's sole concrete allegation—made by Hon. Marikkar under parliamentary privilege—that funds connected to the deal were deposited in an account linked to a Minister's wife's mother at a Homagama bank, demanding that he either table supporting details (account number, sums, and dates) or refer the matter to the Bribery Commission, and criticising him for leaving the Chamber without doing so. She contrasted the current procurement process, conducted through a proper tender board determination, with past practice in which energy-sector contracts were awarded by Cabinet paper according to political preferences, which she argued was the historical source of corrupt commissions that inflated electricity tariffs. The approximately USD 150 million tender, she maintained, was conducted transparently, with contractual penalty clauses as the established safeguard against supplier non-compliance.

The Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra concluded her speech by asserting that parliamentary members earn respect through winning public trust rather than through entitlements such as pensions. She framed this as the fundamental challenge for members of parliament and called on her colleagues to pursue that standard.

## Summary The speaker traces the history of Sri Lanka's parliamentary pension scheme, noting that since its introduction in 1977, the Act was amended multiple times (1979, 1982, 1985, and 1999), each time broadening eligibility — from constituency members to National List members, then to widows and widowers, and ultimately, under the 1985 Amendment No. 33, allowing spouses already receiving a pension to retain it even upon being elected as MPs themselves. The speaker argues that this progressive expansion of parliamentary privileges reflects a broader decline in political culture, and presents the Bill under debate as a corrective measure aimed at transforming the standard of public representation rather than merely reforming pension entitlements. She dismisses criticism that the debate has been reduced to trivial matters such as party funds, asserting that the Bill's purpose is to cultivate accountable, people-centred representatives. The speaker also attributes the public sentiment that "all 225 are bad" to the conduct of previous governments that drove the country to economic bankruptcy, rejecting any suggestion that responsibility for that perception lies with the current administration.

The speaker presents the Bill to abolish MPs' pensions, grounding it in the ruling party's electoral mandate as reflected in both its parliamentary and presidential manifestos, rather than in the Chitrasiri Report. She challenges the Opposition's objections by noting that their own members, including Hon. Ravi Karunanayake and Hon. Withanage, had previously submitted Private Members' Bills to the same effect, questioning whether they will now vote in favour. She argues that the MPs' pension, introduced by the 1977 Act, created an expectation of personal benefit that was absent among earlier politicians such as C.W.W. Kannangara, who served without such incentives. The speaker contends that abolishing the pension will help restore a culture of public service over personal privilege in parliamentary politics.

The speaker criticizes opposition figures, specifically referencing Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, for alleged political maneuvering in Trincomalee, claiming they lacked public support there and subsequently engaged in misleading social media messaging. She calls for respect toward Buddhist clergy and the public, asserting that the people cannot be deceived. The speaker also acknowledges the Tri-Forces' contributions during a recent cyclone and concludes with a call for national harmony and unity.

## Summary Speaking on 5 February 2026, Ms. Lakmali Hemachandra addressed two issues: the treatment of female Members in the chamber, and what she characterised as communalist narratives introduced into Independence Day commemorations by Opposition members. She argued that Sri Lanka's thirty-year civil war demonstrated the severe cost of ethnic division, and called on political leaders across parties to reject communalism rather than exploit it electorally. She specifically criticised Hon. Namal Rajapaksa for claiming to represent Sinhala Buddhists while practising divisive politics, and cautioned against portraying Sinhala Buddhist communities as complicit in corruption. She also defended the Tri-Forces, citing their humanitarian role during a recent cyclone as reason to honour rather than belittle them on Independence Day.

Ms. Lakmali Hemachandra addressed the "Container 323" matter that had been raised in the House, noting that Parliament has already appointed a Special Select Committee to investigate Opposition allegations related to the issue. She pointed out that the preceding speaker, Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, is himself a member of that Committee and had requested its establishment, arguing that he is therefore obligated to conduct his scrutiny through the Committee process rather than making allegations on the floor of the House.

## Summary Hon. Lakmali Hemachandra outlined the legislative history of microfinance regulation in Sri Lanka, explaining that the current Bill repeals the Microfinance Act No. 6 of 2016, which failed to achieve effective regulation despite establishing a framework covering both microfinance institutions (under the Central Bank) and community finance organizations (under the NGO Secretariat). She noted that the 2024 Bill establishing the Sri Lanka Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority was subsequently shaped by a Supreme Court determination that all entities engaging in microfinance — not just select categories — must fall under the Authority's jurisdiction. The speaker specifically raised the Sectoral Oversight Committee's recommendation that regulations should distinguish between predatory lenders and women-led community finance societies, which operate on a membership basis at low interest rates and pose minimal default risk, arguing these groups should not be subject to the same regulatory treatment. She concluded with an assurance that the Government would craft implementing regulations in a manner sensitive to the needs of community finance organizations, particularly those benefiting rural women.