2026-02-06 / Debate: Extension of Emergency Regulations under Public Security Ordinance 2026-02-06
Dr. Sathiyalingam opposed extending Emergency powers, arguing that existing laws are sufficient for post-disaster recovery and that integrating Prevention of Terrorism Act provisions into broader security legislation—without a clear definition of "terrorism"—risks criminalising dissent and violating fundamental rights and international norms. He raised two constituency-specific concerns: the Kivul Oya water project in Vavuniya, which he argued displaces local communities without adequate consultation (referencing similar grievances dating to the 1983 Mahaweli resettlements), calling for a halt pending proper consultation; and the failure of the Paddy Marketing Board to procure paddy at the legislated Minimum Support Price of Rs. 120 per kg, with farmers reportedly receiving only Rs. 80, resulting in losses of approximately Rs. 30,000 per acre. He demanded immediate commencement of procurement to benefit the remaining 30% of the unharvested crop.
Madam Deputy Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity.
We recognise that, immediately after Ditva, declaring an Emergency to stabilise essential services may have been necessary. But today we are in the recovery phase. There are already adequate laws to deliver services and reconstruction without an Emergency. Extending Emergency powers—especially when Part II allows integration of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—raises deep concern. The PTA has long violated fundamental rights and facilitated grave abuses; substituting it with an even broader security law without a clear definition of “terrorism” would let the Government label anything as terrorism when it faces dissent. Laws must not breach fundamental rights and must meet international norms.
When the 2004 tsunami struck, the proposed P-TOMS mechanism for equitable post-tsunami operations was defeated by those now in Government. We will not support repeating mistakes under the cover of emergency.
No one is above the law—priests, ministers, wealthy persons or anyone else. If someone violates the law, act firmly under ordinary law and due process; we will support that. But do not prolong a harsh Emergency with a history of abuse against our communities.
A local example: in our district, people displaced in 1983 under the “Mahaweli L” scheme were later promised water through the Kivul Oya project. Water for all is important, but this project also harms some local communities. In 2011, the then Government ignored their plight; now the same approach is being pushed again without consultation. We recently held a peaceful protest in Vavuniya for affected people—not for political gain. Please halt implementation until proper consultations and safeguards are in place.
On agriculture: over 65% of paddy fields in our area have been harvested. Although the Minimum Support Price is Rs. 120 per kg, farmers in our district are being forced to sell at around Rs. 80. This is grossly unfair—each farmer is losing about Rs. 30,000 per acre. The Paddy Marketing Board says it will buy at MSP from next Monday, but most of the harvest is already over. Start procurement immediately so at least the remaining 30% can benefit, and ensure timely procurement next season.
Thank you.