-By Shanta Jayaratne
(Lanka-e-News -26.Feb.2025, 6.15 PM) It has become a routine for Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa to question the government and clash with the Speaker under Standing Order 27/2 on any day Parliament is in session. This has become a normal occurrence in Parliament, though it must be acknowledged as a privilege he enjoys. Some argue that the opposition leader’s primary objective is to ensure he makes it to the morning news headlines.
However, during the past two weeks of the ongoing budget debate, he has consistently used the first half of each session to accuse the government of failing to uphold national security. His followers have taken it even further, presenting statements and audio clips of government ministers’ election-time promises regarding security, attempting to paint the government as a failure in the eyes of the public.
I have often wondered why government MPs fail to ask the opposition leader and others who criticize national security what they actually mean by it. The way he presents his arguments suggests that he is conflating national security with personal security.
Renowned dictionaries define national security as follows:
Oxford English Dictionary: "National security refers to the safety of a nation against threats such as terrorism, war, or espionage."
Cambridge Dictionary: "The protection or the safety of a country’s secrets and its citizens from threats such as war or attacks by other countries."
United Nations (UN): "The protection of the state's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the well-being of its people from external and internal threats, while upholding human rights and international law."
The Sri Lankan approach to national security has traditionally focused on territorial integrity, political stability, counterterrorism, and economic security. More recent policies also address food security, energy security, and environmental challenges.
Considering these definitions, it is unclear how the murder of Gampaha Sanjeewa impacts the country's national security. Everyone knows that he was killed as a result of conflicts among unarmed drug dealers. Many suspects, including the killers and those who planned the attack, are already in police custody, and legal proceedings have commenced. If none of these actions had been taken, what would the opposition leader have said then?
Government institutions responsible for public security should have taken steps to prevent such murders, and that is a separate issue worth discussing. However, isolated homicides occurring across the country—whether due to personal disputes, drugs, or other reasons—do not necessarily impact national security. The opposition leader himself should clarify how such incidents threaten national security.
There are several members of the government who could educate the opposition leader on the fundamentals of national security. Their silence suggests they, too, are unclear about what national security truly entails. If the ruling party fails to immediately educate the opposition leader and his team on this subject, they may soon weaponize this narrative against the government. If the government fails to act in time, they may only have themselves to blame.
-By Shanta Jayaratne
---------------------------
by (2025-02-26 12:42:59)
Read 15408 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news