Reply To:
Name - Reply Comment
By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana
Raising questions on the extension of the state of emergency by another month, the opposition yesterday queried as to whether such laws are necessary to provide relief to those who are affected by the Ditwah Cyclone.
Speaking during the parliamentary debate on the emergency, Opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekara raised concerns over the activation of Section 19 of the Public Security Ordinance through the latest gazette notification.
“Section 19 bans the spreading of rumours and false information through any means, including electronic and digital media. Is the government attempting to suppress the media under the cover of an extended state of emergency?” Mr Jayasekara asked.
He also referred to a recent statement made by Minister of Media Nalinda Jayatissa, who reportedly said the government was prepared to ban any media outlet at any time. “We cannot ignore such remarks in the context of these regulations,” the MP said.
Mr Jayasekara said that the gazette also places restrictions on movement through regulations issued under Section 15 of the ordinance. “These regulations allow the authorities to restrict entry into certain geographical areas or organisations,” he said.
Questioning the necessity of such measures, he asked, “Why are these laws required to restore normalcy in the country following the Ditwah disaster?”
Responding to the concerns, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya said the emergency regulations would be used solely to facilitate rapid recovery efforts following the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah.
“Emergency laws will not be used to suppress anyone or any protests,” she said.
“We need the emergency regulations for quick action on relocating schools and private residences,” she said.
Minister Vijitha Herath said the Emergency laws were introduced as the Disaster Management Bill was not sufficient to provide quick relief to those who are affected by Ditwah.
The motion to extend the state of emergency was approved by Parliament by a majority of 104 votes, with 106 MPs voting for it and two against.