March 3, 2025 – March 9, 2025 | Vol.15, #10
Issue: On February 17, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake delivered the budget speech for 2025.[1][2][3]
On February 18, Aruna Vidanagamage, alias Meegas-Aré Kajja, was targeted by armed gunmen.[4][5] He was shot dead along with his six-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son.[6][7]
On February 19, a suspect in organised crime – Sanjeewa Kumara alias Ganemulla Sanjeewa – was shot dead following a shooting incident at the Colombo Hulftsdorp Court Complex.[8][9]
On February 22, at a media briefing, the Acting Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasooriya noted that there have been 17 reported incidents of shooting and five fatal stabbings totalling 22 incidents so far in 2025.[10][11]
[paywall layout_id=”1906″ service_tags=”TMA,FP” preview=”true”]
Analysis
As discussed in the first analysis of this week’s MPA, recent media coverage of events in Sri Lanka has highlighted that corruption manifests in two distinct forms: financial and criminal.
These forms of corruption have become of focal interest and, therefore, the key yardsticks for evaluating the incumbent government’s performance.
Last week’s MPA issue highlighted the growing public confidence in the government’s ability to address financial and economic corruption, as well as its efforts to shift the political culture.
However, in recent weeks, the government has also faced criticism, particularly regarding handling corruption that manifests in criminality (criminal activities, criminal abuse of power and violence).
This week’s analysis will explore two ways the current government is criticised for failing to address the criminal aspect of corruption.
1. By drawing on yahapaalanaya trauma
Voices critical of the government – including SLPP MP Namal Rajapaksa and Mahinda Pathirana, former chairperson of the Sri Lanka Press Council during the Wickremesinghe presidency – have compared the current government to the yahapaalanaya administration, which is widely seen as failing on its mandate to deliver the country from the scourge of corruption.
They argue that both governments have contributed to rising underworld killings, increased extremism and a weakened state intelligence sector due in part to the appointment of inexperienced individuals. They also criticise the reappointment of yahapaalanaya-era officials to key positions in the police and ministries.
By comparing the current administration to the yahapaalanaya government, critics reinforce the entrenched negative perception of yahapaalanaya’s failure to ensure public safety, particularly in relation to the Easter Sunday attacks, while also seeking to delegitimise the current government.[1]
2. By drawing on the JVP’s historical complicity in criminal corruption
Critics, including Sarath Weerasekara and Ranjith Madduma Bandara, argue that the JVP’s alleged involvement in killings and torture during the 1971 and 1987 – ‘89 insurrections reflects a history of criminal complicity. They suggest that the past of the JVP undermines the party’s credibility in addressing present-day issues of criminal corruption.[2]
In conclusion, critics challenge the government’s approach to tackling criminal corruption by drawing parallels between the yahapaalanaya administration and the current government, while also highlighting the JVP’s historical complicity in criminal corruption. Both lines of criticism aim to delegitimise the government.
[1] See TMA Vol.09, #15; Vol.09, #17.
[2] See TMA Vol.12, #27.
[/paywall]