Posted on September 24th, 2021


Sri Lanka has a critical debate about the number of representatives that should be in the parliament and the debate has focused on various matters concerning many matters of representatives such as minimum education qualifications, the limits of functional authority. The public has disappointed the value of services and the productivity generated by representatives based on experiences published in media, many of these experiences published may not be true as they were/are, after few days people either ignore or forget such information. However, the point that couldn’t ignore is behavior and the real value of the service.  The expenses incurred for the representatives compared to many other services in the country appear to be higher than the real value of the services provided by representatives.

The role of parliament representatives considers as a part of the government service and the role of representatives adds a process of law-making in addition to the public service. In terms of law, lawmaking is not an executive role, but they have become executives in the general administrative role that means in the provincial administrative roles, parliament representatives attempt to show the will of them are the law.   

In any country, law-making would be an expensive and responsible service despite people in Sri Lanka has habitual attempts to undermine the obliged status of the service of law-making. Originally, the representation of parliament was done by so-called respectable individuals who gained good education, skills, and experience.   

A variety of criteria are used to elect representatives by the election law and the cost associated with these representatives seem to be higher and it also seems that Sri Lankans are a much-governed nation with the parliament and governing councils. The net worth of these many representations has been eroded by people, what were the reasons for such dig out is a complicated subject.  The cost associated with the representatives of the parliament in absolute terms may be higher, and it has become a popular gossip of people and is subject to terrible criticism. After the election in 1970, the role of representatives has become a part of hatred party politics, and on many occasions have recorded those representatives of the parliament have been taking revenge from opposition individuals in dealing with many roles. Sometimes, it was beyond humanity. In this way, the representatives of the parliament encompass a broad criticism against them.

As Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna promised before the election, a Constitutional Committee has been appointed by the government that is being prepared a new constitution, and the draft of the new constitution has not been yet come to express the opinion of people. In this process, the vital aspect would be limiting the number of representatives to 100 is a requirement, and this means the total number of representatives appointing and election for various purposes should not be gone above 100. This is a general feeling and is a reasonable representation of the country.  

At end of the British colonial period, the number of representatives in the parliament was limited to a reasonable volume, but later the limit has been changed by demarcation and increased volume of representatives disregarding many factors such as land area of the country, size of the population, issues of the country that should be looking after by representatives, etc. In many large countries, representatives of the Central Government have limited, and why Sri Lanka has gone breaking the rules of other countries? It seems that it has been resulted by party politics in Sri Lanka because party leaders wanted to give opportunities to party men as a bribe and entertain family relationships. The role of delimitation focussing to limit for 100 representatives in the new constitution would be appreciated by people and certain roles should have refrained from the role of providing service by the new constitution.

It seems that the determination of the volume of representatives should not be associated with party politics and the power of feudalist politics. There is nothing wrong with giving reasonable consideration to ethnic groups, however, caste dictions, religions, and feudalism should not be a factor allowing representation in parliament. If it considers the current parliament there are many family members of the Rajapaksa family represent the parliament and the public has strong criticism about this. 

Therefore, the writers of the new constitution must limit the total number of members of the Parliament to 100 and the cost would be saved from this exercise and could be reduced by criticizing parliament representatives. 


  1. Sarath W Says:

    It is a good idea to limit the number of elected representatives in the parliament to 100. That will reduce the wasted expenditure hopefully by around 50%. But what happens if the 100 elected are from the current lot, the uneducated, crooks, thugs and the drug lords? As I always say, minimum standards should be enforced to make sure only decent, educated proven professionals are elected. Get rid of the perks such as luxury vehicles, body guards etc. That will stop the power hungry and dishonest contesting.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress