The Police has shed some light on the recent revelation made by Public Security Minister Tiran Alles that approximately 5,400 Police officers have been deployed for the security of various figures, in addition to those deputed for the security of Parliamentarians including Ministers. According to the Police Media Spokesperson, Senior Superintendent of Police and Attorney Nihal Thalduwa, among the non-MPs that are entitled to Police security are members of the clergy including Buddhist monks, judges, foreign diplomats, and various other individuals who have requested for security due to threats, many of whom are labelled as very important persons (VIPs).

Depending on the necessity, any person living in the country has a right to obtain Police security. However, how the necessity of such security is evaluated is a major concern, especially because deploying around 5,400 Police officers for this purpose is not really a service that the country can afford to maintain in the long run. Responding to a question raised by Samagi Jana Balawegaya Opposition MP Ajith Mannapperuma regarding the conduct of reviews of the necessity of security for the said non-MP parties, Alles has mentioned that his Ministry is to conduct a review of the security provided to such parties, and that based on the review, would remove security whenever possible. However, in this discussion, the fact that such reviews focus only on non-MPs whereas MPs are entitled to Police security solely for being MPs should receive attention, as the Police security provided to them too contributes to the increased public security expenditure and takes away a large number of Police officers who could otherwise serve the public as they are meant to.

“Does one being a MP necessarily mean that one’s life is in danger which consequently warrants Police security?” is the simple, direct question that needs to be answered. Although one might argue that their position which involves a great deal of serious decisions and actions and also the public’s growing aversion towards them justifies that sort of security, how logical those arguments are is a question that needs to be analysed based on real life circumstances. MPs are public representatives whose job essentially is to take and implement decisions for the public in a manner that serves the public’s interests, and therefore, if they have truly made it a priority to serve the public, in most cases, they do not need to fear any backlash from the public. One reason that many MPs at present raise as a reason for increased security for MPs is the 9 May, 2022, attacks on politicians, which is an anomaly and is evidently a consequence of the MPs’ failure to act as public representatives in a manner that is satisfactory to the public. The handful of MPs who can still walk in public with no concerns regarding their safety is proof that that is the case, and a MP position should not be a position one has to perform fearing for one’s life.

There is no argument that a MP that is genuinely in need of Police security should receive that service. However, every MP getting that service merely for being a MP with no evaluation of their safety concerns is questionable. According to Thalduwa, in the case of non-MPs, they are provided with Police security only after conducting an assessment as to whether the alleged threats warrant such safety. Why such an assessment is not conducted when it comes to MPs is a concern that needs to be clarified by the responsible parties. If an MP feels that they require security regardless of the existence or gravity of the security threats that they feel they may have, such a service should ideally be obtained from a party that is not the Police, at their own expense or through a scheme that is not fully sponsored through public funds.

At a time where huge social, political and economic reforms are on the cards with many in progress, the perks granted to MPs should also be subjected to review in order to evaluate whether the perks that they receive are absolutely necessary, and are due to justifiable reasons.