ඇතුලට එන්න මගෙ ආදරනීය ජේවීපී යාලුවනේ - transparency ගැන ටෝක්ස් දීලා ආපු උන් වත්කම් පනත වෙනස් කරන්න යනවලු නේද? 🤭🤭

රාජ්‍ය භාණ්ඩාගාරයේ මුදල් බිලියන ගානක් පක්ෂ account එකකට දාගන්නා ඉතිහාසයේ විශාලතම රාජ්‍ය මුදල් අවභාවිතාව​

pavanruka said:

I don't know about Namal, Harsha or Archuna. But they certainly didn't tell their woes to the public before elections like these JVPers. That's why they've become the laughing stock. Can't you remember the image they gave of themselves to the public?
If opposition members too have hidden their assets why isn't that discussed like this?

Click to expand...

JohnWick said:

View attachment 268591

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has instructed officials to revise the proposed amendments to Sri Lanka’s Anti-Corruption Act to ensure that the asset declarations of politicians continue to be made public, a senior government official confirmed to NewsWire.

The move follows concerns raised over a draft amendment published in the Gazette on July 24, 2026, which proposed changes to the asset declaration framework under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023.

According to the senior official, the proposed amendment was initially formulated after considering that nearly 160,000 asset declarations are expected to be submitted under the law. Concerns had also been raised by several private sector professionals serving on government boards, who argued that mandatory public disclosure of their declarations could infringe on their privacy.

The amendment was therefore intended to address those concerns.

However, following discussions, President Dissanayake has instructed officials to revise the proposal so that while privacy concerns of non-political individuals are addressed, the asset declarations of all elected representatives and politicians will continue to be publicly accessible.

The official said the changes would preserve the public’s right to scrutinise the assets and liabilities of public representatives, while introducing a different framework for other categories required to submit declarations under the law.

The revised amendment is expected to be presented following the President’s instructions. (Newswire)

Click to expand...

ozykolla said:

@topkollek කවුද මේ කියන senior official?

ආණ්ඩුකාරවරු ?
උපදේශකවරු?
ලේකම්වරු?
සභාපතිවරු?
පොලිස් හමුදා නිලධාරීන්?

කාවද මේ රකින්නේ?

Click to expand...

International Patterns (from World Bank, OECD, and comparative studies)​

• Public access is more frequent and comprehensive for high-level elected officials (heads of state ~63%, ministers ~56%, MPs ~51% of systems).
• Declarations of civil servants/non-elected officials are often protected by privacy rules or available only on restricted terms, especially for mid- or lower-level staff. Reasons include lower policy influence, security concerns, and privacy rights.
• Roughly 50–65% of countries with disclosure systems allow some public access to declaration content by law (higher in upper-middle- and high-income countries; much lower in low-income ones). Many use tiered models: full/public for senior/elected roles; confidential or limited for others.

Country/Regional Examples for Non-Politicians​

Key Takeaways​

• Differentiated access is common and often recommended as a balance between transparency (for high-risk/elected roles) and privacy/security (for career civil servants or lower-risk positions). Full public access for all declarants is less frequent than selective access.
• Systems that publish for non-politicians usually limit it to senior ranks, redact heavily, or make it available only on request.
• Restricting public access for non-politicians (as Sri Lanka proposes) aligns with practices in the US, UK, parts of Europe, and India, where privacy considerations for non-elected officials weigh more heavily.
• Broader public access (Sri Lanka’s current model) is stronger for accountability and civil-society scrutiny but raises the privacy and administrative concerns that prompted the proposed changes (large volume of ~160,000 declarants, including private-sector professionals).

topkollek said:

TL;DR The final revised bill text has not yet been published, so the exact legal wording on public access for non-politicians remains to be confirmed when it is presented to Parliament. (grok)

Public access to asset declarations of non-politicians (senior civil servants, non-elected public officials, board members, and others required to declare) varies widely and is generally more restricted than for elected politicians.

Sri Lanka’s current law (Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023) is relatively broad: redacted versions of every declaration are automatically made publicly accessible on the CIABOC website. The proposed amendments (as revised) aim to differentiate—keeping public access for politicians/elected representatives while restricting it (“privacy of others will be restricted”) for non-political declarants. This moves Sri Lanka toward a common international pattern of tiered access.

International Patterns (from World Bank, OECD, and comparative studies)​

World Bank analyses of income and asset disclosure (IAD) systems across dozens of countries show:

• Public access is more frequent and comprehensive for high-level elected officials (heads of state ~63%, ministers ~56%, MPs ~51% of systems).
• Declarations of civil servants/non-elected officials are often protected by privacy rules or available only on restricted terms, especially for mid- or lower-level staff. Reasons include lower policy influence, security concerns, and privacy rights.
• Roughly 50–65% of countries with disclosure systems allow some public access to declaration content by law (higher in upper-middle- and high-income countries; much lower in low-income ones). Many use tiered models: full/public for senior/elected roles; confidential or limited for others.

Examples of tiered or restricted approaches include Hong Kong SAR (China), Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Country/Regional Examples for Non-Politicians​

Country/Region	Public Access for Non-Politicians (Civil Servants / Non-Elected Officials)	Notes
United States	Public for high-level (e.g., SES, Presidential appointees, certain special employees); confidential for many others	Ethics in Government Act distinguishes “public filers” vs. “confidential filers” based on rank and duties.
United Kingdom	Limited/summarised relevant interests published for ministers; full details often confidential; civil service disclosures generally internal	Focus is conflict-of-interest management rather than full public asset lists for non-ministers.
France	Public for high non-elected (government members, high civil servants, some federation presidents); more restricted lower down	HATVP publishes for covered high officials; lower ranks less open.
Many EU countries	Mixed: often public or on-request for senior civil servants; restricted or anonymised for others (especially law enforcement); some limit mainly to elected	GDPR influences anonymisation. Germany/Greece/Portugal/Slovenia more limited overall.
India	Generally not automatically public under RTI for personal asset details of public servants	Courts have upheld privacy: information given to employers for service rules is not freely disclosable to third parties.
Romania / some Eastern Europe	Broader online public access for many officials (including non-elected), but subject to privacy challenges and court rulings	Debates continue over adult family members and full publication.
South Korea	Expanding public access (including crypto holdings) for thousands of public officials via integrated system	Moving toward greater transparency for a wide range of officials.
Ghana / many African systems	Often filed with Auditor-General or similar; public publication not automatic or limited	Emphasis on filing rather than broad online public access for non-politicians.

Key Takeaways​

• Differentiated access is common and often recommended as a balance between transparency (for high-risk/elected roles) and privacy/security (for career civil servants or lower-risk positions). Full public access for all declarants is less frequent than selective access.
• Systems that publish for non-politicians usually limit it to senior ranks, redact heavily, or make it available only on request.
• Restricting public access for non-politicians (as Sri Lanka proposes) aligns with practices in the US, UK, parts of Europe, and India, where privacy considerations for non-elected officials weigh more heavily.
• Broader public access (Sri Lanka’s current model) is stronger for accountability and civil-society scrutiny but raises the privacy and administrative concerns that prompted the proposed changes (large volume of ~160,000 declarants, including private-sector professionals).

International guidance (World Bank/OECD) stresses that public access enhances effectiveness when balanced carefully, and many effective systems prioritise verification by authorities over universal online publication for every filer. The final details of Sri Lanka’s revised bill will determine exactly how restrictive the “different framework” for non-politicians becomes.

Click to expand...

ozykolla said:

අධ්‍යක්ෂක ධූර වලින් අයින් වෙලා ඇවිත් හැබැයි සමාගමේ කොටස් අයිතිය තියාගෙන ඉන්න නිලධාරීන් ඉන්නවා.

ඔය conflict of interest දැනගන්න මිනිස්සුන්ට අයිතියක් නැද්ද ?

Click to expand...

topkollek said:

තොරතුරු දැනගැනීමේ පනත වගේ එකක් හරහා ඉල්ලීමක් කරල විස්තර ගන්න පුළුවන් වෙයි

Click to expand...

jjpala said:

බඩී ලොල්ලා මේකත් හෝදනවා නේ ලැජ්ජයි
ගූ කන වුන් ට මොන ලැජ්ජාවක් ද. අනාතයා

Click to expand...

topkollek said:

මේ වගේ කොමෙන්ට් වලට මොනවා කියන්නද

Click to expand...

jjpala said:

https://elakiri.com/threads/ලංකාවට-බඩී-අධ්‍යාපනය-හඳුන්වා-දුන්නෙ-කවුද.2238627/


වටිනා කියන ත්‍රීඩ් දාන බඩී ලොල්ලා.

පුරුදු වෙන්න කරන වැඩ ද මේ

Click to expand...

topkollek said:

Click to expand...

jjpala said:

ජේප්පන්ගේ ඕන ගූ ගොඩක් ගිලින උබ වගේ වහල්ලු එක්ක මොන ෆැක්ටීස් ද. ?


රට දුෂ්ණය වලක්කවන්න තමයි මේ පනත සංශෝධන ගෙනල්ලා තියේනෙන් අනුර.

තොරතුරු දැනගැනීමේ අයිතියයි. බාෂනයේ නිදහසයි උපරිම කරන්න මේ ගෙනත් තියෙන්නේ නැද්ද ??

Click to expand...

topkollek said:

Click to expand...