An exchange took place in Parliament concerning the alleged promotion of tourism aimed at the LGBTQ+ community, prompting questions about government actions and the application of the Penal Code.
SJB MP Kavinda Jayawardena initiated the debate in Parliament today (8), noting that there is currently a discussion about promoting the LGBTQ community as a tourist promotion program. He stated that the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau is allegedly taking steps to promote the foreign LGBTQ+ community within the country.
MP Jayawardena asked Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya about the laws pertaining to homosexuality under Sri Lanka’s Penal Code. He specifically cited the existing opposition from religious leaders, including Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and the Mahanayake Theros, regarding this promotion, and inquired what steps the Ministry was taking.
Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya clarified the government’s overall stance. She stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment, and Tourism had informed the media about the government’s policy on tourism promotion during an event on October 2, 2025, marking Tourism Day, and that this remains the government’s policy.
Addressing the legal aspect, PM Amarasuriya noted that Section 365 A of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995, addresses this matter, and the clause would be formally presented.
She stressed that the government’s position has already been clarified by the President to the Mahanayake Theros, as well as by the relevant Minister during the Tourism Day speech. The government’s standing is clear: it does not promote special groups when advancing the country’s tourism industry, and tourism must be carried out in a manner that harms no individual.
MP Jayawardena returned to the issue with a strong follow-up, referring to what he characterized as the foundation of Sri Lanka’s civility—respecting elders, citing an instance where the PM was seen bowing to a teacher or elder.
However, the MP pointed to a letter issued on September 9, 2025, by an official named Buddha Hevawasam of the Sri Lanka Development/Promotion entity. According to the MP, this letter explicitly states that authority has been granted to promote LGBTQ tourism, including providing authority to work with stakeholders, training institutions, guides, and drivers.
Jayawardena argued that this action contradicted the clear stances stated by the President and the Foreign Affairs/Tourism Minister. He demanded to know whether legal action has been taken against the Chairman who issued the letter and whether the letter has been revoked.
The MP emphasized that his concern was not about the local LGBTQ community or individuals with anatomical or physiological conditions, but about turning Sri Lanka into a destination for foreign LGBTQ tourists, especially if the activity remains illegal under the Penal Code’s Section 375 (likely referencing 365 A).
Prime Minister Amarasuriya responded by clarifying the context of the controversial letter. She stated that the letter, if read in full, contains a final paragraph indicating that the relevant Minister or the government must be informed about the matter. This suggests the letter was not issued after consultation with the political authority.
Consequently, the relevant Minister has since spoken to the Chairman, providing advice and instructions regarding the stance of the government and the political authority.
PM Amarasuriya urged the MP not to sensationalize the issue for political gain, reminding him that such statements can harm the community involved. She also reminded the MP that the Constitution mandates that everyone must be treated equally with respect.
She reiterated the core policy: the government will not provide any special privileges or special promotion to any group.
MP Jayawardena stressed that the Chairman is a political appointee and questioned whether he was following the government’s agenda. If he was not, the MP reiterated his simple question: “Will legal action be taken against him or not?”.
Prime Minister Amarasuriya concluded by stating that if the Chairman has broken the law, the courts and the legal system will act against him. She asserted that the political authority does not need to intervene where laws have been broken, as that is the purpose of the legal and judicial systems. She reaffirmed that the government’s policy has been clearly declared by both the President and the relevant Minister.
