By Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa
Ada Derana posted a video featuring the ruling party JVP MP Sunil Handunneththi, who is currently the Minister of Industries and Entrepreneurship Development. The video was posted to Facebook, as well as to YouTube.
The exchange is completely in Sinhala. The segment begins with the Ada Derana TV anchor, and journalist Kalindu Karunaratne observing that many asset declarations appeared incomplete, lacked credibility, and perhaps made a mockery of the law, questioning the seriousness with which politicians adhere to the relevant statutes.
When Karunaratne attempted to specifically question MP Handunnetti about his own asset declaration, the Handunnetti offered strenuous pushback, asserting that the televised interview was not the correct platform for an examination or investigation. Handunnetti repeatedly argued that the established legal procedure requires any concerned citizen or the media to file a written complaint with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) if they find the declaration unsatisfactory or insufficient, and request a formal inquiry.
Despite this resistance, which included Handunnetti insisting that the journalist should not ask about asset acquisition methods, Karunaratne maintained the media’s right and responsibility to ask necessary questions during a political dialogue. The specific question posed by Karunaratne challenged Handunnetti’s declaration based on the legal requirement (derived from Clauses 80 to 82 of the Anti-Corruption Act) to detail the manner of acquisition (such as purchase, gift, or inheritance) and provide a good faith estimate of the current value of assets. Karunaratne noted that Handunnetti’s declaration for a 44-perch plot of land listed “නැත” (no/not applicable) for both the method of acquisition and the current value, asking why these legally mandated details were omitted. Rathnayake’s ultimate response to this precise query remained consistent with his earlier pushback: if the journalist is unsatisfied, he has the option to file a complaint and request an investigation.
A machine-translated transcript, checked by the author, is at the end of this article. The video had generated, at the time of writing, 935 comments on YouTube, and 3,700 on Facebook.
As Sri Lanka’s leading, and international award-winning investigative journalist Namini Wijedasa tweeted regarding the exchange, “As someone who reports on corruption (irrespective of who is in power), this worries me exceedingly. Accountability is always easy when it’s applied only against one’s opponents. Isn’t it?”.
But what were the sentiments in the around 4,700 comments studied? Did they echo Wijedasa’s tweet or were they dismissive of the journalist’s probing questions?
Facebook comments
The Facebook comments (all in Sinhala) are near exclusively negative, and sharply critical of Handunneththi, and his party (JVP). There’s widespread ridicule, with users mocking his perceived refusal to answer a direct question about his assets. This is contrasted with significant praise for the Ada Derana journalist, Kalindu Karunaratne, for his direct line of questioning. Key themes, and sentiments included,
- The “Big Kuchchan” meme and viral mockery: The most prominent feature of the comments is the birth and viral spread of a meme mocking the politician’s evasion. His deflection of the question was called “බිග් කුච්චන්” (Big Kuchchan), a Sinhala phonetic spelling of “Big Question”, but can also be read as a kind of infantilism: the inability of the MP to comprehend what’s asked of him, and respond accordingly. Worth stressing that this epithet’s first use targeting Handunneththi came after his catastrophic, cringe-worthy delivery at a World Economic Forum (WEF) event earlier this year – which I’ve studied in significant detail. This phrase is used relentlessly to ridicule the MP and his party, suggesting they are incapable of handling difficult scrutiny. Facebook’s platform affordances, including sharing and tagging are used by those who comment to repeatedly tag their friends, noting “Come and see the Big Kuchchan,” to draw them into the discussion and share in the mockery. The phrase has, since original use, now become a memetic reference of the hypocrisy and the inability of Handunneththi as an individual, and the JVP as a party to answer legitimate questions.
- Accusations of blatant hypocrisy: A deep sense of betrayal and anger fuels the accusations of hypocrisy. Users repeatedly highlight the irony of Handunneththi, whose party when for decades in opposition built its reputation on publicly dissecting the wealth of opponents on political stages, now demanding formal legal procedures when questioned himself. This is seen not just as inconsistent but as a fundamental betrayal of their promise of transparency. Comments (originally in Sinhala) like, “The very people who questioned everything from rivals’ shoes to their belts now say we can’t ask them anything,” and “So it was fine for you to accuse others in public, but we have to follow a ‘procedure’ for you?” dominate the threads, reflecting a feeling of being duped by the new government.
- Derogatory slang: Comments are rich with idiomatic Sinhala slang used to describe public humiliation. The phrase “නානවා”, meaning “bathing,” is used idiomatically to mean Handunneththi is being publicly exposed and shamed by Karunaratne. A phrase meaning to have “defecated in one’s sarong,” is used to imply the MP (who on screen appears defensive, with arms folded when questioned) is terrified and in deep trouble. “ඩෝබි” (Dobi), literally a “laundryman,” used as a pejorative for JVP supporters. Commenters taunt these supporters, telling them to “come and wash” this latest mess, creating a clear in-group (critics) and out-group (supporters) dynamic within the comment threads.
- Praise for the Journalist as a Public Advocate: The Ada Derana journalist Karunaratne, the journalist, is lionised in the comments. He is portrayed as a courageous professional upholding the principles of a free press. Users celebrate him for his persistence and for asking the questions they feel the public deserves answers to. This praise is often framed in contrast to the politician’s evasiveness. Comments like, “Kalidu, you have our respect,” “A true journalist who isn’t afraid,” and “He completely dismantled him” are common, positioning him as a representative of the public’s right to know.
- Widespread cynicism and disillusionment: The video segment has clearly triggered a wave of cynicism towards the year-old government. Many users express that this behaviour confirms their fears that the JVP/NPP are no different from the politicians they replaced. There’s a palpable sense of disillusionment in comments like, “One year in power and their true colours are showing,” “So much for the ‘system change’,” and “All of them are thieves.” This event is being treated as a defining moment that exposes the party’s perceived arrogance and lack of accountability now that they are in power.
YouTube comments
Sentiments in the comments posted to YouTube are entirely consistent with those on Facebook, displaying an overwhelmingly negative and critical view of MP Handunneththi, and his political party. The core themes of hypocrisy, evasion, and public embarrassment are just as potent, if not more so, on YouTube.
- The “Big Kuchchan” meme: The “බිග් කුච්චන්” (Big Kuchchan) meme is equally viral and central to the discourse on YouTube. Commenters use it as a sarcastic punchline to signify any question the government is perceived as unable or unwilling to answer. Its presence across both major platforms demonstrates how effectively this single moment has been weaponised by critics to define the politician’s performance.
- Accusations of hypocrisy: This theme is a dominant driver of anger on both platforms. YouTube commenters, just like their Facebook counterparts, relentlessly point out the irony of the politician’s stance. The top-voted comment, with 180 likes, states, “They’ve conveniently forgotten how they insulted others at will.” Other comments frequently recall the party’s past rhetoric about opponents, such as claims about torn underwear (“යට කලිසමෙ හිල්”), to highlight what they see as a profound double standard. The argument that the party publicly tried others on political stages but now demands the protection of formal procedure for themselves is a cornerstone of criticism on both platforms.
- Praise for the Journalist: The admiration for journalist Karunaratne is equally strong, if not more explicitly measured, on YouTube. The high vote counts on comments praising him (e.g., 174 votes for “They are terrified of Kalidu,” 124 votes for “The best journalist I have ever seen”) serve as a powerful public endorsement. On both platforms, he is framed as a courageous professional holding power to account, but YouTube’s like system makes this consensus immediately visible at the top of the comment section.
- Derogatory slang and idioms: The same rich, idiomatic Sinhala slang is used to mock the politician. The idea of him “නානවා” (naanawa – bathing/being publicly shamed) is a recurring theme, signifying extreme panic. “ඩෝබි” (Dobi) for JVP supporters is also prevalent, often used in heated reply threads to dismiss and insult anyone defending the politician.
The most up-voted comments on YouTube – itself a proxy indicator of a broader public sentiment that agrees with what’s already posted – ridicule the MP, and his party.
Narrative frames on Handunneththi (across Facebook, and YouTube comments)
- The hypocritical saint: The most powerful and pervasive frame. Commenters construct a narrative where the MP and his party are portrayed as self-righteous preachers who built their entire political identity on aggressively and publicly exposing the alleged corruption of others. His current refusal to answer a direct question is framed as the ultimate act of hypocrisy, revealing that he cannot withstand the same standards he applied to his rivals. This frame is reinforced by constant references to their past rhetoric, such as questioning opponents’ wealth down to their “torn underwear”.
- The evader par excellence: This narrative interprets Handunneththi’s deflection not as a procedural or legalistic stance, but as a clear sign of guilt. The underlying logic presented by commenters is that an innocent person with nothing to hide would answer the question directly and transparently. His attempt to control the interview and divert the question towards a formal complaint process is seen as an admission that the source of his assets is illicit, embarrassing, or cannot be justified publicly. This frame is epitomised by the viral “Big Kuchchan” meme.
- The arrogant politician: This frame focuses on his tone and demeanour, portraying him as a politician who has become arrogant and dictatorial after gaining power. His “conditions” for the journalist are interpreted as an attempt to silence the media and suppress scrutiny. Commenters frame this as a dangerous early warning sign of the party’s authoritarian tendencies, suggesting that if they behave this way within their first year, their rule will become increasingly oppressive. This narrative paints him as being no different from the arrogant politicians (i.e., the Rajapaksas, and their ilk) he once condemned.
- The false pauper: This narrative builds on the contrast between the party’s carefully cultivated image of being humble, working-class representatives and the reality of their now-disclosed assets. Handunneththi is framed as a fraud who masqueraded as a man of the people, using stories of poverty and simplicity to elicit sympathy and votes. Commenters sarcastically bring up his past claims of having little to his name, framing his unexplained wealth as a betrayal of the ordinary citizens who believed in and even financially supported his “struggle”.
- Just another corrupt politician: This narrative frame dismisses the JVP’s claim to be a genuine “system change”. Handunneththi’s actions are presented as definitive proof that all politicians are fundamentally the same: they are critical of corruption while in opposition but become corrupt and secretive once in power. This narrative collapses any distinction between the new government and its predecessors, concluding that the entire political class is untrustworthy. Expressions of voter’s remorse (“our vote was wasted”) are a key component of this frame.
Turns out the sentiment in Namini Wijedasa‘s tweet isn’t an isolated one. Thousands of Facebook and YouTube comments strongly echo her concern by consistently highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of MP Sunil Handunneththi. They aggressively challenge his demand for formal complaints, contrasting it with his party’s past public accusations against opponents, thereby underscoring the narrative that accountability is selectively applied.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?
Transcript
Kalindu Karunaratne: The asset declarations presented here are often incomplete. Serious questions arise regarding the credibility of these asset declarations. Also, it seems that the law regarding the publication of these asset declarations has sometimes been made a joke of, judging by the asset declarations that have been presented. Let’s discuss why it seems that way, related to the points I’m making. Now, I am questioning you because of the government. I am not saying that only the government does this. The question I have is how seriously these politicians comply with this law. Let’s go to the Cabinet of Ministers, starting with you. Your asset declaration…
Sunil Handunnetti: Excuse me, let me just interrupt for a moment, forgive me. You and I are not conducting an investigation here, are we?
Kalindu Karunaratne: Yes.
Sunil Handunnetti: Now, regarding my asset and liability declaration, you, or anyone who sees this through the media, or any citizen, can go to that website and say this is not right. This is insufficient. This is inadequate. Or, this is too much. They can file a complaint regarding how these were acquired and request an investigation from the Bribery or Corruption Commission. I am saying that it is unfair for the two of us to try and turn this into an inquiry here.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Since I have a question to ask, I must ask that question.
Sunil Handunnetti: I can choose not to answer this. I can choose not to answer or I can answer. I am saying that is very unfair. Because there is an institution that conducts investigations for that. The procedure for this is that they don’t ask how you acquired it, and you are not bound to answer that.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Don’t answer. If I ask, you have a method.
Sunil Handunnetti: Because there is a system for asking that. Should I file a complaint?
Kalindu Karunaratne: Are you telling me not to ask that during this television discussion?
Sunil Handunnetti: No.
Kalindu Karunaratne: What do you mean by “No”? Is it because there is a system for it?
Sunil Handunnetti: A system has been established for that in this country.
Kalindu Karunaratne: I mean, when participating as a public representative… Holding you in front of me, Honorable Minister.
Sunil Handunnetti: Yes.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Why can’t I ask you a certain question? I am giving you the opportunity to answer.
Sunil Handunnetti: That is not the procedure.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Why? Why? The responsibility and the right of the media to ask any question of you during an interview must belong to the media.
Sunil Handunnetti: Even if the media has the right, there is a law in the country and a procedure that has been established. The Bribery and Corruption Commission has published these [declarations]. [It’s not for] every person who sees it to ask questions when they meet you on the street.
Kalindu Karunaratne: That’s the point. Now, Honorable Minister, I did not meet you on the street. I am meeting you in a political discussion that the people of the country are watching. Accordingly, regarding the submission of your asset and liability declarations Why is there a contradiction with the law? Why should you prevent me from presenting my observation to you and getting your opinion? Why must you block that?
Sunil Handunnetti: That obstacle exists within the investigation process. Anyone can report it in writing to the Bribery and Corruption Commission and request an investigation if they have a question about the relevant asset and liability declaration, if they say there is a shortcoming, or if they think it is insufficient. Because if I ask you that, then starting from the next 360 days, you will have to bring everyone who submitted these asset and liability declarations here. Will you ask that of everyone?
Kalindu Karunaratne: I can ask.
Sunil Handunnetti: Even though you can ask, will you ask?
Kalindu Karunaratne: I will ask.
Sunil Handunnetti: You will have to ask.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Yes.
Sunil Handunnetti: But you will have to ask. What is the reason? Everyone should have that fair opportunity, shouldn’t they?
Kalindu Karunaratne: Now you yourself said (about your own). Now, it is not that I cannot answer mine, I am not saying that. Minister, you yourself said very correctly You said that the asset and liability declarations have been submitted very correctly. You mentioned the role given to submit asset and liability declarations because the current government is in power. If you are speaking with strong confidence about its accuracy, why don’t you allow me to ask a question I have? You can ask questions. I will ask the question; you can choose not to answer. All right, fine. When submitting the declaration of assets and liabilities, an instruction sheet has been provided according to the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act, from Article 80 to 82. Accordingly, there is a form for everyone to submit their asset and liability declarations. It states that when declaring assets, you must mention whether it was a purchase, a bequest, a gift, or something obtained in another manner. Furthermore, it states that if it was acquired in another manner, you must clearly explain how. Excluding publicly traded securities, for all other assets purchased, you must state the purchase price and provide a bona fide assessment of their value at the time the declaration is submitted. That is my question. That is the instruction sheet. That is the requirement of the law. But, Your Excellency… You have indicated a 44-perch land plot registered in your name in the asset declaration. However, you write “No” for the manner in which it was acquired. You also write “No” for its value. Minister, why do you not include the manner of acquisition and the current value of the 44-perch land plot in the asset declaration when the law requires it?
Sunil Handunnetti: If you are not satisfied with that, you can file a complaint and request an investigation.
Kalindu Karunaratne: Fine. That is your answer.