Women still can?t buy booze in Sri Lanka, legally

By Rohit Bhatachaarya 

Maithripala Sirisena, the President of Sri Lanka, has resoundingly rejected a reform proposed by Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, that would have granted women the same rights as men to legally purchase liquor in the country. The move would also have uplifted a ban on women to work in bars, breweries and distilleries, thus allowing them to be employed in such establishments without the requirement of permits. The President’s decision has been criticised for its disregard for the principle of gender equality and called out as a mere reinforcement of archaic legal regulations and sexist control mechanisms.

The proposed reform

The sudden reversal took place soon after an announcement made by the Sri Lankan government on Wednesday, which declared the government’s intention to amend the 1955 law, that it conceded was discriminatory towards women. Ali Hassan, a finance ministry spokesperson, had stated that Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera had taken the decision to revoke the four-decade-old law in order to eliminate sexist provisions from the statute. According to Hassan, the idea behind this move was to restore gender neutrality. He remarked that the ban had been imposed in 1979 in order to appease the conservative Buddhist hierarchy at the time.

The reform would have allowed women over 18 years of age the right to legally buy alcohol for the first time in over six decades. A ban on the sale of alcohol outside the time bracket of 9 AM and 9 PM would have also been uplifted, with sale timings being extended from 8 AM to 10 PM. Although the previous law was not always strictly enforced, many women across Sri Lanka had welcomed the change.

However, the decision drew the ire of some sections of the Buddhist-majority nation of 21 million citizens. Eminent monks in the country condemned the decision to remove the ban, suggesting that it would ruin Sri Lankan family culture by causing alcohol addiction among women. Furthermore, the National Movement for Consumer Rights Protection had accused the finance minister of promoting a drinking culture and had urged Sirisena to intervene and restore the restrictions.

Liquor vendors in Sri Lanka are also barred from selling alcohol to police officers or members of the armed officers in uniform. The Finance Minister felt that stringent restrictions imposed on licensed liquor manufacturers only resulted in the creation of a black market, which deprived the government of much-needed revenue. He had previously unveiled Sri Lanka’s budget in November, which steeply raised taxes on hard liquor, while simultaneously reducing tariffs on wine and beer.

The president’s response

Sirisena’s office released an official statement, stating that the Finance Minister’s order would be rescinded with full effect from Monday. It was also noted by the President’s office that the time period for bars to remain open would be reduced. It was added that status quo would be reaffirmed without providing any explanation as to how it would be implemented. Thus, there is a lack of clarity from Sirisena’s statement on Sunday about whether the decision to allow women to work in bars had also been reversed.

While addressing a rally, the President candidly remarked that he had only heard of the move through newspaper reports. He defended his decision to order the government to withdraw the notification by saying that he had heard and taken into consideration the criticism that the move had received. Sirisena’s response is not surprising, given that he runs a strong anti-alcohol campaign and has attempted to raise alarming warning signs in the past by speaking of the “drastically” rising alcohol consumption among women in Sri Lanka.

Sirisena’s hypocrisy

Sirisena’s stance with respect to women’s issues has clearly been two-faced and hypocritical. On one hand, he has previously encouraged women to play a more active role in politics, taking credit last year for his government ensuring that a greater number of women would be represented in future elections. However, his apparent double standards over the liquor ban have drawn flak from both men and women on social media.

Furthermore, his alarmist rhetoric of an increasing alcohol consumption culture among women in Sri Lanka is simply untrue. According to statistics unearthed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2014, 80.5% of women in Sri Lanka simply never drink, compared to 56.9% of men. Moreover, less than 0.1% of women above the age of 15 are heavy drinkers, compared to 0.8% of men in the same age bracket. The majority of women in Sri Lanka conventionally choose not to drink as they consider it to be antithetical to Sri Lankan culture. An upliftment of the ban would have legitimised the free will of those women who choose to drink while reducing the scope for bootlegs, thus ensuring better regulation and greater revenue for the government.

Interestingly, several political commentators believe that the abrupt executive reversal of the government’s decision to remove the ban, coupled with the differences in opinion between the President and the Finance Minister, are signs of dissension within the coalition government. While the political drama continues to unfold behind closed doors, for the time being, the patriarchy continues to prevail in Sri Lanka.

Featured Image Source: Pixabay