Public Letter – Formal Objection to endorsement of “LGBTIQ Tourism” Project

 

27 September 2025

 

To:
Mr. Buddhika Hewawasam
Chairman
Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority /
Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau
Colombo, Sri Lanka

 

Cc: Hon. Minister of Tourism
Ministry of Tourism and Lands

 

Subject: Formal Objection to endorsement of “LGBTIQ Tourism” Project

 

Dear Mr. Hewawasam,

 

As a citizen of Sri Lanka, upholding the Constitution & the Buddhist civilizational heritage of Sri Lanka, I register my strongest objection to the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority’s endorsement (letter dated 09th September 2025, Ref: SLTPB/EVT/2025/003/O) of the project to promote and develop “LGBTIQ Tourism” in Sri Lanka. The claims advanced in that letter are not only inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s Constitution, Penal Code, and cultural heritage, but also place at risk our international reputation, our children’s safety, and our nation’s dignity.

 

This endorsement is unacceptable for three fundamental reasons:

 

1. It conflicts with the Constitution, the Penal Code and our cultural heritage.
2. It endangers our children, public health and national reputation.
3. It raises serious questions as to the legality and authority of the endorsement itself.

 

1. Authority & Legality — urgent clarification required

 

Under the Tourism Act No. 38 of 2005, SLTDA and SLTPB operate within a clear legal and administrative hierarchy: policy direction comes from the Hon. Minister of Tourism, and major decisions and public commitments of the Authority are expected to be made by the Board through duly passed Board Resolutions. A single official — including the Chairman — does not possess unilateral authority to endorse socially sensitive national projects of this magnitude.

 

Therefore, please clarify, immediately and publicly:

 

1. Whether this endorsement was authorized by a Ministerial directiveissued by the Hon. Minister of Tourism; and/or
2. Whether this endorsement was approved by a formal Board Resolutionof the SLTDA, recorded in the Board minutes; and if so, please provide the relevant resolution number and date; and/or
3. If neither (1) nor (2) applies, on what legal basis the Chairman signed and issued the letter purporting to endorse this project on behalf of SLTDA/SLTPB.

 

 

In the absence of Ministerial approval or a Board Resolution, this endorsement appears to be ultra vires — beyond the lawful authority of the SLTDA — and cannot bind the Authority, the Bureau, or the Government of Sri Lanka.

 

2. “Safe, inclusive, and welcoming” vs. National Identity, Constitution & Public Health

 

Hospitality is indeed part of our national character. But hospitality cannot be confused with surrendering our cultural, moral, and legal boundaries. Article 9 of the Constitution obliges the State to foster and protect the Buddha Sasana, while Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam also uphold traditional family structures. Promoting lifestyles in direct contradiction to these values is unconstitutional and socially destructive.

 

We cannot turn a blind eye to the devastating public health risks. In just one recent case, 1,327 Sri Lankans who came forward to donate blood discovered they were infected with HIV – a surge of 27% in 2023 alone. This staggering figure is a national tragedy — and yet we are told to welcome policies that would accelerate the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Should the Ministry not be preventing such risks rather than opening the floodgates?

 

Sri Lanka must weigh presumed “economic gain” against the undeniable health and moral collapse that follows:

 

• Rising HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, with innocent citizens already falling victim.
• Exploitation of vulnerable youth and children (as witnessed during the “beach boy” scandals of the 1980s) – children in poverty easy prey.
• Increasing online pornography and foreign predators already advertising Sri Lankan men and women for sex on social media — a trend that will explode under official endorsement of “LGBTIQ Tourism.”

 

3. “Diversification of tourism markets” vs. Exploitation, Awards & Reputation

 

The claim of market “diversification” is dangerously misleading. Nations such as Bali, Thailand, and parts of the Caribbean that embraced sexualised or identity-driven tourism have faced exploitation, epidemics of child abuse, and reputational collapse.

Sri Lanka has painstakingly built a global reputation as an authentic, award-winning destination — voted multiple times by Lonely Planet and Travel + Leisure among the top travel destinations, praised for our heritage, natural beauty, Hela medicine, wildlife, and spirituality. All of this prestige purely based on our culture will be nullified if we officially endorse sex tourism under the guise of inclusivity. Quality tourists will shun us, leaving only predators, exploiters, and opportunists.

 

Already, social media shows foreign men openly seeking Sri Lankan partners for sexual holidays while there. Do we really wish to turn into a sex tourism colony and destroy what generations have worked to preserve?

 

4. “Training and awareness programs” vs. Penal Code & Rule of Law

 

The proposal for DEI-style training is legally untenable.

• Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code criminalize unnatural sexual acts.
• For SLTDA to endorse training that normalizes prohibited conduct is to contradict national law and erode public respect for the justice system.
• Globally, even the U.S. has cancelled federal DEI programs, restoring merit over ideological quotas. If the very nations exporting these models are abandoning them, why should Sri Lanka adopt what they themselves reject?

 

5. “International promotional linkages” vs. Sovereignty

 

Tourism branding must reflect what we are proud of – promote 2600 of heritage & history — not mimic newly created liberal ideologies that foreign lobbies call “pride.” Outsourcing our tourism identity to international networks reduces Sri Lanka to a playground for divisive agendas alien to our culture.

 

Other nations protect their moral boundaries. The Maldives attracts the world’s richest tourists without indulging in identity-based sexual tourism. Sri Lanka must follow that path, not abandon its moral ground falling prey to well-funded campaigns & activists.

 

6. “Contribution to tourism growth” vs. Real Priorities

The promise of significant growth through LGBTIQ tourism is speculative at best. What is proven is the demand for:

• Heritage tourism.
• Hela medicines and wellness tourism.
• Religious pilgrimages.
• Eco-tourism, wildlife, and adventure tourism.

 

These markets align with our identity, offer sustainable returns, and elevate our reputation without the moral, social, and health costs of sexualised tourism.

 

Wider Agenda – A Dangerous Pattern

 

This endorsement cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a dangerous sequence:

• Attempts to introduce LGBTQIA teaching in schools.
• Moves to distribute condoms in schools.
• A Cabinet Minister shamelessly declaring that children as young as 16 can legally have sex.
• Efforts to legalize prostitution under the guise of “reform.”
• Allowing PRIDE parades on our streets to mock cultural and religious values.
• An Opposition MP has highlighted the sentiments of the general public.

 

Tourism endorsement for sexualised niches. What will come next? Do we wish to turn Sri Lanka into a testing ground for every failed social experiment of the West?

 

It is telling that Western nations and corporates are now reversing Pride sponsorships and LGBTQIA promotions, after discovering they bring not profits but boycotts, consumer outrage, and reputational harm. Why then should Sri Lanka, a proud and traditional nation, blindly follow what the West itself is discarding?

 

The Tourism Act No. 38 of 2005 requires tourism development to be consistent with the interests of the people of Sri Lanka. Endorsing “LGBTIQ Tourism” violates this mandate, undermines our Constitution and Penal Code, and erases decades of achievements in building Sri Lanka as a respected global destination.

 

We are concerned that a government entity partnering with a private NGO to promote LGBTIQ tourism raises serious questions about alignment with Sri Lanka’s cultural values and constitutional principles and the People’s will. Such initiatives, while framed as inclusive, may conflict with the nation’s traditional heritage and societal norms and must be rejected forwith.

 

I therefore respectfully request that the Ministry:

1. Withdraw the endorsement issued on 09th September 2025.
2. Ensure all tourism projects remain consistent with Sri Lanka’s Constitution, Penal Code, and cultural heritage.
3. Recommit to authentic tourism promotion — showcasing what Sri Lanka is genuinely proud of, rather than replacing our pride with imported immoral “pride.”

 

Sri Lanka deserves a tourism strategy that unites society, protects children, safeguards public health, and elevates our identity — not one that invites division, disease, and exploitation.

 

 

 

Respectfully,
Shenali D Waduge