Hon. Amila Prasad

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, this is my opportunity to present views on the NPP’s inaugural Budget. A budget directs the future of the economy: its growth path and how many people who were previously excluded can newly participate. Yet, from the outset, government speakers focused largely on “expenditure.” The real crisis is on the “revenue” side. In a country where the middle class and the majority are suffocating under taxes, we must discuss how to raise revenue with minimal public pain. Many avoid discussing revenue for fear of public backlash—preferring to list giveaways. But where are the new income streams? What reforms have you proposed? That’s what we must debate as a country.

¶ 02 You propose a “prosperous country.” Prosperity cannot be imported by copying examples. We must ask how those countries became rich—their pathways, obstacles—and embed feasible, realistic measures.

¶ 03 No country became rich by expanding the state’s footprint. Prosperity came by allowing the private sector to drive expansion, while the state gradually shrank and reduced expenditure. Yet your Budget increases state expenditure over the previous year, indicating a growing state footprint. As state intervention expands, the private sector shrinks; our growth aspirations then move further out of reach. The task is not “you versus us” in government; it is to maximize private-sector space and minimize the state’s footprint.

¶ 04 Budgets overloaded with promises and lofty words lose credibility. A good budget for a country like ours must include what we can actually do now. It is not the page count, hours of reading, or the drafting effort that matters, but the realism regarding what can and cannot be done.

¶ 05 Over the past 77 years, many budgets succeeded or failed; yet failed decisions have no owners today, and all of us now grapple with their consequences. A budget must therefore be prepared with utmost responsibility. If you promise money to every sector but cannot deliver by year end, the burden of failure will fall on future generations.

¶ 06 This NPP-led government—rooted in 60 years of leftist politics—has now distanced itself from socialist dogma. I welcome that. You engage with India, the U.S., and the IMF. If you had shunned the IMF and built a purely leftist budget, Sri Lanka would be isolated. We support your engagement with the IMF; it is the only practical way, at this moment, to lift the country.

¶ 07 But compare outlays to revenue. You plan to spend the equivalent of an extra “1.5 hundred-thousand units” over last year, while the revenue total is lower. Either you raise new taxes or borrow more. Otherwise, how do you fund the gap? Budgets must be practical.

¶ 08 On digitalization: it is not just issuing an ID. It is a comprehensive computerization enabling visibility into vacancies and staff surpluses across the public service, so excess cadres can be redeployed to fill gaps. That is a liberal, market-friendly reform that shrinks the state and boosts efficiency. However, at the same time you propose creating 30,000 new government jobs. That contradicts digitalization’s rationalization objective. We accept wage improvements for public servants—but what you did was consolidate allowances into the basic salary, which improves future pensions. That is positive—but it also increases future pension liabilities. Therefore, you must build a proper pension fund mechanism now, otherwise future governments will face a crisis.

¶ 09 To truly develop economically over the next decade or two, we must connect with the world. We are at the edge of the Indian Ocean; India is our nearest neighbor. We cannot pursue isolationist ideas. Our under-engagement with the world is a key reason for our poverty. The Budget must be framed on how we connect more, not less. I also appreciate the first-time consensus to bring public and private sectors together—abandoning the demonization of private sector participation.

¶ 10 However, while the President spoke strongly against corruption and cronyism, we hear that a wind power project is to be granted to an entity that failed twice at the Tender Board. If you have ended cronyism, please explain such decisions transparently.

¶ 11 Trade union disruptions have also eased under this government’s approach; that is a positive. As a teacher, I urge you to prioritize further increases for two-thirds of teachers so we attract talent into schools. With that, I conclude. Thank you.