The Hon. Kabir Hashim

¶ 01 Hon. Speaker, thank you. I thank the Opposition for allowing me to open from our side.

¶ 02 First, I thank the people of Kegalle District for repeatedly electing me—once again placing their trust in me.

¶ 03 Hon. Speaker, a Vote on Account covers only the expenditure side for a period not exceeding four months. Articles 148–152 of the Constitution provide the basis; Article 148 states: “Parliament shall have full control over public finance.” Therefore, Government and Opposition alike must ensure financial discipline and accountability. We, as Opposition, will be diligent in upholding this and hope the Government will too.

¶ 04 Before addressing the Vote on Account, a few points. Over the last two days, listening to Government speakers, I heard anger being spread. During and before the elections, the JVP propagated hostility and anger—talking of “system change” and the so‑called “70‑year curse.” Yet it is the existing system that enabled over 150 of you to be elected; free education gave many here their O/Ls, A/Ls, degrees, postgraduates, and PhDs, enabling teachers, principals, doctors, and professors to become MPs. Remember that. You have been given a historic mandate. People expect not attacks on the “old system” but delivery through whatever “new system” you promised—if your ideology is socialist/left, say so openly: collective farming instead of private agriculture, state-led industry instead of private industry. But neither the President’s Throne Speech nor today’s Vote on Account by Prof. Anil Jayantha contains even a strand of genuine system change. He did not explain the numbers: what sums, for what heads, and how allocated—that is accountability and financial discipline. We did not see that. Instead of a “system change,” we see an “Anura change.”

¶ 05 On the numbers: According to Subparagraph 1 of the Vote on Account, Rs. 1.4 trillion is sought from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent and capital expenditure for four months. Under Subparagraph 2, at page 18, you seek to obtain Rs. 1.7 trillion from the Consolidated Fund. Combined, total expenditure sought is Rs. 5,600 billion. On page 6, clause (a), you seek authority to borrow up to Rs. 4,000 billion domestically or abroad. You said you could run the country without debt—get money from Uganda or by magic. Yet the first thing is Rs. 400,000 crore borrowing authority in the VoA.

¶ 06 Further, you accused ISBs as “odious”—stolen, commission‑ridden—and vowed not to pay. Yet at page 18, Subparagraph 2, you allocate Rs. 3.2 trillion—Rs. 3,283.188 billion—to pay debt, including ISBs, even before concluding a new agreement. Why include this now without a finalized deal? You must explain.

¶ 07 On ISB restructuring: Our SJB position was to insist on at least a 30% discount; the then Government settled at 26% and, worse, introduced Macro‑Linked Bonds tying haircuts to GDP—so if GDP reaches USD 94 billion, the discount drops to 17.5%; at USD 99 billion, to 14.6%. For 2024, GDP is estimated around Rs. 13.3 trillion which translates to about USD 99 billion—meaning the “26%” becomes 14.6%. This is dangerous. The agreement is not yet signed; December 12 is set for signature. President Anura Kumara says debate is pointless now. We disagree. Bring the agreement to Parliament before signing and allow a vote. We are accountable to the people.

¶ 08 You are now more neoliberal than Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Government. Alongside the VoA you bring a Supplementary Estimate. In Head 102 (Ministry of Finance, Economic Stabilization and National Policies), Rs. 3,213 million is sought. The covering note says it is to reimburse payments to financial/legal advisors engaged by the CBSL for debt restructuring. You will pay Rs. 3,213 million to a few foreign advisors while capping drought‑hit farmers’ relief to Rs. 45,000 per holding instead of Rs. 100,000. Is that fair?

¶ 09 “Grandfathers” are back; nothing has changed—only the “Anura change.” In fact, earlier Ranil’s Government went to the gallows clothed; today Anura’s team goes unclothed—that is the only difference; no real change.

¶ 10 Hon. Speaker, a historic mandate is a responsibility to present policies and a vision with a clear implementation framework: translate vision and policy parameters into a plan, then projects, then programmes, with implementation units, targets and timelines, and proper monitoring and evaluation. Without this, the Throne Speech and this VoA are mere words—a noon‑day dream, a magic tale. I conclude with that reminder.

¶ 11 Thank you.