The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake

¶ 01 What we expect from the Audit Commission and the Bribery Commission is the same ethos we are applying to the National Procurement Commission: they must all be accountable to the people. Even if they have not sought a mandate by election, they derive authority from the people, and nothing stands above that. This applies whether it is the courts, the Election Commission, the National Police Commission or any commission. The era of “my car, my petrol” is over. People now question everything, and rightly so; they pay the taxes. The 225 of us in this House pay only a small fraction of the total tax. We are speaking about a very important institutional system that must learn to be directly answerable to the people.

¶ 02 Recently, the Hon. Speaker established the Constitutional Affairs Committee to engage these institutions, identify issues and discuss their conduct in a cordial manner. But these institutions too must be mindful of public accountability. Hon. Presiding Member, they should arrange their work in a way that is answerable to the public. Politicians are criticized, mocked, and judged every election cycle. But some officials appointed to these bodies remain for decades without similar accountability. They too must be answerable. We will grant them maximum independence, the resources and the respect required—be it from the President or the Prime Minister. In return, we expect them to understand the mandate of the public service and act accordingly. That is the central point I wanted to emphasize.

¶ 03 Hon. Presiding Member, those fundamentally opposed to our policies now criticize them. One has the right to criticize only if one stands for that policy ethic oneself. Many of those who misused official residences, engaged in fraud and corruption, and wasted resources during their time in office, now moralize. In a country pushed to bankruptcy, we have taken decisions consistent with our principles. We do not reject luxury vehicles because we cannot afford them or lack access; some colleagues personally own such vehicles. We simply do not need to posture in front of a large Mercedes or a BMW 7 Series for photographs. Our policies are based on restraint, not publicity.

¶ 04 We are also being told that MPs should not even have official residences. Who says this? It is well known the Leader of the Opposition has an official residence. Why is it a problem only when it is us? We are happy to accept criticism only from those who make greater sacrifices than we do—not from those who wrecked the country and now preach to us.

¶ 05 Our MPs and Ministers can reside in official quarters if they are the most suitable persons—many of them are genuine, dedicated politicians. We also know of Ministers who had homes in Kirulapone and still demanded official housing, even claiming backdated rent for delays in allocation back in 2003–2004. That kind of entitlement culture is what we are moving away from.

¶ 06 Regarding the Madiwela Housing Complex, we informed the Hon. Speaker that those residences need proper renovation. Our sacrifices are not for propaganda. If a person does something consistently from 1994, that is not publicity—it is practice.

¶ 07 At the Staff Advisory Committee, on the Hon. Speaker’s initiative, we decided the Parliament itself must be held to account to the people. We resolved to conduct audits of Parliamentary expenditure. We requested, in writing, details of how former Speakers managed their expenditures. Parliament should be exemplary if we expect the country to be exemplary.

¶ 08 The current Speaker does not reside at the official Speaker’s residence, yet as of November 2024, about 70 staff were stationed only to maintain that bungalow. Audit reports have documented all related costs. I table those reports.

¶ 09 According to audit, the former Speaker, from 1 January 2024 to 24 September 2024, used nine vehicles with fuel costs totaling Rs. 3.3 million over nine months—about Rs. 0.37 million per month. The former Deputy Speaker used six vehicles; his nine-month fuel bill was Rs. 1.35 million. The former Deputy Chairperson of Committees used four vehicles; nine-month fuel was Rs. 0.73 million.

¶ 10 By contrast, the current Speaker’s fuel cost from 1–31 January 2025 was Rs. 218,000. The current Deputy Speaker, an MP from Colombo District, spent Rs. 23,000. The current Deputy Chairperson of Committees spent Rs. 81,000. One wonders who was running a petrol shed. Even Hon. Jagath Withana had to fuel buses. We have no inferiority complex. People can spend on any vehicle with their own money—that is their choice.

¶ 11 I table the Monthly Food Items Cost for the Speaker’s Official Account (2023 and 2024). The bungalow’s food costs were Rs. 2.68 million in 2023 and Rs. 3.28 million in 2024. Some parliamentary staff know that, in the past, food and supplies belonging to Parliament were billed and taken to the homes of former Speakers and Deputy Speakers—disgraceful behavior. By contrast, the current Speaker’s total expense in January was Rs. 33,000. We are demonstrating thrift, not showmanship. When 56 percent of our people are economically vulnerable, it is outrageous to spend Rs. 3.37 million on fuel over nine months. We will continue to answer cheap jokes with practice—saving public money and serving the people.

¶ 12 Thank you, Hon. Presiding Member, for the opportunity.