The Hon. Shanakiyan Rajaputhiran Rasamanickam

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate speaking after the Hon. Minister. The concerns raised by Hon. Kabir Hashim are clear to us as well.

¶ 02 The NPP-led Government came to power promising a “prosperous country, dignified life,” claiming to represent the oppressed and urging voters to send their representatives to Parliament. Yet, according to information we have, a key driver for rushing this Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Bill is the Asian Development Bank’s condition attached to a US$200 million loan. Even Government Members acknowledge this. Before speaking here based on party briefing notes, Members should study the Bill deeply.

¶ 03 The Minister said funeral aid societies are not covered. But look carefully at the Bill’s definitions, especially “microfinance business”: lending to low‑income persons and microenterprises primarily for social empowerment, sustaining both lender and borrower. Many small not‑for‑profit NGOs in the North and East, that came post‑war, mobilize savings and lend at 2–3% per month to women groups with social aims. Under your definition, they fall within “microfinance business,” unless explicitly exempted. You say they are excluded; the Bill’s text suggests otherwise. We agree microfinance should be regulated, but regulate those who should be regulated—not pull in those who should not.

¶ 04 As drafted, any leasing company, bank, or finance company can continue charging high rates—23–24% in some cases—while people use “microfinance” today not for empowerment but to refinance other debts at 15–30% per month, including daily interest “meter vatti.” In my district, suicides are among the highest; earlier due to relationships, now because youth cannot even afford basic needs. The concept has shifted: people borrow to survive, not to build enterprises. Regulation is needed, but are we regulating the right actors?

¶ 05 Previously, when a similar Bill was gazetted, it was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court insisted on equal treatment. A Government elected on helping the poor is now shielding banks, leasing and finance companies within a safety net, while pushing small actors into strict control. That contradicts your mandate.

¶ 06 On CRIB: if over 85% of rural people already appear in CRIB, then after this Bill, those with past CRIB entries cannot access even small NGO loans for social empowerment. They will be driven to unregulated village moneylenders. The Government then bears responsibility for the consequences.

¶ 07 There are also serious issues of coercive recoveries, including sexual bribes in some districts. The Bill lacks clear, specific rules for recoveries—what is permitted, what is prohibited, whether home intrusions are barred, etc. You say “the Authority will make regulations,” but the Bill should set clear baselines now. Women are disproportionately targeted, yet women’s representation is not made compulsory in the Authority.

¶ 08 People struggle to pay even electricity bills delivered by SMS; many in villages cannot access SMS easily and incur penalties, followed by disconnections. In this reality, your regulatory net will shut out the needy from humane credit, pushing them into worse traps.

¶ 09 Further, fuel shortages are selectively addressed in urban districts while shortages persist in the North, East and the estates, affecting harvesting machinery and even pesticide spraying in the hills. Local councils, like Manmunai South Eruvilpattu PS, already enact stronger controls on predatory lenders than the central Government.

¶ 10 Finally, promises about plantation workers’ wage increases—where is the Gazette? Even Ministers are absent to answer. This House cannot get clarity on the Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Bill with empty front rows. I conclude by urging genuine, protective amendments.