The Hon. Chandana Sooriyaarachchi

¶ 01 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Hon. Chairman. I was pleased after hearing the corrected time allocation.

¶ 02 Today we are debating the expenditure heads of the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, and of the Ministry of Labour. I am glad that the government of the National People’s Power – the Malimawa government – has presented this Budget with the vision of building a public service oriented towards a modern, developed world, on behalf of all the working people of this country, and I am also pleased to participate in this debate as someone engaged in trade union activities.

¶ 03 Before that, I wish to recall an issue that has been discussed in this House since yesterday, regarding the constitution of authority in the Seethawaka Pradeshiya Sabha. I function as the organizer in the Avissawella electorate. After 1977, Mr. M.D. Premaratne, representing the United National Party, came to Parliament from Avissawella. After 47 years, I am representing the people of that historic Seethawaka area in this Parliament on behalf of the National People’s Power.

¶ 04 At the Provincial Council election held on the 6th of May, the historic people of Seethawaka entrusted a majority in the Seethawaka Pradeshiya Sabha to the National People’s Power to take the programme forward. Out of 26 seats, 23 were won by the NPP; Independents 3; Pohottuwa 7; Sarvajana 2; National Freedom Front 1; UNP 2, etc., were appointed. However, due to certain improper actions by the Opposition, the required constituting sittings could not be held each time. Yesterday, in accordance with legal evidence, certain members of that Sabha came forward to establish the council to prevent the people’s mandate from being entangled in problematic situations. Today these are being misinterpreted. According to the law and the Constitution of the country, confirming yesterday that the power of the Seethawaka Pradeshiya Sabha rests with the National People’s Power strengthens people’s sovereignty. We wish them well.

¶ 05 Hon. Chairman, I wish to draw attention to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is a necessary institution to strengthen, manage, and smoothly run our public service. As an independent commission, it bears special responsibilities. However, recently we observed several contentious decisions by the Commission.

¶ 06 One such decision is this: For departmental efficiency barrier (EB) examinations required for promotion, historically the minimum qualifying mark has been 40 out of 100, in line with our approved standard examinations. The Public Service Commission has now decided to raise the minimum pass mark for the EB exam to 50. This has created anxiety within the public service.

¶ 07 Also, the number of attempts for the EB exam, hitherto six, is now being reduced to three through various decisions. I wish to draw the attention of this august House to this. We want the public service to function smoothly, without turmoil or conflict. Before making such contentious policy shifts that cause conflicts, did the Public Service Commission at least consult the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, the subject Minister, and relevant officials?

¶ 08 At the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government held on the 13th, we raised this. The Chairman directed the Secretary to take necessary interventions. We clearly request, and ask the institutions too, to act so as not to create conflicts between public servants and trade unions, and not to curtail enjoyed rights. Today, throughout the year, public officers are distressed about passing their EB exams. Parallel private tuition classes have also exploited officers. If the Public Service Commission is changing policy in a way that embarrasses the government, without the understanding of the subject Minister or the Secretary, that is serious.

¶ 09 Within our public service there have long been issues in professions, posts and recruitment schemes. Therefore, as a government, the National People’s Power had the need to correct distortions and establish fair salary structures and environments that elevate professionalism. Accordingly, at the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, we focused on this and appointed a Parliamentary Subcommittee on Salaries and Professionalism. Trade unions should not misunderstand: this is not a Salaries Commission, but a subcommittee to discuss matters necessary for a future Commission.

¶ 10 Regarding our retirees, there was a Cabinet Memorandum dated 2016.11.17 by then Minister R.M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara to reform the pension scheme. The Public Service Commission in July 2016 issued a letter stating, “You shall be subject to future policy decisions of the Government on the pension scheme.” The then Yahapalana government removed the full pension scheme and changed it. Hence current issues. Those who retired in 2016-2019 did not receive the 2018 salary increases.

¶ 11 Hon. Chairman

¶ 12 Hon. Member, your time is up.