The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake - Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation and Leader of the House of Parliament

¶ 01 [4.03 p.m.]

¶ 02 Hon. Presiding Member, the Secretary-General informed me I may get extra time due to fewer speakers, but I leave that to your decision.

¶ 03 Hon. Presiding Member, today is the final day of the Budget debate of the first Budget of the National People’s Power democratic government. The Budget is to be passed today. To my knowledge, His Excellency the President is also scheduled to address the House. According to the mandate, from tomorrow morning we continue our journey. We have presented a Budget anchored in our own work program and many of our micro‑programs.

¶ 04 The Opposition had members who presented fair, logical points—we thank them for their fair, critical contributions. There is also a group that refuses to change—we regret they keep clinging to the same refrain.

¶ 05 Hon. Presiding Member, if you take a decision on time, please inform me; I will tailor my remarks accordingly. I will present a few core points.

¶ 06 There is something in political literature akin to FAQs—Frequently Asked Questions. Regarding our Opposition friends, I would reframe it as FSM—Frequently Slung Mud. I wish to address a few of their oft‑repeated smears. They think with a propaganda campaign they can cement certain notions. First: “Only talk—no work.” They have said this since the day we took office. Some have now changed, having learned from experience and even praised government achievements. A new group lives in a dream and speaks from it. Hearing their criticisms, even we sometimes wonder if we have erred so much. But when we step outside—speak with parliamentary staff, meet people—there is no such thing. Still, here inside, we might feel as if we have erred greatly.

¶ 07 To the frequent mud‑slingers, I say: you may come to regret your criticisms. Each time you say we only talk and do not work, what do we do? We work even more. The more we work, the sorrier you become. Do not over‑motivate us; otherwise you will run out of talking points. We work as a team, to a plan, with our officials—yet some accusations surprised even me and the Prime Minister. We have wondered what we did to deserve so much abuse. You may continue to sling mud and live in dreams; we will move forward.

¶ 08 To respond with examples: every government built bridges and culverts, roads, distributed schoolbooks, paid public salaries, sometimes raised pay. But for 76 years—especially the last 50–60—none developed a good political culture, notably ending nepotism. We all know a former Speaker had his extended family here; the Rajapaksas filled this place with kin. If you had the “Rajapaksa” name with any tenuous link to the Balangoda Man, connections were found and posts given.

¶ 09 But we have not appointed relatives to Cabinet; not to the staffs of the President, Prime Minister, Ministers, or Deputies; not to the Foreign Service; not to the thousands of state institutions. Even when some had qualifications, we refrained due to kinship. That is how we “worked” instead of only talking—something you could not conceive in 76 years.

¶ 10 We will not waste time digging into your relatives, though we have information. We will not speak of it. That you could not do in 76 years. Do we not have school friends, relatives, party members? We do. Hon. Presiding Member, you represent Anuradhapura; you know how many brilliant university graduates you have—have you handed them posts? What we have done will be hard for you to do even in 25 years: run a state free of kin patronage—under the leadership of Comrade Anura Dissanayake and Prime Minister M. Amarasuriya. We challenge you: even in a Pradeshiya Sabha, you cannot do it. If you somehow win one—say by a fluke—you will not be able to avoid nepotism.

¶ 11 We appoint on merit. Those who say we only talk do not say a word about how we have minimized government waste—the country’s central problem. The people elected us for 60 months. We have been in Parliament for four months; the President, Prime Minister, and Minister Wijitha Herath only two months in full operation. In this time we have reduced waste. You know the former ostentatious VIP security systems for President and PM—we ended them. You lack the courage to acknowledge it. Why not say good for the good?

¶ 12 About your former ministers—during the war I spoke in this House about them; I can name one: S.M. Chandrasena. Even our colleague Susanta raised it—the theft at Mavil Aru. After the war too, they moved with security from both sides. Today, none of our Cabinet Ministers has any police security detail. Why won’t you say it? We have reduced ministries from 24 to 21.

¶ 13 Your party’s chairman resigned—Imthiyas Bakeer Markar; if you cannot keep him, what democracy is in your party? Everyone knows why he left. Look at us: we reduced ministries to 21, ministers to 18—things you could not do. We have not misused State resources in campaigns. During the general election we could have—but we did not. That is harder than tweaking taxes; building such a culture is difficult.

¶ 14 We have not misused State property; we are repurposing President’s House and Temple Trees for economically productive uses. You said we were going to auction vehicles—indeed we have begun selling high‑end vehicles, including those allocated to the Speaker; proceeds will be raised. Would you have done that?

¶ 15 We also reduced security provided to former Presidents under the law; the Supreme Court let it stand. We have stopped issuing MPs’ duty‑free vehicle permits and plan to legislate accordingly. The Chitrasiri Committee report to abolish MPs’ pensions is with us—these are our decisions; you never did them. We have also ended State patronage for racist politics.

¶ 16 To some Member here who suffers an ailment: in 2005–2009, we had a certain involvement in ending the war. We opposed dividing the country; we self‑critically examined our role. By 2009, we were disgusted with the Rajapaksas and their method and sought to distance quickly. In 2005, due to special national circumstances, we conditionally supported from opposition; the Rajapaksas had not yet done the scale of crimes they later did. But anyone who joined the Rajapaksas after 2009 or 2010 should be scrutinized. One such person spoke today from the Opposition.

¶ 17 It would be good if Hon. Ilayathamby Sreenath were here. Which ITAK MP hurled abuse at our members? I won’t name him lest he claim we use his name. Who is he? Someone who in 2012–2013 took posts in the “blue force.”

¶ 18 An Hon. Member: Shameful.

¶ 19 A just Tamil person, after 2010, could he go with the Rajapaksas? Only Pillayan or Karuna could. He went with them. Before the last Presidential election, Ranil—“crashed Ferrari”—distributed Rs. 500–700 million from district funds to buy Opposition MPs. Some SJB members too received; others did not. I ask Hon. Ilayathamby Sreenath—did the loud MP receive around Rs. 600 million from Ranil? Did you receive, Hon. Sreenath? No. Nor did Srinesan. The money went to the MP who shouted. He went with Rajapaksas in 2013, and with Ranil in 2023—now he questions our ethics. We regret this. ITAK was built by profound leaders, but now a Rajapaksa avatar sits there—third class.

¶ 20 On bar permits: we exposed them. When Ranil gave permits, he gave Rs. 600 million to that MP. How much is a bar permit? Around Rs. 100 million? The Hon. Sunil Handunnetti does not drink, so he may not know. In any case, that MP is more “Ferrari” than bar license. Such third‑class people criticize our Minister Jayakody. We know the incident; he erred after Duminda Dissanayake became Agriculture Minister, post‑2005, when we left Chandrika’s government. My speech drifted, because he shouted here, but we will not dwell.

¶ 21 We do not enable racist politics. We have presented a socially just Budget for the North, East, oppressed, Muslims, estate workers, urban poor, and persons with disabilities—groups earlier ignored. We have allocated funds to them. That is work, not talk—and difficult work at that.

¶ 22 Another mud‑slinging line: “They can’t work; only modern show.” A Member made an issue that IMF MD Kristalina Georgieva said “Bravo!” to our President. If you have seen the film Amadeus Mozart, you know it is about professional jealousy. It is like the tale of Maname—the prince thought the princess was his, but she realized he was not an authentic leader; she fancied the king—she gave him the sword, as the story goes.

¶ 23 An Hon. Member: To the hunter king.

¶ 24 The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake: Yes. In school, we too at times fancied girls who did not fancy us; we tried letters (no SMS then). But in truth, that girl liked someone else…