Hon. K.D. Lal Kantha

¶ 01 Those who contributed to the economy—our plantation workers—did not get a fair share. Our pensioners did not get a fair share. With this principle in mind, we have increased wages across the board—for pensioners and for employees in the private, plantation, and public sectors—based on a democratic foundation. This is not Smith’s classical liberalism, not social liberalism, nor the social market model claimed by some opposite me.

¶ 02 We see some here shedding crocodile tears, claiming our members are disappointed because a particular Minister did not obtain a portfolio. Even if any of our members were disappointed, what they demanded was economic democracy. If needed, I can also outline socialist economic principles and say whether our members are pleased or not.

¶ 03 What is the socialist economic principle? That the people participate in the economy and receive their fair share—no more, no less. That is the left position.

¶ 04 What, then, is economic democracy? Everyone participates and receives their fair share. Someone might say this Budget is implementing socialist economic principles. The truth is, those who took part in the economy did not receive their fair share previously. Therefore, as an initial step, our first Budget has prioritized redressing social injustices suffered by all such groups. In the next Budget, we will move to the second step. Let me remind everyone: we are advancing on the basis of economic democracy.

¶ 05 Every segment of society that suffered injustice and hardship has been targeted in this Budget to receive their due. Some in the health sector and other areas say they received benefits but not in the same measure as others. Sometimes similar comments are heard from universities. Our principle is to raise more where the injustice has been greater—give more to those who were most disadvantaged to lift them out of that injustice.

¶ 06 Many Members spoke today. One just before me said farmers are suffering injustices. Based on our recent measures, farmers are now obtaining the highest possible farm-gate price—factoring in production costs—during this Maha season. Under the present administration, for the first time in 2024–2025, we have ensured there are no farmers agitating that paddy prices are too low or inadequate. How did we do it? The state intervened to manage the market.

¶ 07 We set ceilings and floors: Nadu paddy cannot be purchased below Rs. 120 per kilo—higher is fine, benefiting farmers. Nadu rice cannot be sold above Rs. 230 per kilo—lower is fine, benefiting consumers. If someone says they can sell rice below Rs. 230 when buying Nadu at Rs. 120, then let them do so—especially small and medium millers. We have provided a margin, allowing market play between the floor and ceiling: no paddy purchases below Rs. 120 and no Nadu rice sales above Rs. 230. This kind of calibrated state intervention did not exist before.

¶ 08 Those who tout the social market economy must note: in a true social market system, the Paddy Marketing Board would not purchase paddy. If the state refrains from being a market participant, that is not our approach. Hence, this is neither Smith’s classical liberalism, nor social liberalism, nor neoliberalism. Let the whole country hear: this is economic democracy. Our President has presented Sri Lanka’s first truly inclusive, people-oriented, progressive Budget to bring economic democracy to our country. Do not twist religious doctrines into economics; temple or church principles cannot be transposed onto economic policy. We have acted correctly here.