The Hon. Chithral Fernando, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Mr. Presiding Member, following the elaborate speech on fishermen’s pensions and welfare, I wish to respond. Under Act No. 23 of 1990 and through the Agricultural and Agrarian Insurance Board, this initiative is commendable. Fishers are among the most toiling people, risking life at sea. I represent a fisheries region and welcome a pension. Thanks for initiating it.

¶ 02 But the Government claims no previous government did anything and that the 2025 NPP government started a fishermen’s pension—which is false. From around 1987, a fishermen’s pension scheme existed. In our provinces, many received it—even if modest: elders got about Rs. 7,000 and younger beneficiaries around Rs. 4,000 as lump sums. Various governments started, stopped, and restarted it. I hope you learn from past mistakes and proceed correctly. In the past five years, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Sajith Premadasa, consistently raised the fishers’ pension in this House. So do not claim this is the first time ever.

¶ 03 Our proposal is that funds collected from fishers should be returned to fishers. But there is a concern: after accumulating interest over years, is the pension adequate? The scheme takes contributions from ages 18–55. Take a 45-year-old. He must pay until 55. If monthly, Rs. 69,000 total; if half-yearly, Rs. 67,600; if one lump sum, Rs. 56,410. Assume he lives to 70. The aggregate pension he receives from ages 60–63 and then 64–70 totals Rs. 141,000. If someone claims my math is wrong, please present corrected figures during or after this speech.

¶ 04 Thus, a man who pays Rs. 56,410 in a lump at 45 gets Rs. 141,000 after 25 years. What economics is this? Fishers are not fools. Government boasts that thousands have already benefited. In my Wennappuwa electorate, in two large societies with over 150 members each, not a single person has registered. We did not dissuade them—people understood the arithmetic. Anyone who understands the numbers sees no need to register.

¶ 05 Other issues: If someone pays for two and a half years and then cannot continue, 25 percent equals Rs. 17,500—non-refundable. The Government takes it. If paid up to 75 percent (Rs. 51,750), then only “a balance” as determined by the Board is returned. What is that determination? Why not specify it? Claims that an 18-year-old pays Rs. 5,285 to join are incomplete unless you say what he receives after 42 years.

¶ 06 NGOs, fisheries societies, and credit unions already give better returns—up to several hundred thousand rupees—on savings. Only those who cannot add one plus one will register for this.

¶ 07 Hon. Ajith Gihan said earlier that spouses were not entitled before. But Gazette 970/7 of 9 September 1996 clearly provided for spousal benefits. Please read before claiming “we started everything.”

¶ 08 The Minister said this would attract youth to the fishery. Perhaps only those who cannot do basic arithmetic will join. Why can’t the Government inject some funds? If Rs. 20 billion can go to SriLankan Airlines, why not allocate to meaningfully benefit fishers?

¶ 09 Time is up? Please grant me one more minute, Mr. Presiding Member.

¶ 10 We MPs did not ask for pensions; you have a mandate to abolish them. Use those billions and trillions you “save” from abolishing MPs’ pensions and channel them to the fishers’ pension. Also, on insurance: in Chilaw, D. P. Ranil Stanley’s boat engine, insured, fell into the sea long ago—no payout yet. “Sayura” seems like only a boat insurance in name, while collecting massive premiums.

¶ 11 Finally, the Seychelles Coast Guard set fire to “Ishani Duwa,” a trawler from Talwila in my district, and detained the crew. What has the Government done diplomatically? Please act—on insurance, on large boats, and fund a real pension—with state support. Taking their money, accruing interest, and paying a pittance after 25–30 years is meaningless. Thank you.