The Hon. Dilith Jayaweera

¶ 01 Hon. Chairman, first, I thank my friend, Hon. Gayantha Karunathilleka, MP, for giving me this opportunity to speak on two very important Ministries for the future of our motherland Sri Lanka – the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Digital Economy. I also thank you, Hon. Chairman, for the opportunity.

¶ 02 We must discuss the policy statement of the National People's Power (NPP) Government, which led to its election to office. We seek a constructive discussion to take our country forward, not mere oppositional rhetoric. In the NPP’s policy statement, seven pages have been devoted to science and technology, especially to research and development (R&D).

¶ 03 There was a wide debate during the election period. Prof. Gomika Udugamasuriya came and discussed how much we had overlooked this sector. You note that Sri Lanka’s R&D expenditure is 0.12 percent of GDP, whereas Malaysia is at 1 percent, Thailand 1.2 percent, South Korea 4.6 percent, Japan 3.6 percent, the USA 3.5 percent and China 3 percent, with these nations rapidly advancing, as cited in your policy statement. It also notes that even the limited research conducted in Sri Lanka has not adequately contributed to economic and social development. You dedicated seven pages to this in your policy document.

¶ 04 In the Budget, Rs. 5 billion has been allocated across 17 institutions for this. When comparing recurrent and capital, most of this is for recurrent expenditure, not capital. Thus, we cannot see alignment between the vision articulated on the political stage and the actual Budget allocations. I carefully read the document. It indicates Rs. 10 million for research project facilities and Rs. 7 million for capacity development; the rest is unclear. While the policy document discusses a grand future vision, what is actually funded?

¶ 05 We must discuss how this Government plans a different strategy than past governments, whom you often blame. Even by your own admission, 68 to 70 percent of our people – as the President has said – are “poor and ultra-poor.” Is that not tragic? Much of our national income – 68 percent – goes to debt service. If a large share of the remaining 32 percent of revenue leaves the country through profit repatriation or multinationals, how can our people live? This is why our people have become poor. The NPP came to power to change this and uplift our people. Where in this Budget is production enhancement and wealth creation? Where are the measures through the Ministry of Science and Technology to conduct new research to improve agricultural productivity with new varieties and seeds?

¶ 06 India’s Finance Minister announced major funding for research to identify new rice varieties and enhance agricultural efficiency. Do we have anything comparable? No. Today, our economy borrows to pay debt, not to create capital. If there is nothing substantive in the Budget towards capital formation, however cooperative we try to be, we must offer this fair critique on behalf of our people. Where in this Budget can they place their hopes?

¶ 07 This Budget appears uncreative and driven by IMF requirements. IMF Managing Director Kristalina congratulated our President, saying he is doing the IMF’s job very well. The IMF’s job is to raise domestic revenue through taxation, pushing our people into hardship. From their perspective, that is rational. But we must think about rescuing our people and country, creatively and strategically, resisting external pressures where necessary.

¶ 08 I have long supported many in the NPP and worked closely with them. I hoped to see our country rise. We tried to help depoliticize and set the correct course. But I am saddened that some of our old friends are attacking me for constructive criticism. I am not your enemy; I am your friend. Our vision – social reformism, socialism – is common ground.

¶ 09 Even if you now use new words and walk a neo-liberal path, we still wish to see you act rightly for the underprivileged you once represented and for the dreams of thousands who love our motherland. Many here may genuinely believe this. Unfortunately, it is now evident those dreams may not be realized as presented.

¶ 10 This Budget is effectively imported. Nowhere does it demonstrate the production economy you promised or the development of value chains. We expected a large allocation for innovation under Science and Technology; that would have propelled us forward. But it has not happened.

¶ 11 Some may dismiss our points, saying we have not even served in a local council. This is not a matter to be resolved at a local authority. As a nation, we need creativity and risk-taking to face global challenges. Many Ministers here, too, have not served in local councils; that is not disqualifying.

¶ 12 I raised issues on national security with goodwill. I said there are problems in intelligence briefings and with the National Security Council, and suggested appointing a National Security Adviser. We can even suggest good names, even from your side. But the President’s response was non-committal. These need serious dialogue.

¶ 13 Today, a former IGP cannot be found. Is this not an intelligence-gathering issue? Or does the President know where he is? If not, there is a problem in intelligence.

¶ 14 We have a historic legacy of rational and scientific thinking. Why, then, do we bring an imported Budget and celebrate when a foreign official says we are doing well? The President should be able to say how he laboured to bring joy to our people. If he thinks we are not trapped and are doing fine, I am deeply concerned. We must identify the real adversary.

¶ 15 In sum, this Budget shows no pathway forward. On digital, your policy statement is there, but we must distinguish digitization from the digital economy. I have spoken of digitization since learning the term. We need to issue a unique ID and bring all citizens onto a single user interface with one number. Yet the Budget allocates around Rs. 2 billion for a plastic card. MOSIP will likely come from India; fine, but the President once said India would steal our data and opposed it, implying local entrepreneurs would be empowered to build it. Now that seems to be changing.