The Hon. Dilith Jayaweera

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, in my maiden speech in the Tenth Parliament, I first wish the new government—together with the Hon. Prime Minister and all Members—well. I thank our allies in the Sarvajana Bala Ekamuthuwa (People’s Power Collective) whose dedication enabled our party to record the largest increase in vote share in this election. We formed Mawbima Janatha Pakshaya to respond to a grave political vacuum and cultivate a politics of fraternity, camaraderie, and unity; to protect a principled left approach while upholding the patriotic national tradition that protected this country.

¶ 02 Many call this an “historic mandate.” I see reasons for your two-thirds: this government should humbly and critically examine how that will was formed, else you may falter. Recall that after Gotabaya Rajapaksa came to power, his government too had two-thirds, yet that party is now reduced to three seats.

¶ 03 In my view, three words explain this verdict. First, disillusionment—at the political culture, at allegations of corruption, at imagery that disgusted patriotic Sri Lankans. People did not vote for you after reading your manifesto or attending five classes; they voted from disillusionment. Second, a weak Opposition failed to present an alternative, which helped you. We campaigned saying we do not wish to topple a government but to help it in good faith for five years on the right course—that is fraternal politics. Third, you mixed much truth with untruth in your campaign, including against me; that blend swayed voters.

¶ 04 Therefore, people expect you to deliver on your manifesto. Our concern today is that, across government speeches, we have not yet seen a central strategic framework to generate the change people expect. Without your own coherent strategy, goodwill alone will not suffice.

¶ 05 We table our strategic framework for building a “satisfied nation” through a 21st-century, scientific approach via an Entrepreneurial State. There is misunderstanding: it is not merely about promoting entrepreneurs, but the State itself possessing entrepreneurial spirit—creativity, risk-taking, and risk management. I table it in all three languages; please study it.

¶ 06 We must change how the State thinks—beyond old debates about coconuts and onions. The President currently has about 80 institutions under him—an old model. A chief executive must be free to think creatively, not micromanage 80 entities. We say with respect: let go of that old structure.

¶ 07 I was disheartened by how “nationalism” was treated. Rohana Wijeweera distinguished nationalism from racism. Nationalism is the expression of the sentiments of those who belong to a nation; every country has it—Americans honor it highly, and Trump leveraged it. We confused nationalism with racism. There is a big difference.

¶ 08 Finally, I say with affection to Members of the government: do not conflate nationalism with racism. Our framework proposes uniting all, beyond race or religion, around our common national belonging, respecting the profound philosophical heritage of Buddhism as a philosophy, not as sectarianism. Without inspiring our human capital through a positive national idea, you cannot move this country forward. Thank you.