The Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, while discussing the export sector, we acknowledged the positive data presented by the Hon. Minister. He spoke of inflation; we know cost-push and demand-pull dynamics. But beyond macroeconomics, the Government must now address microeconomics—the burdens faced by individuals, households, entrepreneurs and businesses. At such a time, while speaking of growth, export promotion and remittances, I ask: if you pursue an export-friendly policy, why are you abolishing SVAT from 01 October under IMF pressure?

¶ 02 During the election you promised to renegotiate; you could have saved an export-friendly SVAT. What is the benefit of SVAT for exporters? It eases cash flow by suspending VAT at the transaction stage among registered SVAT participants—no upfront VAT payment on value addition, and suppliers issue an SVAT invoice instead of charging VAT. Now, due to IMF conditions under the June 2024 review to improve VAT compliance and collection under the EFF of about US$ 2.9 billion, you are removing SVAT. This will create cash flow issues, delays, inefficiencies and higher administrative costs, impairing competitiveness vis-à-vis Vietnam and Bangladesh—especially for MSME exporters with working capital constraints.

¶ 03 I urge the Government to reconsider, at least to defer, until digitalization is complete at the Inland Revenue Department where delays persist—particularly affecting SMEs in export-linked value chains. Do not be entirely beholden to the IMF; present the Government’s own position. The Department of Census and Statistics indicates more than 260,000 enterprises suffered during the bankruptcy period. At minimum, spare them further strain by retaining or deferring this measure.

¶ 04 You also spoke optimistically about growth. Good. But from 2028 we face annual external debt service of about US$ 5.5 billion. Are we prepared? Had you renegotiated a new IMF framework you could have secured amortization beginning in 2033, deferring the 2028–2032 burden. That opportunity seems missed.

¶ 05 Further, various institutions including the Centre for Poverty Analysis indicate around 50 percent of our population experiences different forms of poverty—consumption, income, production and investment. While Aswesuma provides consumption support—and that is welcome—it is not a comprehensive poverty eradication programme. True poverty reduction requires the five pillars: consumption, investment, production, savings and exports. Aswesuma mainly supports consumption; it does not embed the full framework.

¶ 06 Finally, I must draw the House’s attention to what transpired this morning. It has sadly become routine for the Hon. Speaker, when in the Chair, to obstruct the Opposition Leader’s opportunity to speak. Today, for the second time, he sought to justify denying a No-Confidence Motion against a Deputy Minister, citing reports, Erskine May and Kaul & Shakdher.

¶ 07 The Report tabled by the Hon. Speaker himself—by the Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General—states, and I quote: “There is no specific legal provision regarding a No-Confidence Motion against a Deputy Minister, according to the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Standing Orders or the Westminster system.” It notes silence, but also that a No-Confidence Motion may be moved by precedence, considering a Deputy Minister is an office-bearer. The Attorney-General’s Department has also stated there is no legal impediment to proceed in Parliament.

¶ 08 Erskine May records that No-Confidence Motions, though primarily political devices usually targeting the Government as a whole, can be directed at individual Ministers. Our Parliamentary inheritance includes not only the structure but the conventions; in the absence of domestic provisions, Westminster practice offers interpretive guidance. The Indian precedent in 2023—Opposition in the Rajya Sabha moving a No-Confidence Motion against the Vice President—underscores that such Motions may extend to constitutional office-holders whose conduct undermines Parliamentary confidence.

¶ 09 Therefore, I question on what basis this justification was prepared for the Speaker. I regret I was denied an opportunity earlier to present these points. Additionally, while some invoke the “Anura Bandaranaike tradition,” if traditions are cited, then the Speaker should also uphold the tradition of allowing the Opposition Leader to be heard.

¶ 10 In conclusion, our Chief Organizer Hon. Gayanta Karunathilaka and our Deputy Organizer Hon. Ajith P. Perera presented logical, disciplined, data-driven arguments. It is unacceptable that their right to speak be demeaned. The grounds used to reject our No-Confidence Motion are flawed and unfounded. Thank you.