The Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Public Finance Committee Report: Hon. Speaker, as Pro-tem Chair of the Committee on Public Finance, I present the Report of the Committee on Public Finance on: (i) the Annual Economic Review of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka for the year 2025; and (ii) the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, which were referred to the said Committee.

¶ 02 Ordered to lie upon the Table.

¶ 03 Hon. Speaker, I want to point out a few matters. The Central Bank Report was tabled, and the response of the Governor to certain questions that we raised has been unnecessarily sensationalized by some social media posts. I see that even today’s Daily Mirror reports it. The response was in keeping with a question related to inflation targeting. The article is titled “Rupee value slides against major currencies”. That is a fact. The same issue has also been raised in some social media posts. The article states:

¶ 04 “Meanwhile, addressing the Committee on Public Finance (CoPF), the Governor said the import bill had increasingly exceeded export revenue, primarily due to rising oil prices, which had resulted in the depreciation of the rupee.”

¶ 05 That is a fact. Then, it goes on to state:

¶ 06 “The oil import bill of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) had exceeded US$ 1 billion for the first four months of this year, according to him.

¶ 07 Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader MP Rauff Hakeem, who chaired the CoPF meeting, asked whether Sri Lanka was taking measures to mitigate economic risks arising from the fallout of the Middle East conflict.

¶ 08 Dr. Weerasinghe stressed the need for such measures to be taken in consultation between the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance.”

¶ 09 Actually, this is what has been factually reported, but some social media posts have unnecessarily sensationalized it. In fact, some Hon. Members of the Government pointed it out to us, and I want to clarify that.

¶ 10 Sir, my question was based on inflation targeting and whether there was any need for stagflation in the country. I am not trying to debate it, but to explain because that has been sensationalized in the newspapers.

¶ 11 Also, regarding the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, we had a lengthy discussion, particularly relating to the penal sanctions that could visit a taxpayer — that is a new provision that has been brought in — where we got matters clarified from the Inland Revenue Department. Particularly, the Government, in keeping with the suggestions of the Supreme Court, has agreed not to file a certificate, in case there is an appeal pending. That was an issue that had been pending and I just wanted to say this as a matter of clarification.

¶ 12 Thank you.