The Hon. Jeevan Thondaman

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, first I thank the Hon. Member Radhakrishnan and the Tamil Progressive Alliance for bringing this motion. This is an interesting debate. Here, it is hard to tell who is Government and who is Opposition. Hon. Bimal Rathnayake, you said one thing. Truly, I would say only your conversation was decisive. You said “Mamanithan is a film I like very much.” There is another film—“Ko.” That is a film where a political party incites youth, sets the country on fire, and in the end they sit in the seats of power. Watch that movie too—and decide to whom that story truly applies.

¶ 02 Let us come to the point. Many of you on the Government side spoke—fair points. But you forgot one thing. The reason this motion is brought is to get a clear answer from the Government on whether you will grant our people land ownership or not. When we ask about land ownership, you say “76-year curse.” When we ask about housing issues, you say “family politics.” If I speak frankly, criticize me as much as you want—I have no issue. My question to you is: do you know the difference between land ownership and house ownership? It is the Government’s responsibility and duty to build houses and provide deeds for them—we know that. But land ownership is a solution to be given to the Malaiyaha community. From my limited experience, under successive Presidents and now this Government, whenever land ownership is discussed, immediately the answer is “equality—everyone is the same.” I have only one small request: do not look at the Malaiyaha people only through the lens of equality. Consider equity over equality as well.

¶ 03 Today many presented the history of the Malaiyaha people. Hon. Minister Ramalingam Chandrasegar beautifully spoke of that history. But one small correction: the name of the sunken ship is not “Bhagyalakshmi,” it is “Aadhilakshmi.” I request that the Hansard record be corrected to “Aadhilakshmi.”

¶ 04 As for our history, from 1949 to 1977 we had no citizenship and no identity. We struggled and came through. The greatest cruelty was the 1964 Sirimavo–Shastri Pact. The basis of that pact was to repatriate about 525,000 Malaiyaha people to India and retain 450,000 in Sri Lanka. Accordingly, from 1964 to 1981 about 225,000 people were taken to India. Hon. Minister Bimal Rathnayake asked why Indian-origin people in Sri Lanka are like this while those in Malaysia and Singapore are different. I say openly: even in Malaysia, in areas with tea and rubber estates, Indian-origin Tamils live as an oppressed community.

¶ 05 Today, take India as an example. Over that 15-year period, the 225,000 sent to India live in places like Gudalur under an organization called TANTEA in Tamil Nadu. Give them an opportunity to return to this country. I say this because today’s context is different. You criticize every week; I will answer. Let us close that matter here. I say this as advice—to make your work easier.

¶ 06 Hon. Manjula Dissanayake Arachchi asked why we do not come to DCC. You may recall that I did attend past DCC meetings and I asked questions. They could not answer. Even the Hon. President set out believing something incorrect. I will not blame him—he is the President of the country. The information reaching him must be accurate. I say this because information about the District Coordinating Committee meetings does not reach us properly. I have informed many times. If the invitation goes to the wrong address, how do we attend? Hon. Digambaram has the same problem. We have written many letters to the GAs. Please look into this.

¶ 07 Regarding the motion today on land ownership: I said this yesterday too—there is a Cabinet Paper. If you implement what’s in that Cabinet Paper, we can achieve what we intend. Now you have increased wages. Based on that, a Hon. Member criticized us. Last week, on the well-known channel “News 1st,” it was said: “Human Rights Commission Summons Officials Over Estate Workers’ Wages Irregularity.” They noted the Government-provided Rs. 1,700 wage has not reached properly, according to the Human Rights Commission. I said here itself: if possible, raise by Rs. 1,000 unconditionally. You increased by Rs. 1,000, but I am not saying you are fully responsible for the reason it is not reaching. Today we are in Opposition; you are in Government. You are an MP; I am an MP. If we come together, we can find a solution.

¶ 08 You have 159 members. Hold a vote—see how many are in favour. I say this to the Opposition too. Whether it is the Tamil Progressive Alliance or the Ceylon Workers’ Congress—if you bring land ownership, we will vote in favour; there is a Cabinet Paper for it. You provided Rs. 200 as a Government allowance on wages, didn’t you? Today the dollar is at Rs. 357; prices are high. What use is that Rs. 200? How much have you allocated annually for that Rs. 200? Five billion—5,000 million. But to grant land ownership costs only about 5,000 million rupees. If you think I am lying, take the Cabinet Paper and check.

¶ 09 One more point. When we talk about Malaiyaha matters, the answer you give is: “Whatever the issues, we have named it ‘Malaiyagam’; all problems are solved.” A small correction: you only gave the name “Malaiyagam.” In February 2024, the Cabinet Papers—if possible, submit them here tomorrow. In the census we have indicated “Malaiyagam,” but the truth is not who brought it. The truth is that if we decide, we can change the lives of the Malaiyaha people. But to do so, we must change the system. Within the lease agreements of the Regional Plantation Companies, we have mortgaged the Malaiyaha people as well. We must take the areas where the Malaiyaha people live out of the grip of the companies; the Government must take responsibility. Only then can we bring direct development programs.

¶ 10 Likewise, Hon. Members representing Nuwara Eliya said they will bring a housing project there. I wish to clarify respectfully: your representation must be strong. You are in Government and represent Nuwara Eliya. Now a housing project has come to Haputale. Why not to Nuwara Eliya? The reason is that the Hon. Deputy Minister has prioritized his own electorate. That is not a sin. One minute—when you spoke, I did not interrupt; please allow me to finish. There may be an allocation, but it has been claimed houses have been completed—your colleague said so, not me. Hon. Pradeep, I tell you today: I give you my full support. Hon. Bimal Rathnayake is here—ask him what I requested at the start of the parliamentary session. I asked him to make Hon. Sundaralingam Pradeep a Cabinet Minister. Ask whether that is true or not. For me, it does not matter whether you are Opposition or Government; you are leading our community. With that courage, work! We say we stand with you. Thank you.