The Hon. R.G. Wijerathna

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, throughout today’s debate on regulations under the Intellectual Property Act, No. 36 of 2003, to register geographical indications, various views were presented. Hon. Chandana Abeyrathna, representing the Government, set out the historical context well.

¶ 02 Today, the need for such regulations and registrations has grown sharply. We aim to secure a larger share of the economy through a production-based model. In moving towards such an economy, laws like these help encourage producers. They also align with the President’s primary concept of eradicating rural poverty—making these regulations particularly timely.

¶ 03 What benefits do we gain? Firstly, legal structure and protection. Producers and exporters gain the unhindered ability to market their products domestically and internationally. Quality improves because higher demand for standardized products lifts quality. Our people often prefer better goods even at higher prices; thus, products with GIs will generally command higher prices than those without.

¶ 04 Under these regulations, we plan to register four categories: agricultural products, foodstuffs, handicrafts, and other products. In the past, our local handicraft industries produced beautiful items; sadly, many producers have fallen into hardship, industries have collapsed, and people have abandoned them. Now we have an opportunity: by creating necessary infrastructure, providing funds, and removing legal barriers, we can revive these industries with help across ministries.

¶ 05 Further, this will strengthen the rural economy, open opportunities for villagers to share in the benefits, and reduce rural poverty by improving livelihoods. However, I question whether some of the praise from Opposition MPs today was offered in good faith, because their local actions have often obstructed community progress.

¶ 06 For example, in my constituency, near Rikillagaskada town in Hanguranketha, there was a beautiful herbal garden on land owned by the Hanguranketha Pradeshiya Sabha. Instead of developing it for public benefit, the Council allocated funds to build an auditorium and destroyed the garden, constructing shops which were then distributed among Council members—both Government and Opposition—with one exception: only the single JVP member opposed it and did not take a shop. A formal inquiry by the Department of Local Government observed that constructing shops in the herbal garden was not in accordance with prevailing legal provisions and recommended corrective action. To date, those recommendations had not been implemented; only after the present Government assumed office have legal steps been initiated. Thus, regardless of their rhetoric, the Opposition’s past actions have impeded social progress and misused public property.

¶ 07 By passing these regulations, we will develop the rural economy, increase export income, and advance our collective aspiration of a “Prosperous Country, Beautiful Life.” I request everyone’s cooperation. Thank you for the opportunity.