2026-02-17 / Debate: Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading and Committee Stage 2026-02-17
## Summary
Hon. Dilith Jayaweera argued that the NPP's pension-related proposal is politically motivated rather than driven by national interest, contending it is designed to punish former party members who left the JVP/NPP and lost access to party support machinery. He cited the case of former MP Pemasiri Manamge, who allegedly paid Rs. 6.7 million into party funds and now subsists on a Rs. 62,000 pension, arguing that adequate independent pension provisions would reduce corruption by ensuring MPs do not feel financially desperate. He also raised two separate concerns: firstly, that the government set a dangerous legal precedent by publicly linking a recently killed lawyer at Akuregoda to the underworld before any proof was established, calling on authorities to withdraw the statement; and secondly, that repeated public statements by the President and Prime Minister characterising Sri Lanka as a racist nation risk damaging the country's international image, particularly in the context of tourism promotion, and requested that any such claims be made with greater specificity.
Hon. Deputy Speaker, let me make a few points. No one asks why the NPP brings this proposal. I say they bring it with malice. Why? Around 72 MPs once with the JVP sent billions of rupees of their salaries into the party’s accounts. Many, by conscience, have since left and no longer receive support from the party machinery—they cannot “re‑roof” their homes with party help. Having slept for years on these privileges, now posing as champions of the poor, they bring this to punish those who left.
My respected friend Hon. Nihal Galappaththi knows that his friend, former MP Pemasiri Manamge, today receives only Rs. 62,000 as pension and struggles for medicine and food after leaving their party and its machinery. To punish such people, this proposal is made—it is malicious. There is no national purpose here. If it were truly national and based on a mandate, why have you not fulfilled the other manifold election promises? This Bill is brought to take these funds forward into party coffers. Pemasiri Manamge has paid Rs. 6.7 million to the party. If he had kept it and placed it in a fixed deposit, he could live on the interest and would not need a pension. If that is the logic, return the Rs. 6.7 million he paid.
We want a Sri Lanka without corruption. But when people think, “One day if I fall, I will have nothing even for medicine,” what happens? They engage in coal scams, sugar scams, container scams, stash money abroad—and then no one needs a pension. Meanwhile, if you are a lifelong vassal of the party—whether with Chandrika, Mahinda or Ranil—the party machinery will take care of you. That is the wrong political model. If all parties go this way, democracy will perish and people will become slaves.
You say this proposal is in the name of Ravi Karunanayake. He can pay pensions to all if he wishes. But you bring it here to play the most uncivil politics. This is wrong politics; it must end.
The “pension” concept has a history—proposed as an honorarium from the Opposition under Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike to be given to Mr. C.W.W. Kannangara. If change is needed, make just changes; create a system where only those in need receive support.
At the same time, Sir, I, being a lawyer myself, also want to mention that I am saddened at the way the recent incident at Akuregoda has been discussed in Parliament. Today, almost all the lawyers—I do not go to court, everybody knows that and I am not talking about myself—feel that they do not have the basic security today. It is their duty to appear for their client, whether he is a criminal or not. Based on the assumption of innocence, they are supposed to appear for the client. But, what did the Government do? The moment that lawyer got killed, they issued a statement saying that he was connected to the underworld, which is a very bad precedent. It should not happen and they should get the police to withdraw that statement, until it is proven that he was connected to the underworld. Just because he appeared for his client, it does not mean that he was connected to the underworld. So, that is a very bad precedent, Sir.
Among other things, Sir, I also want to say—the Hon. Prime Minister is not here—that the Hon. Prime Minister and the Hon. President keep talking about racism in Sri Lanka. It is terrible. Now that we are promoting tourism, I just do not know why they keep talking about us being a racist nation, and that gives completely a wrong impression. Being a secular country, we are a country where we love each other irrespective of our caste, religion or any other differences.
Sir, please give me a few more seconds.
So, when they say this country is a racist country and that they are going to eradicate racism from this country, we would like to know which racism they are talking about, eradicate racism from whom or who the racists in this country are. They have to be specific. Otherwise, we would damage the country’s image very badly.
Thank you very much.