News
Controversial Social Security Contribution Bill put off due to resistance from Opposition
By Saman Indrajith
The government yesterday decided to put off the Social Security Contribution Bill when the JVP and the SJB, in Parliament opposed it vehemently.
The Social Security Contribution Levy Bill had been listed for the second reading debate, and Parliament sources said that the party leaders had agreed to pass the Bill with several other regulations, without debate to save time for another debate, listed for the day, on current nutritional problems of children and women.
When the Leader of the House and Education Minister got up to present the Bill for the approval of the House, JVP leader, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, said that the Bill would place an additional tax burden on people. “The government keeps on levying taxes on people. The government’s excuse is that it does not have money. There is a financial crisis. Then it should first take action against former Central Bank Governor and ex-Finance Minister Basil Rajapaks for bankrupting the country. What action are you going to take against them?” Dissanayake queried.
The JVP leader said that the Bill envisaged introducing a social security tax. “The government keeps shifting the burden on to people. It increased the VAT from 8 percent to 12 percent and then most recently to 15 percent. Prices of all essential commodities including medicines, have gone up. There is a new tax called social security tax of 2.5 percent on the turnover. This turnover tax is on importation, production, selling and services. This tax is applicable to all fields of the economy. One who owns an industry, covering all these aspects, will have to pay 2.5 percent in importing, another 2.5 percent for 85 percent of the production and this tax will be levied again in distribution and selling. Thus, this tax is like a compound tax. With 15 percent VAT, this new addition will result in an increase of tax cost to around 20 percent. People are in great difficulty owing to the existing taxes. This is very unfair and unjust. No action has been taken against those who caused this crisis.”
“We are against this Bill,” Dissanayake said.
SJB MP and Chairman of the Public Finance Committee Dr. Harsha de Silva also opposed the the Bill.
He said it was not proper to enact a Bill without presenting a review of it.
He said that the Public Finance Committee did not approve any Bill without reviewing it. “However, we had to approve the Social Security Contribution Bill as we were informed that it was urgent.”
MP de Silva said that the Bill required some amendments and it could not be approved without perusal.
He said that the amendments to the Bill had been proposed without the approval of the committee.
“In other countries, they have either VAT or Turnover tax. You cannot have both. An accounting firm predicted that this 2.5 percent could go up to seven percent in the process. I agree with MP Dissanayake. This is an unfair tax.”
Dr. De Silva said the property sales business had been taken out of the list of enterprises to be taxed by the social security tax. “That is to help the rich. You are taxing the poor while giving exemptions to the rich. This is an unjust act,” he said.
Responding to the opposition MPs, Leader of the House Minister Susil Premajayantha proposed the postponement of the vote on the Social Security Contribution Bill to Thursday.
News
Ambassador of the UAE to Sri Lanka meets with the Prime Minister
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
Latest News
Prime Minister joins Gandhi Jayanti Commemoration
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
News
Unions resist tripartite EPF management plan
… warn of dire consequences
A group of trade unions and civil society groups has requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon his government’s controversial plan for the proposed tripartite management of the EPF.
The group has told the President: “We strongly object to the government’s plan to transfer the EPF to a tripartite board—jointly promoted by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)—and to increase the investments of those funds within private equity and debt markets.
“While the EFC and the government jointly project this plan as a ‘modern governance framework’, it poses a serious threat to the EPF’s financial stability, fiduciary conduct, and returns to workers’ life savings, with severe consequences for broader macroeconomic stability. Rather than replacing the corruption existing in the public sector, this tripartite framework paves the way for a corporate takeover of the EPF. Through this, the fund is exposed to unlawful business practices such as insider trading using internal information of EPF investments, conflicts of interest and corporate bailouts of unstable private companies.
“Sri Lanka’s corporate sector has a tremendously negative track record, which you alluded to during your victorious election campaign in 2024. This was recently unravelled by the multi-billion-dollar illicit capital flight through trade misinvoicing, which your administration is now actively working to curb in the imports sector.
“The recent banking sector fraud exceeds Rs. 13 billion; widespread corporate tax evasion destabilised the fiscal position (Sri Lanka Auditor General’s Department Annual Reports) and consequently inflated the tax burden on the general public. The EFC has found it convenient to remain silent about these crimes, possibly assuming that their silence would preserve their social standing. Considering this inherent corruption within Sri Lanka’s corporate sector and its disregard to the living standards of the general public, there is no realistic basis to integrate corporate interests to actively manage the EPF. The corporate sector of Sri Lanka has not developed sufficiently on technical and ethical grounds to safely entrust the largest retirement savings pool in the country. The EPF is a captive fund that has no mechanism for the owners to divest if the management is corrupt. This further increases the possibility of corporate fraud when the management of the fund is jointly held with the corporate sector.
“Furthermore, during the recent public discussion with trade unions, Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. Anila Jayantha pointed out that the domestic debt restructuring (DDR) would inflict a loss of Rs. 600 billion to the EPF. Our independent calculations—formally submitted as an affidavit to the Supreme Court approved by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations in 2024—reveal that nominal loss alone is Rs. 634.4 billion. When factoring in foreclosed reinvestment returns, the true loss skyrockets to Rs. 1,711 billion, wiping out 48% of the fund’s projected gross income for the 2023 – 2028 period. Under the pretext of safeguarding the banking system, this colossal robbery preserved high yields on government bonds held by commercial banks and high-net-worth individuals, subsequently reaping them astronomical profits. Now, the exact same plunder is rearing its head again disguised as a tripartite committee.”
“The main arguments supporting our resistance and viable alternatives for optimising EPF management directly under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), are outlined below.
“Objections to the government’s tripartite proposal:
1. The “International best practice and conflict of interest fallacies”
The government holds that tripartite management of pension funds is the “international best practice” and that there is a “conflict of interest” in CBSL managing the EPF. They are key pillars justifying government’s tripartite proposal.
These two positions are shockingly misleading given that four of the five largest pension funds in the world, in Norway, Japan, the U.S., and Singapore, are managed directly by state bodies or central banks. Therefore, ‘international best practice’ in pension fund management is the exact opposite of what the government and the IMF are proposing. We hence reject these baseless positions.
2. Corporate captivity and bailouts
It is clear that the EFC is desperately pushing for this proposal at a time of global uncertainty, to cushion the effects of the crisis and maximise gains. Under corporate influence within the proposed tripartite board, the private conglomerates can use the multi-trillion-rupee EPF to continue their unstable commercial operations without having to risk their own capital or savings to do so. This will severely erode the financial stability of the EPF and its returns.
3. Risk of front running
“Because the EPF is a colossal fund, its investment decisions can alter asset prices. This creates immense monetary value for the information generated by its investment decisions. Corporate representatives on the proposed tripartite board will be perfectly positioned to use this information to trade ahead of the EPF (front-running), buying assets cheaply and dumping them onto the EPF at inflated prices for guaranteed corporate gain, resulting in a reduction of returns to the EPF.
4. Unavoidable loopholes
“Presence of a separate group of investment analysts, trade union representatives and government officials within the proposed tripartite structure cannot prevent pre-market corporate access to EPF’s investment decisions. Investment proposals made by the analysts has to be first approved by the proposed tripartite committee, making it impossible to prevent corporate access to insider information on EPF investments.”
-
Editorial7 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News5 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News7 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features5 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features5 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
Latest News3 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
News5 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Features4 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
