Sri Lanka’s 2026 Budget Passes Second Reading Amid Fiery Opposition Accusations of ‘People’s Oppression’

Colombo, Sri Lanka – November 14, 2025 – Sri Lanka’s Parliament delivered a strong endorsement to the government’s economic blueprint as the Second Reading of the 2026 Budget was passed today by a significant majority of 118 votes. The budget, presented by President and Finance Minister Anura Kumara Dissanayake on November 7th, now moves forward to its final committee stage debate and Third Reading, which is scheduled for December 5th.

The vote demonstrated the ruling coalition’s legislative control, securing 160 votes in favour while the Opposition mustered 42 votes against. A total of eight Members of Parliament abstained from voting. While the budget cleared its first major hurdle, it immediately became the subject of intense political scrutiny and sharp criticism from the Opposition, who labelled the fiscal plan an instrument of “people’s oppression” that exploits public funds.

The Opposition’s Scathing Critique: An ‘Exploitative’ Budget

Immediately following the passage of the budget, Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa addressed the media, delivering a scathing indictment of the government’s financial strategy. Premadasa vehemently opposed the budget, arguing that it places an excessive and unmanageable burden on the populace.

The Opposition Leader stated that his party voted against the budget because they view it as an “exploitative budget that bleeds the people’s funds,” going far “beyond the conditions imposed by the IMF” (International Monetary Fund).

Premadasa’s central arguments against the budget focused on its perceived anti-people stance and a lack of clear strategy for sustainable economic growth:

• Excessive Public Burden: Premadasa asserted that the budget “places a burden on the heads of the people” and causes “unlimited pressure,” implying that the tax increases and cuts to public spending demanded by the fiscal consolidation plan are disproportionately affecting ordinary citizens, particularly the poor and middle class.
• Lack of Poverty Eradication and Investment: A major criticism was the absence of any substantive programme to eradicate poverty. The Opposition Leader claimed the budget utterly lacked a dedicated framework or clear plan to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), arguing that without a strategy for FDI, the nation cannot achieve the structural economic reform necessary for long-term recovery.
• Human Rights Concerns: Premadasa went further, characterising the budget as one that leads to the “violation of the human rights of the people” due to the resulting financial strain and pressure on essential services. He concluded that, for these reasons, the budget could only be defined as a “people-oppressive budget” (ජන පීඩිත අයවැයක්).

Government’s Mandate and Fiscal Strategy

Despite the Opposition’s protestations, the strong vote in favour of the budget reflects the current government’s legislative dominance and its commitment to the fiscal discipline required by its extended fund facility (EFF) agreement with the IMF.

The 2026 budget, presented by President Dissanayake in his capacity as Finance Minister, focuses heavily on revenue-based fiscal consolidation, restructuring public debt, and reforming state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The President has consistently argued that these are painful but essential steps to stabilize the economy, restore international credibility, and move the country away from its decades-long dependence on unsustainable debt.

The government maintains that the fiscal measures, including widening the tax base and increasing tax rates, are necessary to generate the primary surplus required under the IMF program and ensure the country does not return to bankruptcy.

The passage of the Second Reading is a procedural victory, but the battle over the budget is far from over. The Third Reading in December will involve line-by-line scrutiny and debate, where ministries’ expenditure allocations will be voted on. The Opposition is expected to use this stage to amplify its criticisms regarding the budget’s social impact and push for amendments to reduce the burden on citizens, particularly concerning social security and welfare spending.

The political narrative remains sharply divided: the government insists the budget is a necessary bitter pill for long-term health, while the Opposition paints it as an “exploitative” burden imposed on a populace already battered by economic crisis.