Features
1956, SWRD, Sir John, some ministers and drafting a Throne Speech on short order
(Excerpted from the Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)
In view of the dissolution of Parliament, I sat down to draft the Queen’s Speech. I drafted five different speeches, one for each person who might be a potential Prime Minister: Sir John, S.W.R.D., Philip Gunawardena, Dahanayake and N. M. Perera. The elections were spread over three days, and on the last day, April 12, 1956, was S.W.R.D.’s election at Attanagalla.
On the first day’s results, it was clear that there was a swing towards S.W.R.D.’s party, the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna. On the second day’s results, his position had considerably improved and it was clear to any thinking man that, if S.W.R.D. won his own seat on the 12th, he would automatically be Prime Minister.
The shortness of the time given for the drafting of the Queen’s Speech must have struck him as a constitutional lawyer because, on the 12th morning, while polling in his electoral area was going on, he asked me on the telephone to come to his bungalow to draft the Speech.
DS.’s and Dudley’s Secretary was N. W. Atukorale. When Sir John came in, Atukorale was elevated to Queen’s House and P. Nadesan took his place. Nadesan was an efficient officer and was known as Sir John’s man. He was able to write a speech for Sir John for the opening of a Commonwealth Conference or a Volley Ball court. If S.W.R.D. came in, everyone knew that Nadesan had to go; and he went.
Many, including my father, thought that I would have to go likewise although I saw no reason for taking a kick. When S.W.R.D. phoned over the Queen’s Speech, I told him that I did not mean any disrespect, that I wished to act constitutionally as Secretary to the Cabinet, that Sir John was still the Prime Minister, that he was not still member for Attanagalla, that I had no doubt that he would be elected, that I knew the urgency of the matter, that I had a draft ready, and that I would see him early the next morning with Sir John’s permission.
In the afternoon of the 12th, I drove to Kandawala. Sir John, dressed in a sarong and banian, was signing cheques for each of the minor employees of the External Affairs Ministry. When I explained my problem, he readily granted me permission to see SWRD. He then invited me to a drink. As it was only five o,clock, I said I would prefer a glass of iced water, and he said “You b…, you are also refusing my drinks, now that I am down?”
I said it was not that, that I had some drinks at lunch time, and that my throat was a bit parched. He was annoyed but asked the servant boy to bring two glasses of iced water. When I was there, Sir John’s house which is normally full of people was deserted by those who pretended to be his friends and enjoyed his hospitality while he was in power.
And so, the next morning, at 6. 30, I was on SWRD.’s doorstep at Rosmead Place. He had been returned by an enormous majority and was to be our next Prime Minister. I inquired from a servant boy whether the master was up and was told that he was reading a mass of newspapers. I sent my name in and was asked to come upstairs – I went in, in some trepidation, and again told him, that I meant no disrespect and that I was there with Sir John’s permission, and that at Sir John would be handing in his resignation as Prime Minister at noon.
SWRD. then made a short speech at me in a very loud voice. He said he saw no disrespect but complete integrity, that public officers from Government Agents down to village headmen had worked against him (“against me, against me” he shrieked about three times) in the election, and that he admired the correct and upright stand I had taken. He said I was the one public servant, he knew, who had acted correctly during the election. I knew now that I had saved my skin. He asked for my draft and read the three pages which I had written, slowly and carefully. He then took a blue pencil and cancelled all three pages saying “Pedestrian English Peiris, pedestrian English Take this down”, and with his usual intellectual superiority and arrogance, started dictating.
He was naturally elated at his success at the election and his future as the Head of the country. Several times I had to ask him to go slow on his dictation because I knew no shorthand, and he said “Sorry, my dear fellow”. What he dictated to me was not a Queen’s speech but a vitriolic attack on Sir John and the United National Party, an attack which he should properly have made on the floor of the house of Representatives or at a public meeting.
At the end of his dictation, I thought it my duty to point this out, which I did, adding that the Governor-General might refuse to read the Speech. There is the instance of King George V refusing to read a Speech until some objectionable words referring to His Irish subjects had been deleted. He said “take my order”.
While he was dictating to me, the servant boy was coming up every few minutes saying that another gentleman had arrived, and this was before seven o’clock in the morning. SWRD. was unwashed and unshaved and dressed in pyjamas and a dressing gown, not in the shirt and cloth. He was an Oxford man, and an Oxford man cannot easily slough his culture.
About the servant boy’s tenth visit, he lost his temper and shouted at the boy to tell them all to clear out of his house. I reminded him that he was now the Prime Minister and that his remark, if conveyed, would make a very bad beginning. I suggested that he go down as he was, in his dressing gown, see who these gentlemen were, and ask to be excused because he was extremely busy about the formation of a Cabinet and time was short.
He agreed and we both descended the stairs, he with one arm round my shoulder, and I with the draft of the Queen’s Speech under my arm. Before he lost his temper, he had suggested that I wait for bacon and eggs – Oxford again.
I cannot describe my surprise when I came down and saw who the gentlemen were who were calling so early in the morning on the new Prime Minister. They were all gentlemen in high places who used to frequent Kandawala and who had done a quick somersault and a long jump to the winning side. ‘Gosh,’ I thought, ‘aren’t there any decencies in life? What they were there for, I never found out because SWRD ordered me to get back to my office and get on with the job I had in hand.
The senior hands on my staff had dealt with the Queen’s Speech since 1974 and they were surprised when they read the draft in my long-hand before they typed it. They came to me and asked “Is this the Queen’s Speech?” And I said “No. This is Mr Bandaranaike’s speech. I am not going to have this printed”.
When the draft was typed, I took it back to Rosmead Place and asked S.W.R.D. to read in type what he had dictated to me. I told him that the language was far too strong and had to be toned down. He was calmer now; the first flush of victory and elation had receded and he was giving his mind to more urgent and important things like Cabinet-making. He again read the draft carefully, said that he agreed with me and asked me to tone it down.
I asked him whether he wished to see the second draft; time was running short. He said, “Certainly not, my dear fellow. You tone it down; you know my ideas; I can trust your discretion; have your amended draft translated and printed”. As Prime Minister, he was a mellow man. As Minister of Local Government he had been a terror to his colleagues and to the public servants who worked in his Ministry.
His Permanent Secretary, E. W. Kannanagara, told me that he had to be the shock-absorber.
The Speech, toned down by me and read by the Governor-General in S.W.R.D.’s excellent English, contained promises which the Government could not possibly fulfil. A people’s Government had been returned and the people had to be pampered and pleased, whether the Government could afford the luxury or not.
At the Opening of Parliament, the People’s Ministers, including the Prime Minister, were in national dress, wearing blue scarfs to indicate the party. I was surprised to see Ministers M. W. H. de Silva and Stanley de Zoysa in this dress. M. W. H. looked dignified as a judge of the Supreme Court in a full-bottomed wig and gown. Stanley, with his monocle and that meticulous English pronunciation of his which reminded you of a University Don – well, really, you had to look at him twice before you could recognize him. To the Senate and the House of Representatives, Ministers went in the national dress. To the Cabinet, they came in the most nondescript attire.
The first paragraph of S.W.R.D.’s first Queen’s Speech read as follows:
“The free votes of the people democratically cast at the last general election are a clear indication of dissatisfaction with many aspects of policy and administration hitherto pursued. My Government intends, in pursuance of its declared policy, to effect many changes with expedition and efficiency, but in a manner which will neither result in injustice nor cause confusion and dislocation.”
1956,SWRD, Sir. John,
The Speech continued:
“My Government wishes to assure minorities, religious, racial and otherwise, that they need have no fear of injustice or discrimination in the carrying out of its policies and programmes. My Government will ensure to all citizens the rights, privileges and freedoms to which they are entitled in a democratic state.”
Compare this with the following sentence in the Speech:
“It will also take necessary steps for the adoption of Sinhala as the one official language of the State.”
Was the Sinhala only policy not a discrimination against a minority? Was the Assisted Schools takeover not an injustice? Was it a blow at the Roman Catholic community? Are these some of the changes which the Government intended to effect with expedition and efficiency? If these were, then, many more were to follow in the years to come, some overtly, some surreptitiously and yet others by camouflage.
In SWRD.’s Cabinet there was one woman. There was also Dahanayake, later to be Prime Minister, who was always punctual and who came barefooted to meetings with a bottle of eau de cologne and, before he gave up smoking, with a tin of Peacock cigarettes. C. P. de Silva was a double first in mathematics and excelled, by reason of his previous experience as a Civil Servant, in matters relating to land and irrigation.
M. W. H. de Silva, Q. C., Minister of Justice and a kinsman of mine had held high office; he had been a Judge of the Supreme Court and our High Commissioner in India. His nickname in Hultsdorp was the ‘mule’ because, once he had made up his mind, nothing would make him change it. To illustrate this, I shall relate an incident which took place when I was an Assistant Legal Draftsman drafting the Constitution and he was Acting Legal Secretary.
A telegram had come from the Secretary of State asking for an amendment to be drafted on certain lines. M. W. H. told me the lines on which to draft. This was, in my opinion, not the lines that the Colonial Office intended, but I did not tell him so. Instead, I discussed the matter with D. S. Jayawickrama, Assistant Legal Secretary and E. H. T. Gunasekera, Crown Counsel, both of whom agreed that my interpretation of the telegram was right and that M. W. H. was wrong.
I accordingly ignored the Acting Legal Secretary’s order and drafted according to what I thought the Secretary of State wanted and took the draft to M. W. H. to be told “This is not what I want. Please draft on these lines”. I told him politely that I did not think that his interpretation of the telegram was correct, and he, equally politely, told me not to waste his time but to draft as directed by him.
I therefore went and prepared a fresh draft, but was careful to send it to him with a letter in which I said that the draft gave effect to his oral instructions but, in my opinion, did not give effect to the Secretary of State’s instructions as set out in his telegram. My second draft was telegraphed to England and soon there came back a telegram saying that the draft was not what they wanted.
M. W. H. sent for me and asked me to re-draft and I said “I told you, Sir”. All that the mule said was “Well, your job is to draft. Draft again”. I said “Here’s my first draft which you rejected earlier” and he was compelled to accept it. Except for this idiosyncrasy, he was a straight and honest and upright man, pleasant in his manner, with a sense of wit and humour. During a Cabinet discussion in which he was not interested, he would doodle, always the figure of a female.
There was William Silva, young in years, as Minister of Industries. He appeared to understand his work and the nature of his duties and made a useful contribution to the discussion. In charge of Finance was Stanley de Zoysa, an old Royalist, about two years senior to me at school, and an exceedingly polite man. Philip Gunawardene, Minister of Agriculture and food must, as a student, have spent long hours poring over Das Kapital. I had never met him before, but when I was a student in London, I had seen him addressing the mob on Sundays in Hyde Park from a soap box – a platform called the Indian Freedom League.
He always wore a canary jersey, and was a very effective and forceful speaker, with plenty of venom against the Britisher, ready wit and repartee. I mentioned this fact to him at his first meeting when I introduced myself, and he agreed that my memory was correct. He is the only Minister I have worked with since the beginning of Cabinet Government who came to a meeting thoroughly prepared, not only on his own memoranda, but also on the papers submitted by other Ministers. He would bring with him a number of Sessional Papers, Administration Reports and other official documents not referred to in the other Ministers Cabinet Papers but relevant to the issue. When he spoke, he never failed to make a useful contribution to the discussion.
As Minister of Agriculture, he was in charge of Paddy Lands and brought what the landowners thought was a revolutionary Bill. As Minister of Food, he was in charge of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment. In all his functions, he was inclined to take as much legislative power as possible into his hands. This, the other Ministers resented, particularly, the Prime Minister. Philip was definitely of the Left. SWRD, in spite of his public statements that he was for democratic socialism or for socialistic democracy or for the middle path or for pancha sila (he was so clever in stating or not stating his position that I think nobody ever understood what exactly he stood for) was inclined towards the Right. A rift had to come, and it came. Philip’s draft legislation, submitted for Cabinet approval, gave the Cabinet the idea that he, and not SWRD was to be the virtual dictator. What with the Paddy Lands Act, the Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, the People’s Bank and the Co-operative Banking system, and a heap of other legislation he proposed, he would have been in a position to wield tremendous power in the country.
These proposals were obviously put forward to implement his political creed and not for the furtherance of his personal position. I believe he was an honest man, not capable of being bribed or influenced. When be was annoyed, his reaction was violent.
Among the other Ministers were Mrs Wimala Wijewardena, Messrs A. P. Jayasuriya, Kuruppu, Marikkar and Maithripala Senanayake.
The Cabinet came to certain decisions at its first meeting. Ministers had no time to formulate their thoughts in memoranda and the discussion was on very general points. As a People’s Government, they did not believe in Honours and decided that no recommendation should be made to Her Majesty the Queen for the conferment of Imperial Honours on citizens of Ceylon and that Her Majesty be humbly and respectfully requested to be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring such Honours on such of Her subjects as were Ceylon citizens.
Some Ministers thought that the appointment of an advocate to be a Queen’s Counsel was the conferment of an Imperial Honour. Local honours suffered the same fate. Our Diplomatic Missions abroad, Ministers and public officers were informed that no alcoholic liquor was to be served at official functions. The Senate and the House of Representatives were requested to close their bars: the House acquiesced, the Senate refused.
The Prime Minister informed his Ministers that it was his intention to obtain the services of an expert from the United Kingdom to advise the Government with regard to the nationalization of the transport services. On the budget drastic changes could not be made as the budgetary proposals for the next financial year had already been drawn up by the public officials concerned. While accepting the general structure of the next budget, Ministers were requested to include, wherever possible, in the draft estimates, all necessary items in furtherance of the policy of the Government and to omit any items which were in conflict with that policy.
With a view to bringing down the cost of living, it was proposed to reduce the price of rice and sugar. It was pointed out that a reduction in the price of rice by one cent a measure would mean an annual loss to revenue of seven million rupees, and a similar reduction in the price of sugar would mean a loss of three million rupees. In spite of the difficult financial position, something had to be done by the Government, and it was agreed to reduce the price of rice by ten cents a measure and the price of sugar by five cents a pound.
The Minister was asked to explore the possibility of buying sugar direct on a Governmental basis with a view to eliminating middlemen and reducing the cost to the consumer. The Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics made offers of economic aid which the Cabinet gratefully accepted.
The Cabinet considered seriously the question of abolishing the death penalty for murder, although the murder rate in Ceylon was probably the highest in the world. We had a Buddhist teetotal Minister of Justice, M. W. H., who was strongly in favour of the proposal, and he persuaded the Cabinet to agree to a suspension of the death penalty for a period of three years in the case of murder, abetment of murder and abetment of suicide. A sentence of life imprisonment was substituted.
On July 7, 1956, the Official Language Act, declaring Sinhala to be the one Official Language in Ceylon, came into operation. This immediately split the country into two, separating the Sinhalese from the Tamils whose ancient language had been removed from the scene altogether. This controversial piece of legislation antagonized the entire Tamil community and, for the first time after years of DS’s strenuous efforts to make the numerous races and communities, religious and otherwise, of the country into one homogeneous whole, the country was being divided by SWRD.’s Sinhala only Act.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
