Features
Amusing and interesting courtroom experiences in pre-Independent Ceylon
Excerpted from Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Pieris
We have an unusual practice at the Ceylon Bar where lawyers address each other by their Christian or nicknames. This in not the English practice where the rawest junior addresses the most senior silk by his surname. This was forcibly brought to my notice when I accompanied a friend of mine who wanted to meet Sir Henry Curtiss-Bennett regarding his call. When my friend addressed the silk as “Sir Henry”, he said, “Good Lord, to you I am just Curtiss-Bennett”.
My first case in the Supreme court was at the Colombo Assizes before Akbar J. I was assigned by the Crown to defend in a murder case. I took all possible pains over my brief and, when it was my turn to address the jury, put forward what I thought was a fairly good defence. Akbar, in his summing-up, did not put a single one of my points to the jury, and I was too nervous as a beginner to interrupt him. The jury found the accused guilty. The electric fans were stopped; the judge put the black cap on and passed sentence of death.
There was no Court of Criminal Appeal at the time. I mentioned the matter of the summing-up to a few senior lawyers and I was advised to see the judge in chambers next morning and explain my point of view to him. He received me courteously and listened to me with a great deal of patience. At the end of it, I was surprised to hear the judge telling me that I was probably right, that he had had a doubt in his own mind, that he had no sleep the previous night and that he had already recommended to His Excellency the Governor that the sentence of death be not carried out.
He gave me his report to read and said he had typed it himself as his mind was troubling him. He told me that the sentence would be altered to one of life, that is, 20 years, which, with remission for good conduct, would amount to about 14 years. I went to see the man in prison and asked him, now that sentence had been passed on him, to tell me the truth as regards his guilt or innocence. He said he was a religious man with a wife and several children and that murder was not in his line.
Early in my career, I had to see Mr Justice Drieberg in Chambers over a habeas corpus application. I was again nervous about seeing a “live” judge in Chambers, by which I mean a judge without robes and wig, working away in his shirtsleeves. On my knocking at his door, I was asked to come in. The judge rose and shook hands and inquired what my business was. He inquired who was on the other side and desired to see both counsel together. He then stood up, which meant that the interview was over, came across his table to the wing door which he opened in person and bowed me out. I wish there were more men like that in high places showing courtesy to younger fellows and the public.
Soertsz J. held his drinks well but, at work, was a peppery old bird. He was an extremely good speaker, particularly after dinner. In his charges to the jury, the sentences ran, clause within clause, grammatically correct. His sentences were so long that they reminded one of Walter Scott’s novels or a chapter of Thucydides. He was a master or the classics who read some Greek or Latin every morning before he came to court. He had no patience with counsel who wasted his time or who indulged in irrelevancies. On days when he had to pass a sentence of death, his whole household knew from his manner what had happened in court. The judge was in a bad mood; the family had to keep silent because the slightest talk or noise would upset him. It is said that, on these occasions, even his Alsatian crept under the dining table.
At an Assize trial, counsel was trying to make a big point before Soertsz, thumping the Bar table and asking the witness “You say here that you were four fathoms away from James when the stabbing took place. Did you say in the Magistrate’s court that you were together?” Soertsz J.: “Mr…, when the witness says they were together, he does not mean that they were Siamese twins.”
On another day, again at Assizes, a most amusing bit of conversation took place before Soertsz. Defending counsel was not very senior at the Bar and not very good in the subtle use of English words. He just got there in his questions; but only just. Something occasionally misfired in the use of a word. It was a murder trial, and a small boy had completed his evidence. The next witness was the boy’s mother, a very good-looking village woman in her early 30s. Counsel asked “Are you the mother of the previous witness?” Answer, “Yes”. Counsel: “And who is the father of this boy?” The judge, with a slight show of loss of temper at this waste of time asked, “Really, Mr…, is all this relevant to this murder case?” And counsel replied, “My Lord, I will not press the question as it appears to be embarrassing to your Lordship.”
Of Garvin J., I have the pleasantest memories. He had been my father’s classmate at the Royal College. The Editor of the New Law Reports had asked me to report a case regarding a dispute about the sale and purchase of rubber, the amount in dispute being over two lakhs of rupees. The point was taken that there was never any intention to purchase the rubber, that only the difference was to be paid according as the market price rose or fell, and that therefore it was a gaming and wagering contract unenforceable at law.
On the Bench were Garvin and Akbar J. For the appellant was H. V. Perera; against him Soertsz. The judges were told that there might be an appeal to the Privy Council. The law of wagering was traced from the Twelve Tables downwards. All the available law was cited and the Bar table was an array of books. There was a book on the subject by Perezius, a Latin writer, an enormous book about the size of a bound edition of the Times of Ceylon, covered with the dust of the Law Library and which no one on the Library had ever looked at. The judges insisted on looking into the book and it was dusted and brought in, flagged at the proper page and handed to H. V. who said “My Lords, this is in Latin”.
Soertsz rose and said “My Lords, I will translate the relevant passage for Your Lordships”, and went through the passage like a Latin unseen in our school days. The judges wanted a written translation in English which was furnished by E. B. Wikramanayake, who also translated and published a complete work of Perezius.
Professor Lee, in his book on Roman-Dutch Law which the judges now looked at, had, in a footnote, referred the reader to a very useful article on wagering contained in a certain volume of the South African Law Journal which the court wanted but no one seemed to have. A hurried search of the Judges’ Library, the Attorney-General’s Library and the private libraries of the leading Colombo lawyers proved fruitless. I told Soertsz that my uncle Jayawickrama had the book in his library at Matara and, at Garvin’s request, a telegram was sent to him asking him to be kind enough to lend the book. The book was sent; but it was not returned-by the court.
About five months later, I was retained in a rape case at Matara as Junior to my uncle. I drove to his house the previous evening and he complained to me of the probable loss of the book by its loan to the Supreme Court. The set of volumes had lost its value. He did not wish to write officially to the court, but asked me, on my return, to speak to Garvin. And there I was, a few days afterwards, standing before Garvin’s chambers, waiting for the Judge’s return for lunch. While he was having his sandwiches, I related the story of the unreturned book. He was very angry and there and then dictated, to his private secretary, a personal letter of apology to be sent along with the book. In reprimanding his secretary, the judge to my surprise, used one of those famous four letter words which has not yet got into the dictionaries.
Duff House case
The Duff House case, where, Stephen Seneviratne stood charged with the murder of his wife by chloroform, came for trial before Akbar. R. L. Pereira was defending with M. W. H. de Silva, Solicitor-General, and Wendt, Crown Counsel, appearing for the crown. Wendt, a straight man, told me years later, that he was miserable throughout the case. He did not go into detail. Apparently, there were many features grating against decorous judicial behaviour. The jury found the accused guilty and sentence was passed.
There was an appeal to the Privy Council which was allowed. Akbar resigned shortly afterwards. There was something which I found very difficult to explain in Akbar’s attitude whenever a person of some education and respectability appeared before him as an accused. There was the case where a silver-haired Tamil gentleman, shroff in a Bank, stood in the dock between two Fiscal’s officers, accused of fraud. He did not look to me the type of man who would throw an ink pot at the Judge, but as soon as the jury returned a verdict of guilty, the judge said “Handcuff the prisoner”.
Mr Justice E. W. Jayewardene, father of J. R. and Corbett, was portly and pompous, and at the same time, a kindly and dignified man who, on coming on the Bench, carefully placed a few of his personal belongings, like his gold watch, on his desk. He was familiar with his Bible and his Shakespeare and expected counsel to be equally proficient. He was also fond of cracking a joke and appreciated a crown counsel who was able to make an appropriate and equally humorous remark in reply.
In a murder trial before him, in which Crown Counsel E. H. T. Gunesekera was prosecuting, the Police Inspector was giving evidence and producing several pieces of bloodstained clothing which the deceased, a basket woman, had been wearing at the time she was stabbed to death. There was a bloodstained camboy marked P1, a bloodstained jacket marked P2, and when the Inspector produced a bloodstained chemise marked P3, the judge interjected “Mr Crown Counsel, do basket women wear chemises?” Replied E. H. T., “My Lord, I am not acquainted with the undergarments of basket women”. “Proceed with the case, Mr Crown Counsel,” said the Judge.
On another occasion, again with E. H. T. for the Crown, a string of Sinhalese village witnesses with names like Charles, James, David, had given evidence when the Judge asked “Why these names, Mr Crown Counsel? Haven’t we got good old Sinhalese names?” To which the prosecutor replied that no blame could be attached to these poor villagers for following those more and better educated who preferred to call their sons Richard and Corbett. Crown Counsel was asked to proceed with the case.
This was not rudeness on the part of the judge. He just enjoyed the ready wit even though, at times, it was a hit at him. The foreman of the jury was once dozing in the jury box. E. W. J. would not address him. Instead he said “Mr Registrar, will you please wake up the Foreman of the Jury.” I don’t think the judge was ever known to lose his temper on the Bench. This is a quality inherited by the sons.
MacDonnell, Chief Justice, was a classical scholar from Oxford and a contemporary of Lord Birkenhead. When MacDonnell disliked an argument, he had a habit of slipping down his chair, with the result that he could not be seen from the Bar Table. He held a blue pencil in one hand and a red pencil in the other, and used both pencils and hands to mark his brief, blue for points with which he agreed, red for those contra.
Each day, the briefs for the following day were put into his car. He took these with him to the Galle Face k, and, with his car parked under one of the street lamps, read them all and marked them with his two pencils. Where the trial judge had said that he agreed with the evidence of a witness, the Chief also often agreed and underlined the relevant passage in blue. If the judge had said he disbelieved the evidence, the passage was marked in red. It was thus possible, by looking at the judge’s brief, to see which way his mind was working.
My good and dear friend, James Homer Vanniasinkam who is now dead, had a case before the C. J. in which he was appearing for the respondent. He had a brainwave. The marked briefs were returned to the Registry each morning to be placed on the judge’s desk before court sat. James looked at the brief and found the underlining to be in his favour. He marked his own brief accordingly.
Appellant’s counsel did not have an easy passage with the judge. James rose to reply and did not waste the time of the court. He referred to the “strong” judgement of the trial judge, and the C. J. bowed. He then, shortly referred to page 2, line 5; page 6, line 10, and so on, and each time, the judge gave a polite bow. After about eight of such references, James bowed in turn and sat down. The Chief said “Thank you, Mr Vanniasinkam for putting your case so concisely. It’s amazing, but the identical points struck me last night.”
MacDonnell bought a small Austin motor car and learned to drive. He drove at about five miles an hour up San Sebastian Hill, with the driver seated by his side. Protruding on the right of the driving seat was a peculiar fixture, an artificial hand which was worked from a switch on the dashboard. This worked palm downwards vertically to indicate that the judge was going to slow down, and palm forwards horizontally to indicate that he was ready to be overtaken. The gadget was used liberally by the Chief.
Poyser J., in his last year, was Senior Puisne. As a judge, he was silent and polite. Every member of the Bar liked and respected him. He was, if I may say so, a popular judge. This may not be an appropriate epithet to use in reference to the holder of judicial office, but fact, the undoubted, inexplicable and obvious fact of his popularity, was there. Perhaps, it was the smile on his lips; or it might have been that twinkle in his eye. I do not know. But the Bar, which rarely accords a farewell to a retiring judge except by their presence in court when the Attorney makes his customary farewell speech, rose spontaneously in a body and accorded Mr Justice Poyser a lunch at the Galle Face Hotel.
More than one hundred lawyers, including judges, sat. R. L. Pereira, in proposing the toast of the chief guest, said that he was proud of the fact that he had been asked to give utterance to the mingled feelings of joy and sorrow of the Bar on the promotion of Mr Poyser. He continued: “I can say that we have always found Mr Poyser to be a courteous, patient and painstaking judge. The belief in British justice is as widespread as the British Empire is far-flung and if anybody has done his best to maintain that belief, it is Mr Justice Poyser.
“This is neither the time nor the place for any comparisons to be drawn, but this can be said, that Mr Justice Poyser has made himself a most excellent judge. Coming here to a new system of complex land laws, he soon tackled the problems before him, and in a short time, showed a complete mastery of the laws prevailing in this country. Those of you who have appeared before him will know with what unfailing patience he listened to the rawest junior arguing the complications of a case. Mr Poyser has always listened to them with interest and attention and has made them feel that the points they were urging were fully appreciated and considered by him.
“Our sorrow at his departure is, in a measure, relieved by the fact that he is going on well-earned promotion. After all, it is not possible for a man to resist the temptation of higher office, better salary and the prospects of earning a good pension. From that standpoint, we congratulate him on his good fortune. As a matter of fact, we were surprised that his capabilities were not recognized much earlier. A bird, however, has whispered to me that many promotions did come his way, but his love for Ceylon was so great that he turned them down.”
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
