Features
Standing on the shoulders of giants
Keynote address delivered by
Prof. Premakumara de Silva
at a recent ceremony to mark the launch
of Prof. C. R. de Silva Felicitation Volume
on ‘Essays on History and Society’ at the Senate Hall, University of Peradeniya.
I am sure all of you will agree with me that Prof. C.R. de Silva is one of the greatest scholars Sri Lanka has ever produced in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences, particularly within the discipline of Sri Lankan History. I first got to know Prof. C. R. de Silva as a Sri Lankan intellectual through his work, particularly, his masterpiece ‘The Portuguese in Ceylon, 1617-1638 (1972)” when I was an undergraduate at the University of Colombo.
I had a chance to associate with him closely when I was a visiting lecturer for the ISLE programme, under his directorship. In 2021, I again had an opportunity to engage in intellectual discussions with him when he contributed two co-edited chapters to the three-volume series of ‘Hundred years of Humanities and Social Sciences Education in Sri Lankan Universities’ ; I was the chief editor. Prof. C.R.’s contribution to Sri Lankan scholarship is wide ranging, moving back and forth between the 16th century and 21st century while finding remedies for some of the challenging problems in our country. Though I am not a historian, I am keen to situate my sociological and anthropological analysis in understanding the historical process of human problems. That is one other reason that made me happy about this opportunity to be here today.
Let me elaborate on this point a bit further. There is a very close relationship between history and sociology/anthropology. Sometimes historians turn into anthropologists and anthropologists turn into historians. If you look at the close connections between these two branches of knowledge production, Sri Lankan academia is no exception. Within anthropology the interest in history appears to have received legitimacy and gathered momentum in recent years. In his 1961 lecture “Anthropology and History”, British anthropologist Evans-Pritchard appealed for an integration of functionalist and historical interpretation in anthropology.
He emphasized the need for greater historical understanding in anthropology, but anthropology did not turn towards history until the early 1980s. However, it is important to highlight here, that by early 1960s historical analysis is quite evident in anthropology of India and Sri Lanka through the works of M. Marriortt (1955), MN Srinivas (1952, 1955, 1962), and in Sri Lanka Ralph Pieris (1956); Edmond Leach (1961), Gananath Obeyesekere (1964, 1984), Kitsiri Mallalgoda (1978), HL Seneviratne (1978) and others.
Nevertheless, broadly speaking, by the 1980s the importance of history in anthropology was revived, particularly after the works of well-known anthropologists such as Michael Taussig, Bernard Cohn, Marshall Sahlins, and also the writings of historians like Ranajit Guha and his group of subalternists . Bernard Cohn’s call for anthropology to collaborate with history in his landmark essay “An Anthropologist Among the Historians,” first published in 1962, represented an early attempt by anthropologists to take the question of history seriously.
Indeed, today, both anthropologists and historians probe into the dynamic interrelationship between culture and history, to understand culture mediated by history and history mediated by culture. This is because many critical historians have realized the need to move from the archive to the field, in order to ‘explore the concept of history through the anthropological experience of culture’ (Sahlins 1985: 72).
This ‘historicization’ of anthropology and ‘anthropologization’ of history has come about as the result of several important processes. One is the decolonisation of the ‘third world’ nations from the late 1940s through to the 1960s which served to produce questions about the traditional binaries of anthropological enquiry, like, ‘modern’ and ‘primitive’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘static’. The perceptions and assumptions of European colonizers about the colonized, and the methods by which they categorized the subject populations, came in for radical criticism.
Under these conditions anthropologists began to study ‘native’ intellectual traditions and historical schools, and elaborate on indigenous renderings of history. It has been pointed out that the concentration on the ‘local’, and the great dependence on ‘fieldwork’ do not necessarily make ethnographic accounts authentic and authoritative representations of other societies. Thus ethnography is caught in a ‘historical predicament’ where it often invents rather than represents cultures. As Bernard Cohn suggests, anthropology in a historical mode has moved away ‘from the objectification of social life to a study of its constitution and construction’ (Cohn 1980: 217).
The close scrutiny and consequent critique of the ways in which colonial states generated knowledge of the people they colonized has also directly influenced the dialogue between history and anthropology. This critique became centrally visible after the groundbreaking work of Edward Said, Orientalism appeared in 1978. Said argued that European knowledge about the Orient enabled Europe to define, classify, dominate, and restructure – to thus have authority over – the Orient. From its beginning, Orientalism was nurtured by scholars and intellectuals, and it continues to live on academically.
While it is true that Said’s Orientalism frequently relapses into ‘essentializing modes’ particularly by overemphasising the negative dimensions of Orientalism and imputing varied discourses of cultural difference with ‘hostility and aggression’ (Thomas 1994: 26), it also succeeds in questioning a number of important anthropological and historical categories, and challenging the progressive and liberal idea that former stereotypes have been superseded by a more objective way of seeing.
The immense challenge posed by Said’s arguments has prompted scholars to reflect on their assumptions, sources, and methods. Historians and Anthropologists working on South Asia have sought to extend Said’s analysis by penetrating scholarship on others, a scholarship that viewed the Orientalist in a relation of intellectual dominance over the Orientals whom they studied and represented.
All these interventions have prompted historians and ethnographers to abandon the search for the ‘real’ or the ‘essential’, and replace it instead with a sense of the production of culture. The conjunction of history and anthropology is not just ‘another new speciality’, a means for the writing of hyphenated histories and anthropologies (Cohn 1980: 216). ‘Ethnographic history’ and ‘historical anthropology’ are hybrid labels that strive to bring about a meaningful collaboration between the two disciplines so that the subject matter common to both may be reasserted, and the limits of each transcended.
It is in this context, I would like to situate the felicitation volume of Professor C.R. de Silva titled ‘ESSAYS ON HISTORY AND SOCIETY’. Interestingly, this volume was edited by a Sociologist and a Historian and many of the writers in this volume are interested in dealing with historical sources and analysis. Intellectually C.R. de Silva’s expertise is lying on colonial history of Sri Lanka. As we now know, authoritative discourse on the ‘colonized’ was largely produced through the agents of the colonial governments, military personnel, Christian missionaries, philologists, and administrators, of course not to mention uncritical historians as well.
But there is a limitation in such analysis, in my view, because most of the “decolonising projects” in South Asia, including Sri Lanka, have located their fields of work and expertise in the 19th and 20th centuries to unpack ‘British colonial knowledge production’ and they have paid scanty attention to ‘pre-British knowledge production’ for example as far as India and Sri Lanka are concerned, the Portuguese and the Dutch ‘colonial knowledge productions’. In my view, a reasonably comprehensive understanding of culture, religion, and history of the various sub-continental regions in the early 18th century and before, is a prerequisite for our understanding of the transformations which the British instituted.
Surely, there are great many historians who deal with pre-colonial history(ies), KM de Silva, RLH Gunawardena, Karl Gunawardene, Michael Roberts, Sirima Kiribamune, Lona Devaraja, Indrani Munasinghe, Amaradasa Liyanagamage come to my mind, to name a few of them. Historians in Sri Lanka are known and usually identified by the historical period which is the subject of their research. For instance, there are ancient historians, medieval historians, modern historians and so on. Each historian will also have a more specific time span such as the Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa period or even a specific kingdom or a specific dynasty as his or her specific concern in terms of teaching and research. CR de Silva would be identified as a modern historian or more precisely specialist on Portuguese colonial history.
A lively debate has sparked over the nature of “colonial knowledge” that enabled European colonizers to achieve domination over their colonised subjects in South Asia and even beyond. As a result of this debate two opposing approaches on the production of colonial knowledge have emerged; one sees colonialism introducing a profound epistemic disjuncture or rupture in the historical fabric of the society subjected to colonialism.
Hence, there can be no significant continuities across the production of colonial knowledge. Scholars like Inden (1986, 1990); B. Cohn (1987, 1996); N. Dirks (1996, 2001); and P. Chatterjee (1993) supported this line of argument.
The other approach is largely conceived as revisionist critique of this post-colonialist view and it sees continuities between the late pre-colonial and early colonial periods. Historians such as C.A. Bayly (1998); S. Bayly (1999); N. Peabody (2001); J. Rogers (2004) belonged to this school of thought. Therefore, the production of knowledge over colonized subjects in Sri Lanka in particular South and Southeast Asia in general should not be limited to one particular colonial power because ‘colonial history’ in these regions is much more complex and deeper than some of the scholars have thought out.
Focusing on the Portuguese in Sri Lanka, CR de Silva compares a Portuguese and Sinhalese account of their first encounters and then shows how each text was modified as they came to know each other better. The historical contribution made by CR de Silva to our understanding of colonial time is lucidly depicted by the well-crafted introduction written by Kalinga Tudor Silva in this felicitation volume. Let me quote him:
“In keeping with the twists and turns in the career of Prof. C. R. de Silva and my direct engagement with him at several junctures of my own career, I prefer to divide up this essay into four sections as follows: (1) CR’s contribution to understanding the Portuguese period in the colonial history of Sri Lanka (2) His contribution to research and academic culture at University of Peradeniya (3) The establishment of a research track on ethnicity and politics in Sri Lanka and (4) The interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary nature of his contributions.
I must state upfront that these remarks are based on my personal reflections on a leading scholar of the earlier generation whose work also influenced the trajectories of research in subsequent generations rather than a meticulous analysis of his writings and scholarly work in the areas listed above with the possible exception of his work on ethnicity and politics.”
While agreeing what Prof. Tudor Silva’s formulations of Prof. CR’s career as an academic, an efficient administrator and a researcher I much admire and appreciate his interdisciplinary approach to understand Sri Lankan society, culture, politics, and history in a context where many Sri Lankan academics are reluctant to position themselves in.
By focusing on CR de Silva’s life and work one of his students Ramani Hettiarchchi commented on what kind of personality and a remarkable teacher he was. I quote her:
“A remarkable feature of his teaching is that he presented facts not only in a simple, coherent, and interesting manner but also in an analytical and critical way enabling the students to understand the past in its broad perspective together with the intricacies and complexities of the discipline of History.”
The immense contribution CR de Silva has made to the advancement of historical knowledge is quite evident if one even pays a cursory look into the publication list that Ramani has produced in the volume. After the introductory remarks to the volume there are eleven chapters contributed by reputed local and international scholars on various subject matters with serious historical and analytical depth.
For example, Nihal Perera argued in his chapter on ‘History, Space, Amnesia: Invented Memories and Convenient Forgetting in Sri Lanka’ that the society, culture, and space of the colony was produced and structured from Colombo, as opposed to Colombo evolving from Ceylon or Sri Lanka. Spatially, the colonials superimposed the social and spatial structures they were producing on pre-existing ones, destroying, using, and incorporating them.
Hence, evolution cannot explain the post-colonial culture and space in independent Sri Lanka for there is no continuity. Rather, these were modified by external powers within the worldviews they were producing. His essay speculates on a crucial missing dimension in Sri Lankan historiography, especially in regard to the memory, history, and culture while denying voluntarily accepted colonial history without questioning the sources and exploring novel approaches to it.
In Ananda Abeysekara’s essay on ‘The Loss of Kingship and Colonial and Other Uses of the “People” in South Asia’, provides a good example for such novel approaches to interrogating and deconstructing our colonial past.
By using recent publications of Obeyesekere’s The Doomed King (2017) and Piliavsky’s Nobody’s People (2020) which were written on two different instances of the past in South Asia obstructed by the violence of colonialism he provides how unquestionable history writing effectively reproduces the colonial notion of the category of ‘people’ which he sees rearing its head in the colonial operations of power that made possible the destruction of the Kandyan kingdom and the forms of life.
Rather than talking about the destructive aspect of colonial governmentality, Ann Blackburn in her essay on ‘Buddhist Collaborations in Later Colonial Singapore’, shows that how colonized made creative use of the “wider opportunities” available to them in colonial-era networks and the communications technologies of that time to spread Buddhism and commercial interests far from Sri Lanka. These networks or collaborations depended on contingent historical circumstances, including the availability of land and liquid capital, and the circulation of Buddhist monastics across the South China Sea and along Indian Ocean routes.
I have to apologies, for not giving due attention to other essays that were contributed by Shihan de Silva Jayasuriya, Maura Hamet, John Clifford Holt, Shimon Shetreet, G. H. Peiris, Annette Finley – Croswhite and Gayle K. Brunelle due to time constraints. However, their scholarly contribution to the Felicitation volume of Prof. CR de Silva must be well recognized and appreciated.
Let me windup my intervention here by saying this. As most of us know Prof. C. R. de Silva begun his academic career at the University of Peradeniya, then at Indiana State University and finally at Old Dominion University, and over the years he has made tremendous contributions not only to university administration, but also, most importantly, to scholarly work as a dedicated teacher who inspired critical thinking, creative explorations, and empathetic understanding among his students.
Finally, let me reiterate what I mentioned at the beginning of this talk that, Prof. CR de Silva is one of the greatest scholars Sri Lanka has ever produced in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences, particularly within the discipline of Sri Lankan History. I wish him a happy, productive, and healthy life for many more years!
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
