Features
Kachchativu and its maritime boundary ignore international law
By Neville Ladduwahetty
Issues relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries come alive with the approach of elections in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the practice of competing political parties in Tamil Nadu has been to pressure the Union Government of India and even legally through the Supreme Court of India to claim sovereign rights to Kachchativu and with it, shift the Maritime Boundary in a manner that would disproportionately favour the interests of Indian fishermen in the hope of capturing their votes. Now Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also joined the fray. Against this background, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of Kachchathivu, not from the perspective of historical claims of India or Sri Lanka as is the practice, but from the stand point of recognized International Law “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”.
For instance, it is reported that starting with the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Karunanidhi, the political leadership of Tamil Nadu is disappointed by the statement issued by the Central Government of India to India’s Supreme Court that “…no Indian territory, including Kachchativu, was ceded to Sri Lanka, and the question of retrieval does did not arise” (The Island, September 2, 2013). The hope of Tamil Nadu is that the Supreme Court would do justice by them and retrieve Kachchativu because of their flawed notion that it was ceded to Sri Lanka by India under the 1974 Agreement out of goodwill in the interest of furthering bilateral relations.
The issue of Kachchativu was dealt with comprehensively by the late Mr. W. T. Jayasinghe, starting with the history during colonial times and culminating with the 1974 Agreement between India and Sri Lanka (KACHCHATHIVU: AND THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF SRI LANKA, 2003). In the Preface to his publication he states categorically, “Kachchathivu was at no time the property of India, as Sri Lanka had been exercising sovereignty over that island from early times”. The fact that Kachchativu was part of Sri Lanka’s territory was also accepted by both delegations representing Colonial India and Colonial Ceylon during the Conference of 1921.
Apart from the fact that Kachchativu “at no time was the property of India” and the fact that Britain accepted that the island was part of Sri Lanka’s territory during their colonial administration, it is a matter of serious concern and disappointment, why independent Sri Lanka did not take full advantage to exploit provisions of Internationally accepted Doctrine of Uti Possidetis that recognizes the legality of colonial boundaries during negotiations with decolonized India. Had Independent Sri Lanka taken such an initiative, Sri Lanka would have been entitled to retain the limit of three miles West of Kachchativu instead of ceding the boundary to one mile West as reportedly agreed upon later.
The material presented below repeats material from an Article titled “KACHCHATIVU in the CONTEXT of INTERNATIONAL LAW”, (September 4, 2013).
THE CONFERENCE OF 1921
In order to avoid over-exploitation of maritime resources and the possibility of competition between the fishermen of India and Sri Lanka in the same waters for their catch, the colonial Governments of Madras and Colombo agreed to delimit the waters in the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. The two parties met in Colombo on October 24, 1921. The Indian team was led by Mr. C.W.E.Cotton and the team representing the government of Ceylon was headed by Hon. B.Horsburg.
Both parties accepted the “principle of equidistant and the median line could be the guiding factor”. However, since at Kachchathivu the principle of equidistant “would considerably narrow the area of operations for the Indian fishermen”, the Ceylon delegation proposed a line that was three miles west of the island “so that there would be an equitable apportionment in the fisheries domain for both Sri Lanka and India”. The proposal by the Ceylon delegation was based on the fact that “Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchathivu was never in question, was beyond any doubt and was not a matter for negotiation. He (Hon. B. Horsburg) quoted from the correspondence that the Survey Department and the Department of Public Works in Colombo had exchanged with the counterparts in India, in which the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over Kachchativu had been taken for granted by the Indian authorities… After discussion the delimitation line was fixed three miles west of Kachchativu”(Jayasinghe, p. 14,15).
Agreement between the two parties is reflected in the letter from the head of the Indian delegation Mr. C.W.E.Cotton in which he states: ” …we unanimously decided that the delimitation of the new jurisdiction for fishing purposes could be decided independently of the question of territoriality. The delimitation line was accordingly fixed, with our concurrence, three miles west of Kachchativu and the Ceylon representatives thereupon agreed to a more orderly alignment south of the island than they had originally proposed…” (Ibid, p. 130).
What is relevant from all of the above is that regardless of the basis for establishing a boundary under colonial rule, such boundaries morph into territorial boundaries of independent states under the International Law “Doctrine of Uti Possidetis”.
DOCTRINE of UTI POSSIDETIS
According to Black’s Law Dictionary the legal Doctrine of “Uti possidetis juris” is defined as: “The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence (Hansal & Allison, “The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability”, p. 2; quoting Garner 1999).
The principle behind this doctrine dates to Roman times. The principle first emerged in the modern sense with the decolonization of Latin America when each former Spanish colony agreed to accept territories that were “presumed to be possessed by its colonial predecessors” (Ibid). The same Doctrine was accepted by former colonies in the African continent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has “argued for its relevance across the world” (Ibid).
“This principle was stated most directly in the ICJ’s 1986 decision in the Frontier Dispute/Burkina Faso Republic of Mali case. The ICJ had been asked to settle the location of a disputed segment of the border between Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which had been part of French West Africa before independence. In their judgment over the merits of this Frontier Dispute case the ICJ emphasized the legal principle of uti possidetis juris”:
“The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”:
“The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from a colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of another independent State…There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis” (ICJ 1986, Ibid).
CONCLUSION
There is a considerable body of historical evidence relating to Kachchativu written by commentators and scholars in India and Sri Lanka. This body of evidence has been relied upon by interested parties in India and Sri Lanka to justify their respective claims depending on whose interests are being advanced. Consequently, the evidence presented by each is selective and serves only to advance the perspectives each decides to promote. However, among this body of historical evidence this writer has not come across a single document that justifies its claims on the Internationally recognized “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”, which in essence is the international acceptance and recognition given to Colonial Boundaries as International Boundaries of decolonized Independent Sovereign Nation States.
In this background it is indeed inexplicable and disappointing why a decolonized Sri Lanka did not exploit provisions of International Law as provided in the Doctrine of UTI POSSIDENTIS to establish its sovereign rights to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries, despite its clear advantage arising from the acceptance and recognition given to its provisions by the International Court of Justice, when it stated: “The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”, instead of relying on selective archival historical evidence that could be challenged.
Had Sri Lanka adopted such an approach, the issue of the sovereignty of Kachchativu as being an integral part of Sri Lanka’s territory would have been indisputable and the fact that the Maritime Boundary was three Miles West of Kachchativu would ipso facto have followed. Furthermore, no grounds would have existed to foster the flawed notion that the Government of India had ceded Kachchativu to Sri Lanka.
The same stubborn reluctance to exploit provisions of Customary International Law prevails in the manner Sri Lanka has been addressing accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka’s Armed Conflict. Despite the fact that the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL) contains several provisions that are favourable to address accountability, no Government has exploited any of them to Sri Lanka’s advantage.
For instance, commenting on the applicability of International humanitarian law, Paragraph 182 of the OISL Report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians…contained therein. Common Article 3 binds all parties to the conflict AND Paragraph 183 state: “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
If according to the opinion of the OISL, “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike to relevant rules of customary international law”, it must follow that issues of accountability should be responsibility of the Government and the LTTE and those who accepted the LTTE as their leaders. Furthermore, if “all parties to the conflict are bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians”, the LTTE and those who accepted them as their leaders should be held accountable for taking civilians hostage and compromising their safety by putting them in harm’s way. Since no Government has officially brought this fact to the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission, Sri Lankan Governments have inherited the sole responsibility of addressing issues relating to accountability by default.
The two examples cited above, one relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries and the other relating to accountability, are two instances where successive Governments have ignored International Law provisions to the disadvantage of Sri Lanka’s interests. The plea to this Government is that it critically and objectively evaluates the opinions presented above for the sake of restoring the dignity of the Sri Lankan Nation.
Former Chief Minister Karunnidhi is reported to be disappointed by the submission of the Central Government of India to the Supreme Court that no Indian territory including Kachchativu was ceded to Sri Lanka and therefore, the question of retrieval does not arise. The political establishment in Tamil Nadu is hoping that the Supreme Court of India would determine otherwise. The Supreme Court of India cannot be unaware of the International Law Doctrine of “uti possidetis”, not to mention the force of the agreement signed in 1974 by the respective Heads of State of India and Sri Lanka. Despite all of the above, if the determination by the Supreme Court is prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s interests, Sri Lanka would have no option but to appeal to the International Court of Justice. Sri Lanka should stand firm on this issue because of the shift of the International Maritime Boundary with its attendant loss of territory would result in many consequential disadvantages to Sri Lanka.
Attempts by the Tamil Nadu political establishment to retrieve Kachchativu through the Central Government of India and/or the Supreme Court must mean that they are either not aware of the Doctrine of uti possidetis (a fact that is difficult to accept), or while being aware and recognizing that it is a lost cause, is pursuing it in order to demonstrate that they have tried their best to protect local electoral interests despite the odds stacked against them. Whatever the case may be Sri Lanka is on solid ground as far as Kachchativu is concerned.
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
