Features
ONE NIGHT IN BANGKOK
On the evening of Sept 23, 1999, Qantas Flight QF1 was approaching to land at Don Muang International Airport in Bangkok, Thailand. The nine-year-old Boeing 747-400, registered VH-OJH and named City of Darwin, was carrying 391 passengers and 19 crew. It was en route from Sydney, Australia to London on the first leg of the so called ‘Kangaroo Route’.
That evening there were scattered thunder showers over Bangkok, which was quite common at that time of the year. The flight was uneventful and routine until the top of descent (‘TOD’) was reached. On the flightdeck that rainy night was a 49-year-old Captain with 15,881 hours of experience, a 36-year-old First Officer (F/O) with 8,973 hours of flying time, and a 35-year-old, 6,685-hour Second Officer (S/O). Also seated on the flightdeck was the latter pilot’s wife. If a crew member’s wife or partner was travelling as a passenger, it was not unusual in those pre-9/11 times for the captain to invite her to occupy the extra observer’s seat, or ‘jump seat’.
Visibility unacceptable
During the approach, the aircraft was being flown by the F/O, under the supervision of the Captain, who was a company-designated Base Training Instructor (a trainer in take offs and landings for pilots). The crew did a thorough briefing, which included the expected weather and visibility conditions in Bangkok. In aviation meteorology, good visibility is normally reported as being 10km (kilometres) or more. On this occasion the visibility was reported by the ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Service) as 7km in rain. In fact, the F/O suggested that if the visibility was unacceptable, they should go around (abort the landing), climb away from proximity to the ground, and enter a holding pattern somewhere in the clear until it was safe to attempt a second approach and landing. To this the Captain remarked that 7km visibility was not too bad and acceptable as it was only due to showers of rain.
However, when QF1 was on its final approach for Runway 21 Left the intensity of rain at the airport increased and visibility began dropping further, down to 4km. It was observed by then that the rain clouds were directly above the airport. At this point the Captain suggested that automatic brakes (autobrakes) were selected to a higher no. 3 setting to compensate for a wet runway and the possible chance of skidding and aquaplaning. The aircraft’s anti-skid brake system would provide for safer stopping.
The visibility then went down to a mere 1,500 meters. Another Qantas flight (QF15) approaching the same runway just ahead of QF1 decided to go around. Unfortunately, that aircraft was speaking with the air traffic control tower on their radio frequency and could not be monitored by QF1 which was on the different ‘approach’ radio frequency.
‘Situational awareness’
Had the QF1 crew heard their own company aircraft discontinuing its landing and initiating a go-around, there is no doubt that they would have been mentally prepared for what to expect closer to the airport. When going around, the pilot is expected to announce that decision to the control tower. To operate safely, pilots of today rely on their hearing perhaps to a greater degree than visual cues, to form a mental picture by listening out for other aircraft operators who all work on a common radio frequency. This enhances their knowledge of what is going on around them and is commonly known as ‘situational awareness’.
As per company-dictated procedures, the F/O intended to use partial flaps ‘25’ for landing, and idle reverse thrust after landing. A higher ‘full’ flap setting would allow the aircraft to touchdown at a lower speed; and that, more than idle reverse thrust, would have allowed the aircraft to decelerate quickly. That would have been more appropriate for a wet runway.
Soon they spotted the lead-in approach lights to the runway, and the lights at the runway threshold. These lights were visible through the moderate rain which was not a deterrent to the crew visually orientating themselves, with wings level and a continuous descent in the final approach. The remainder of the runway lights were, however, obscured by the heavy rain over the runway.
Unfortunately, the F/O flattened out his descent in the rain and floated beyond his projected touchdown point (1,000ft from the threshold), so the captain had to remind him to keep on descending and get the aircraft on the ground quickly. As a matter of interest a ballpark rate of descent that pilots use to maintain an ideal 3-degree glide path is half the ground speed indicated by the GPS plus a zero, in feet per minute. For example, if the GPS-indicated ground speed was 160 knots, the pilot should strive to keep a rate of descent of about half of 160, that is 80, plus a ‘0’: 800 feet per minute. A rate of descent less than that will cause the aircraft to ‘float’ while using up valuable ‘real estate’ ahead. As an old aviation adage goes, ‘Runway behind you is useless. Runway ahead is priceless.’
The approach speed was a few knots faster but within limits.While the Captain was aware that the Boeing 747 floated further in than the normal 1000 feet from the threshold, it was still within company tolerance limits. Hence, the Captain increased the autobrakes setting to no. ’4’ without telling the rest of the crew. The heavy rain in the middle of the runway, prevented him from seeing the lights at the end of the runway, so he was unsure of their position relative to the length of the runway. Therefore he did the next best thing and ordered a go-around at low level. The standard procedure was for the F/O, who was flying the aircraft, to press the ‘Go-Around’ buttons on the throttles. When either or both buttons are pressed the aircraft goes into the go-around mode: engine power increases automatically, the autobrakes switch off, and the Flight Director System provides the pilot with a precise nose-up attitude to fly. This manoeuvre is regularly practiced in the flight simulator, under supervision of an instructor. However, in this instance, for some reason the F/O increased the throttles manually without pressing the go-around buttons (using his index and the middle fingers). Consequently, the aircraft continued to descend due to its momentum and the wheels touched down on the runway softly.
By now they had passed the patch of intense rain at the centre of the runway and could see the lights at the end of the runway. The captain made a judgement call, without announcing to the rest of the crew, and closed the throttles by placing his right hand over the F/O’s left hand which was already controlling the throttles. In the process he inadvertently failed to close (throttle back) the number one (left outer) engine which was still operating at high thrust. As a result the automatic spoilers (air brakes), although armed, did not deploy as it did not satisfy auto-spoiler computer logic which demanded that all engines must be at idle power with the aircraft on ground for the spoilers to ‘pop up’. As the name implies, when the aircraft has touched down the spoilers ‘spoil’ the lift generated by the wings and forces the aircraft to stay firmly on its wheels to facilitate effective braking. The auto spoilers were eventually deployed only after the F/O pulled the no. 1 throttle back to idle power. The autobrakes also dropped off to ‘disarm’ position as one thrust lever was still at full thrust for over three seconds with the aircraft ‘on ground’, yet nobody on the flightdeck noticed it.
Usually, once a decision is made to go around and climb away from the ground, the flight crew are expected to stick to the plan without attempting to reverse their decision, for example attempting to land again. The Captain being a flight instructor who teaches takeoffs and landings decided to carry this out while accepting the risks. His unilateral actions obviously caused confusion on the flightdeck. At that point no-one knew who was in control of the aircraft. The standard aviation practice, from the pilots’ fledgling days, would have been that the instructors and captains brief the trainee or F/O that if they take over, they will announce loudly: “I have control”. In turn the trainee or First Officer must say, “you have control” so that there is no ambiguity. If appropriate to give back control to the other pilot, the instructor/captain must announce again loudly, “You have control”, and the other should again acknowledge by saying, “I have control”.
Wife in flightdeck
In this instance, did the Captain quietly interfere and not announce to avoid embarrassment to the F/O as the second officer’s wife was present in the flightdeck? We don’t know. But I have seen that happen. The Australian accident investigators in their final report say that her presence did not affect the outcome of the accident. That is true. This aspect is purely the point of view of the writer who was a trained Human Factors Facilitator for a Far Eastern carrier.
Back at Bangkok … realising the urgency to slow down, both pilots were frantically braking using the manual brakes on the rudder pedals to bring the aircraft to a stop. As in most jet aircraft, there were four other stopping devices installed in the four engines, known as thrust reverses, which are effective at high speed. In their confusion the two pilots forgot to use them. The third pilot (second officer) didn’t remind the other two operating pilots either. (The roar of engine noise that passengers hear immediately after landing is the deployment of reverse thrust.) The devices literally deflect the engine thrust forward and engine power increases to assist the spoilers and wheel brakes to bring the aircraft to a stop. The thrust reverse controls are on the forward part of the throttle levers themselves and could be moved in one smooth movement up and backwards through an idle detent, after the throttles are closed.
The official investigation conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) deduced by analysing the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) that in this case the runway surface was flooded resulting from the intense rain and produced a phenomenon referred to as ‘aquaplaning’ whereby a thin layer of water is trapped between the runway surface and the tyres, rendering the brakes less effective and increasing the likelihood of skidding. Aquaplaning could occur where the depth of water is as little as 3mm (1/8 of an inch). From 146 knots the huge Boeing 747 took four seconds to reduce its speed to 134 knots. Seventeen more seconds to reduce to 94 knots and it entered an area at the end of the runway known as the stopway, then overran it at a speed of 88 knots on to a muddy patch of grass. At 79 knots the aircraft struck an Instrument Landing System (ILS) localiser antenna (on the extended centre line of the runway) which demolished the nose wheel and the right landing gear, while also damaging the aircraft’s public address (PA) system, before sliding on its nose to stop 220 metres beyond the end of the stopway just before a perimeter road.
Damage from overrun
An inspection of the aircraft soon after the crash confirmed that the spoilers had been deployed and flaps were selected to an intermediate position ‘25’ in keeping with company policy. However it was also confirmed that reverse thrust had not been used after the touchdown. No significant injuries to passengers and crew were reported. The subsequent precautionary passenger evacuation was affected by the unavailability of the PA system.
Investigators further observed that the aircraft had suffered substantial damage resulting from the overrun. The demolition of the nose and wing-mounted right-hand gear caused a wing to drop slightly to the right allowing the two engines on the right wing to contact the ground as the airplane slowed down. A complete examination of the aircraft showed that every system on the 747 was in good working order before the overrun.
Between 1970 and 1998, there had been 111 overruns of Western-built aircraft. In fact, the final accident investigation report observed that runway overruns were quite common in the industry for Western-built, high-capacity aircraft. Often, long and/or fast landings and wet runways were factors in these accidents.
Usually there is a chain of errors that leads to such an accident or incident:
(1) If the crew used a higher flap setting than the Qantas-recommended (preferred) setting of position ‘25’, they would have touched down at a lower speed and stopped quicker. Full landing flaps (‘30’) would have created aerodynamic drag and assisted in stopping.
(2) Their landing approach was faster than normal (within company limits).
(3) The aircraft floated passed the normal 1,000 foot touchdown point.
(4) If the crew took the adverse weather into consideration and briefed themselves to use full reverse thrust after touchdown that would have assisted the wheel braking action. (While the two nose wheels had no brakes, the 16 main wheels, on the four main landing gear assemblies, had brakes equipped with anti-skid systems.)
(5) The captain did not stick to the original plan of action to carry out a go-around, when unsure of their position on the runway.
(6) Reversing the go-around decision unilaterally by the captain without announcing to the rest of the crew resulted in confusion.
(7) When closing throttles one (no. 1) was inadvertently left at full power, leaving the aircraft’s computer logic in disarray.
(8) No proper procedure for taking over and handing over of control was used.
(9) The crew members forgot to use reverse thrust after touchdown.
The Australian investigators, who are not expected to apportion blame, declared, after analysing performance data, that if spoilers and full reverse thrust were used, they would have been able to stop within the limited landing distance available. There was no way they could not use reverse thrust and stop. Further investigation into the ‘cause behind the cause’, by applying thorough accident analysis, discovered that it was a systemic problem in Qantas Airways. Amongst other things, inadequate emphasis during simulator training on deviating from company-preferred Flap 25 and idle reverse, when necessary, on contaminated and wet runways. This was confirmed by the training department. Flap 25 and idle reverse was apparently introduced and accepted by Qantas as a cost-cutting exercise, and to reduce noise. The flight simulators were incapable of providing realistic wet/contaminated runway simulations. The written word for wet/contaminated runway operations in the training manuals were found ‘hidden’ under the cold weather operations section (ice and snow). Many crews including those involved in the accident were not aware of the extra precautions to be exercised on wet/contaminated runways recommended in the book. Usually, Qantas crews encountered ice and snow in Japan and Europe in their route network.
Qantas was fortunate that no-one was injured. It is rumoured that they spent more than the cost of a brand-new Boeing 747-400 to repair and put VH-OJH back in service, just to maintain its long-held record as ‘the safest airline in the world’ and not have a ‘hull loss’ on their hands.
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
