Features
Meaningless, Redundant and Ridiculous Amendments
Ministry of Justice Law Reforms: Clarifying and updating law and finding solutions, or creating more problems and confusion?
By Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development
(continued from yesterday)
However, the same thing cannot be said of the other 3 Acts – Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 5 of 2021, Evidence (Amendment) Act No. 6 of 2021 and Bail (Amendment) Act No. 7 of 2021. The passage of these 3 Amendment Acts by Parliament is a futile, meaningless, redundant, silly and ridiculous act done by our law-makers.
The Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 5 of 2021 has amended the following Sections in the Penal Code in the following manner:
– Ss. 3, 18A, 120, 138, 158, 159, 165, 225 and 256A – by substitution for the word ‘Ceylon’ of the word ‘Sri Lanka’;
– Ss. 19, 115 and 120 – by substitution for the word ‘Queen’ of the word ‘Republic’; S. 13 repealed;
– S. 12 – by repeal and substitution of a new Section:
S. 12. The word ‘Republic’ denotes the ‘Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.’
– S. 14 – by repeal and substitution of a new Section:
S. 14. The word ‘Government’ or expressions ‘the Sri Lankan Government’ or ‘the Government of Sri Lanka’ ‘shall mean the Government constituted by the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, 1978.’
– S. 15 – by repeal and substitution of a new Section:
S. 15. The words ‘this island’ and ‘Sri Lanka’ denote respectively, ‘the island of Sri Lanka.’
– S. 16 – by repeal and substitution of a new Section:
S. 16. The word ‘President’ shall mean the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and shall include any person duly appointed or designated to exercise, perform and discharge the powers, duties and functions of his office.
– S. 18A – by substitution for all the words from ‘any enactment or any statute’ to the end of the section, of the words ‘any enactment of the legislature of Sri Lanka or under the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council, 1946 or any rules or regulations made thereunder’.
– S. 19. – by substitution for all the words from ‘Firstly’ to ‘air forces of the Queen’ of the words:- ‘Firstly – Every person holding any office in Sri Lanka by virtue of any commission or warrant or other act of appointment granted or made by the President or under the President’s authority; Secondly – Every member of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service; Thirdly – Every commissioned officer in the naval, military or air forces of the Republic of Sri Lanka’.
– S. 53 – by substitution for the word ‘Governor-General’s of the word ‘President’s’.
– S. 56 – by substitution for the words ‘waging war against the Government’ of the words ‘waging war against the Republic’ in the Illustration to the section.
– S. 115 – by substitution for the words ‘to deprive the Queen of the sovereignty of Ceylon or of any part thereof, or of any of Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories’, of the words ‘to deprive the People of the Republic of Sri Lanka of their sovereignty or any part thereof.’
– S. 119 – by substitution for the words ‘Governor-General or a Senator or Member of Parliament’ of the words ‘President or a Member of Parliament.’
– S. 120 – by substitution for the words ‘the Queen or to Her Government in Ceylon’ of the words ‘President or to the Government of Sri Lanka’.
– S. 138 – by substitution for the words ‘Her Majesty’s Government in Ceylon or the Senate or the House of Representatives’ of the words ‘the Government
of the Republic or the Parliament’;
– S. 158 – by substitution for the words ‘Government of Ceylon’ of the words ‘the Government of the Republic’.
– S. 159 & 160 – by substitution for the words ‘the Senate or the House of Representatives or the Executive Government of Ceylon’ of the words ‘the Parliament or the Executive Government of the Republic.’
– S. 162 – by substitution for the word ‘the Government’ of the word ‘the Republic’;
– S. 191 and 192 – by substitution for the words ‘this code or the law of England’ of the words ‘this code or any other enactment for the time being in force’.
– S. 256A – by substitution for the words ‘Her Majesty’s Government in Ceylon and also the Government in any part of Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories or in any foreign country’ of the words ‘the Government of any foreign country’;
– S. 398 – by substitution for the words ‘Civil Service’ of the words ‘Sri Lanka Administrative Service’;
– S. 449 – by substitution for the word ‘Crown’ of the word ‘State’;
– S. 468 – by substitution for the words ‘in any part of Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories or in any foreign country’ of the words ‘in Sri Lanka or in any foreign country’;
– . 485 – by substitution for the words ‘of Her Majesty’ of the words ‘the Republic.’
The Evidence (Amendment) Act
The Evidence (Amendment) Act No. 6 of 2021 has amended the following Sections of the Evidence Ordinance:
(a) Sections 57 (para 4 & 7), 65, 74, 78 (para 1, 4 & 5), 90 B, 91 and 100 by substitution for the word ‘Ceylon’ of the word ‘Sri Lanka’;
(b) Sections 6 & 10 by substitution for the words ‘waging war against the Queen’ of the words waging war against the Republic’;
(c) Sections 57 para (8) by substitution for the words ‘Sovereign recognized by Her Majesty’ of the words ‘Sovereign recognized by the Republic of Sri Lanka’;
(d) Sections 57 para (10) by substitution for the words ‘Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories ’ of the words ‘the territorial limits of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and of its divisions’;
(e) Sections 57 para (12), 111, 126,127, 128, 149 and 150 amended by substitution – for the word ‘advocate, proctor’ of the word ‘attorney-at-law’ wherever those words appear in those sections.
The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, Evidence (Amendment) Bill and Bail (Amendment) Bill were taken up for debate and passed by Parliament without any amendments on January 06, 2021. As shown by Parliamentary Proceedings of the day, Minister of Justice Ali Sabry, Government MPs Madhura Vithanage, Jayantha Weerasinghe, Mohan P. de Silva, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Susil Premajayantha, Udayana Kirindigoda, Dilan Perera, Sagara Kariyawasam and Lohan Ratwatte and the Opposition MPs Lakshman Kiriella, Eran Wickramaratne, A.L.M. Athaulla, Harin Fernando, Ranjan Ramanayake and Harini Amarasuriya have participated in the debate. The vast majority of the MPs who participated in the debate are lawyers. Yet none of them have seen the absurdity of presenting these Bills in Parliament and enacting them. As usual, in the debate they have spoken of various things other than the contents of the Bills.
Intellectual Fraud perpetrated on the People
There was absolutely no need to bring in this Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and Evidence (Amendment) Bill as all the above-mentioned amendments have been made 42 years back in 1980 and incorporated into the 20 Volume Legislative Enactments edited by a group of legal luminaries headed by Justice Hector Deheragoda, Supreme Court Judge, and published by the Government of Sri Lanka in 1980. Over the past 42 years all these amendments remained part of the law of the country. In the guise of updating outdated, antiquated laws, the Ministry has reproduced in these two Bills what was already there as a great achievement made by it. This is an intellectual fraud perpetrated not only on our gullible people who are prepared to swallow anything given by our cunning politicians, but also on the MPs who are not used to study, analyse and examine Bills presented in Parliament.
Each of these Bills run into seven pages and printed and published 2 or 3 times causing unnecessary wastage of public funds: – first, some times as part of Cabinet Paper for Cabinet approval and then published in the Government Gazette for public information as is required under the law; secondly in the form of a Bill for presentation to Parliament and thirdly as an Act of Parliament. Who will take the responsibility for this totally unwanted wastage of public funds? It is also wastage of time and energy of the Parliamentary staff and of public funds for the sitting of Parliament. As reported in the media quoting Parliamentary sources, Parliament spends over four million rupees for a day of sitting.
While enclosing all the above-mentioned amendments in the 1980 Legislative Enactments in the two Bills, it appears that 3 amendments, which were not in the 1980 Legislative Enactments and which may have the effect of arousing public concerns, have been surreptitiously crept into the Bills, unnoticed by those who may be concerned. Two of these amendments in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and one amendment is in the Evidence (Amendment) Bill.
S. 17 of the Penal Code has been amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act by omitting illustration (b). Illustration (b) in S. 17: (b) A District Registrar or Additional District Registrar exercising jurisdiction under S. 33 of the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act is a judge. Under the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act a District Registrar has the power of a District Judge in respect of matrimonial matters of persons who have contracted their marriages under the Kandyan Law. This amendment has the effect of rendering this provision in the Kandyan Law practically ineffective without touching the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act, unnoticed by those concerned. Legally speaking, this illustration cannot be omitted without first amending the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act, as it is an illustration reflecting the existing state of the law.
Another amendment of this nature crept in is the amendment of S. 25 the Penal Code. This section has been amended by substituting the word ‘spouse’ for the word ‘wife’. S. 25: When property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code.
One cannot understand why this amendment was brought. There is no need or justification for this amendment, other than paving the way for gay marriages, giving effect to the thinking of Ranil Wickramasinghe government, in the guise of making provision for gender neutrality. It may also have a bearing on the right to the possession of property of a person married under the Kandyan Marriage and Divorce Act.
Another insensible amendment made is the amendment of S. 225 of the Penal Code. S. 225 of the Penal Code deals with the offence of use of counterfeit coins. The relevant phrase contained in the original Penal Code was: ‘issued by the authority of the Government of Ceylon or under the Currency Ordinance No. 21 of 1941 or any enactment in operation for the time being relating to the issue of coins in Ceylon or in any part of Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories.’
It has been amended in the 1980 Legislative Enactments as shown below: ‘issued by the authority of the Government of Ceylon or under the Currency Ordinance No. 21 of 1941 or under the Monetary Law Act, or under any enactment in operation for the time being relating to the issue of coins in Sri Lanka or by the authority of the Government of any foreign country in order to be so used.’)
The current amendment has omitted the phrase (shown above underlined) dealing with coins issued by foreign governments. It reads thus: ‘issued by the authority of the Government of Ceylon or under the Currency Ordinance No. 21 of 1941 or under the Monetary Law Act (Chapter 422) or under any enactment in operation for the time being relating to the issue of coins in Sri Lanka.’
Unlike our coins, coins of some foreign countries are of very high value. This amendment may open the doors for racketeers to use counterfeit foreign coins of high value without incurring any penalty. After this amendment a person found in possession of or dealing with counterfeit foreign coins cannot be prosecuted under the Penal Code.
Repeal of S. 82 of the Evidence Ordinance is another incomprehensible, irrational and short-sighted act done. This results in placing an unnecessary burden of proof on clients in some categories of civil cases who rely on documents executed in foreign countries in support of their claims. This will not only result in prolonging the cases, but also provide opportunities to unscrupulous lawyers to charge higher fees. One can clearly see this when one compares the S. 82 in the original Evidence Ordinance with the amended section of the Evidence Ordinance in the 1980 Legislative Enactments.
Original Evidence Ordinance S. 82 :- ‘When any document is produced before any court purporting to be a document, which by the law in force for the time being in England or Northern Ireland, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court of justice in England or Northern Ireland without proof of the seal, or stamp or signature authenticating it, or of the judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the court shall presume – (a) that such seal, or stamp or signature is genuine, and (b) that the person signing it held at the time he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims, and that the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in England or Northern Ireland.
Amended section in 1980 Legislative Enactments
– S. 82 :– ‘When any document is produced before any court purporting to be a document, which by the law in force for the time being in any foreign country, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court of justice in that country without proof of the seal, or stamp or signature authenticating it, or of the judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the court shall presume – (a) that such seal, or stamp or signature is genuine, and (b) that the person signing it held at the time he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims, and that the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in that foreign country.
Any person with common sense will understand that the 1980 amendment is a salutary step taken extending the application of the presumption which remained confined to documents legally executed in England or Northern Ireland to documents executed in any foreign country, thereby facilitating the judicial process in relation to the proof of all such documents. What is the need or reason for the repeal of this salutary provision beneficial in the speedy administration of civil jurisdiction?
(to be continued)
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
