Features
A Bilingual Public Sphere of Visual Art Criticism:
SCRAP BOOK OF CHANDRAJEEWA
by Laleen Jayamanne
AJ Gunawardena, writing for The Island as Jayadeva, had the following to say about Sarath Chandrajeewa and his work in the ’90s, especially haunting to read now because he wrote it just one year before his untimely death, in 1998.
“I have known Sarath Chandrajeewa long enough to know to appreciate the vitality of his dream. He is still young and the best years are ahead. His exposure to art instruction, first in the UK under the aegis of his mentor Tissa Ranasinghe, and currently in Russia from a somewhat different angle has appreciably improved his skills and has enlarge his horizons without weakening the umbilical links that bind him to the clean clay of Dankotuwa. I have great hopes for him”
. AJ/Jayadeva, Marginal Comments, The Island, June 1, 1997.
Edwin Ariyadasa, reviewing Sarath’s first solo exhibition, Creations in Terracotta (1990), expresses similar sentiments. Both articles, in English, were republished in the Scrap Book of Chandrajeewa, 1985-2010, edited by Malsha Fernando (2011). Professor Carlo Fonseka, launching the Scrap Book at the Sapu Mal Foundation, in 2011, entertained the audience by saying that the quality of Sarath’s art may be measured by the number of enemies he has. Alas! Professor Carlo didn’t live to see how this distinguished fraternity of specialists grew exponentially, thus magnifying Sarath’s net worth. This is probably a Sri Lankan first, which we love to boast about! Even now, rather late in life, Sarath’s capacity to work creatively, collaboratively, has not diminished. These two distinguished bilingual critics (AJ, a University Professor of English and Edwin, a bilingual journalist writing for Sarasawiya newspaper), belonged to a generation of public intellectuals whose critical output is exemplary for its analytical precision and concision, based on wide art historical and other knowledges, complex lived experience, as well as intuitive understanding and intellectual generosity of spirit. I believe that ethical conduct was an essential part of their critical praxis in contributing to a democratic public sphere of discourse. They were not after either popularity or social status and power, though they were both very popular writers who are remembered with affection, decades after their deaths.
Prof. Kusuma Karunarathna, in her recent short review of Lamentation of the Dawn (2022) by Sarath, (writing even while convalescing), also recalled AJ’s sense of values as a public intellectual. She said: “After reading Lamentation of the Dawn, I remembered Professor AJ Gunawardena. If he was alive, he would have definitely written a review for this.” She brought to mind AJ’s several roles as a public intellectual; a scholar of Theatre, a University professor, a script writer for Lester James Peries and a journalist. So, it’s not surprising that on the 10th anniversary of AJ’s untimely death, Nalaka Gundawardene, writing in Gound Views (09/19/2008), expressed the hope that his ‘original Marginal Comments, in The Island would one day be compiled into a book’. I wonder if that has happened? That would have been an easier task as all the pieces would be filed in The Island’s English language archive. Whereas, Malsha’s task was made very complex (no doubt), because the reviews and articles on Sarath and his work were spread across many newspapers and ephemeral publications in Sinhala and English, over two and a half decades.
What was special about AJ was that he had both a stellar international reputation by having edited the bumper Special Issue on Asian Theatre for the prestigious Theatre Studies journal, TDR (1968) at New York University, while being integrally connected to the local. In this he was not alone in his generation of scholars but working internationally at the time. Gananath Obeysekere, Michael Roberts, SJ Thambaiya and Neville Weerarathna (but all working overseas), come to mind immediately. Because both Edwin and AJ were bilingual, their knowledge base was not parochial and crucially, what they knew they understood deeply, which is to say, contextually and historically. They also believed in the pedagogic function of criticism and wrote a lively and accessible, well-crafted prose always aware of the addressee. Their focus was, refreshingly, not on themselves but on the object at hand, while their prose was shot through with humour.
My idea to write this piece (on the critical evaluation of Sarath’s work by some of Lanka’s outstanding critics and also lesser-known ones, of both genders), occurred to me while dipping into the SCRAP BOOK as a primary resource while writing a review of Sarath’s recent 6th solo exhibition, Visual Paraphrase (Barefoot Gallery, 2023, Nov-Dec). I felt the need to understand the critical reception to his oeuvre as a whole, and its local context across time, starting from 1990. No longer young, Sarath rarely exhibits his work (the small 2023 show was 18 years after his retrospective also at Barefoot Gallery in 2005), spending more time on his research and publication ventures and teaching children art.
I wish to examine the SCRAP BOOK as a historical resource, an archive of sorts, to suggest its value in understanding the mutation of critical discourses on the arts from the ’90s on. My belief is that the plethora of critical journalistic writings in the SCRAP BOOK, (some nameless but sharp and intelligent), by both women and men have something to offer now, which might enrich the critical public sphere of discourse on visual culture.
I write as an old academic critic and theorist of cinema, still active in research with some three decades of teaching in Australia, and just one year at the University of Ceylon Peradeniya, with a specialisation on the Sinhala Cinema from a feminist perspective. I also take this opportunity to announce the forthcoming publication of my Island Essays (2021-2023): Walk Like an Elephant (Colombo: Contemporary Arts and Crafts Association of Sri Lanka, 2024). There, I have also written about AJ and his wife Trilicia as public-spirited intellectuals in the piece, ‘Visionary Educators: Trilicia Gunawardena at the Government College of Art & Crafts’. In particular, there, I focus in some detail on Trilicia’s praxis as a visionary teacher of English as a second language and mentor to her students, among whom was a young Sarath. As all dedicated teachers do, she understood well Sarath’s naturally endowed, unusual creative gifts, as well as his personality, decisively guiding him at various crucial junctures, even after graduation. This visionary couple (among several others), have been Sarath’s guardian spirits when he faced unceasing hostility.
A Dynamic Public-Sphere of Art: The ’90s
I understand that the unique dynamism of the critical discourses of the ’90s (when Sarath began his series of solo exhibitions), was partly due to several factors that began to intersect simultaneously. I list some in no particular order: a nascent art market; the internet enabling artists themselves to display and source buyers without a dealer which itself would have stimulated production; the rise of local art galleries, collectors and art fares; the civil war and attendant volatility of the nation and the pervasive violence; the growth of a cultural NGO sector connected with foreign funding of art centres focusing on ‘Human Rights and the civil war’ related art projects; introduction of new materials and genres, discussions, publications and the formulation of art manifestoes of sorts; the entry of foreign art historians and curators with generous funding, responding to the new global topic, ‘Art and Human Rights’, sourcing research material in the global south for their new publications and exhibitions, essential for their career advancement in the global north; the introduction of aspects of ‘Continental Critical Theory’ into the vernacular (verbal), critical discourse. It was the beginnings of the complex effects of globalisation and ‘deregulation’, on the visual arts of Lanka which opened up new possibilities for artists/critics, who began, importantly, to speak for themselves instead of waiting for critics to do so. I cite these multiple factors as a distant, non-specialist observer, while only having read a book or two in English about these changes in Lanka, written by foreign writers but with local inputs. I have also listened to various lecture-discussions in Sinhala and English, recorded on YouTube and on websites of Art Institutions, following certain seminars randomly. I expect that some art historians are by now researching the ’90s systematically, with the advantage of contextual experience and the vital temporal hindsight that distance provides for the discipline.
Critical Writing by Female Journalists
We know that in Sri Lanka the majority of art and film criticism of the early post independent periods have been undertaken by men, some celebrated, (including the irreplaceable Regi Siriwardena), but this has clearly changed with the advent of feminism, as is clear from the SCRAP BOOK. I was pleasantly surprised to note the very large number of female journalists whose writings appear in the SCRAP BOOK. Perhaps because this is probably a relatively new feature in the cultural public sphere (I stand corrected), I shall focus more on their writing than on the established male names. Approximately, the ratio of female to male critics (in a mix of discursive reports, articles and long interviews), is as follows: 14 women to 20 men. Gender identity was not always provided and I can’t read gender when the last letter is an English ‘a’. These figures are remarkable given that the public intellectual forums appear still to be largely dominated by very vocal male critics/artists/academics, who some-times brook no criticism from the audience, whether it be by a young man or a woman. I have observed several times with astonishment, this unacceptable undemocratic behaviour of shutting down any criticism, but once in an important cultural institution as well. I have also registered a pattern of just citing certain continental cultural critics such as Walter Benjamin as an authority, in a manner that is quite mystifying, unedifying. It is as though the mere mention of the name, like a mantra, (of this most subtle of thinkers with his carefully crafted prose), bestows his ‘aura’ on the Lankan theorist waving a collection of his essays in the air.
There is no argument from authority in the work of the writers in the SCRAP BOOK, the best among them is well-researched, conceptually grounded and historically literate. They are not deferential to the ‘great artist’, they speak as equals, the playing field is level, as in cricket. The writers are all well prepared, they know what they are talking about and show a sense of intellectual curiosity and fascination with the aesthetic dimension of the art discussed and of its place within the long history of art in Lanka.
Sarath (with his art historical knowledge of the classical periods), is then able to map out important differences between the craftsmen of the feudal times of kings and the democratic polity of contemporary Lanka, in the fields of art and crafts subjected to market forces but also to authoritarian state patronage. Sarath is that rare craftsman/artist working unusually, in clay, painting and bronze, Lanka’s civilizational material culture and art, according to Ananda Coomaraswamy. The writers ask carefully thought-out questions which generate complex discursive responses from Sarath, who also knows his World art history well (including China, India and Japan), as well as theories of the European historical avant-gardes and their manifestoes. He is now editing and publishing a book in Sinhala, on the Russian painter Malevich, on abstraction. The interviewers are agile enough to follow a flow of ideas, clarify an argument as the dialogue expands and takes an unexpected turn. The book provides ways of understanding the complex formations of the ’90s art, its intricacies, which we learn was far more diverse than its ‘avant-garde’ ideologues’ accounts, presented as ‘The History’ of the present, to gullible foreign specialists and even some Colombo elite. Malsha has done a fine editorial job following the chronology of dates and yet arranging the pieces somehow, to make the pieces speak to each other, in our minds. The photographs also help. This kind of selection is the work of a skilled editor able to bringing together such a mixed bag of writings, across decisive periods of the artist’s life span, making the SCRAP BOOK a coherent text. It is also worth noting that there is a multi-ethic bunch of writers here.
I single out Chamila Somirathna’s long discursive interview (Rawaya – 2010, May 30), which concludes the book as its penultimate chapter, because her terms of reference are generative, with well researched and formulated questions signalling possible research pathways, should anyone care to take them up.
(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
