Features
A Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property law
Excerpted from a Life in the Law by Nimal Wikramanayake
When I took up residence in Equity Chambers I would often visit my friends on the third floor. During my visits, I saw a little old man wearing a crumpled suit and he always had a cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth. For a couple of months I would stop and chat to this little old man. I thought he was the caretaker and I felt extremely sorry for him because he looked so lost and lonely. A delightful little friendship slowly built up and whenever I went up to the third floor I would see this little old man pottering around in one of my friends’ rooms.
One day, out of the blue, he looked at me and said, “My boy, I don’t think we’ve been introduced to each other.” I stuck my hand out and said, “I am Nimal Wikramanayake.” With a twinkle in his eye the old man said, “I am Louis Voumard.”
In 1973, property law work and conveyancing were the bread and butter of every solicitor in Victoria before successive governments in their wisdom decided to take conveyancing work away from solicitors and hand it to conveyancers. What an absolute travesty of justice!
Louis Voumard was the leader in the property field and his name was a household word in Australia. He was the son of Swiss migrants who had settled in Shepparton. They ran a milk bar. Their son was born in 1898 and they sent him down to Melbourne to study Law. He had an inauspicious beginning in the legal profession.
In the mid 1930s he had a bright idea. He would write a book on “The Sale of Land” and become an expert in property law. He devoured T Cyprian Williams’ classic work A Treatise On the Law of Vendor and Purchaser of Real Estate in more ways than one. He took large quantities of Cyprian Williams’ book and incorporated it into his work. He called his work Voumard: The Sale of Land in Victoria and it was published in 1939. This work was, I believe, one of the first of its kind in Australia and was soon called “The Bible”
I looked aghast at him and said, “You are Louis Voumard? The great Louis Voumard?”
The little old man smiled, his eyes twinkled and he said, “Yes’ I spluttered. “The great Louis Voumard?”
His eyes twinkled again and he said, “Yes, my boy.”
That was the beginning of a short but magnificent friendship. He was the only one in this great country of ours who gave me a helping hand. Over the next few months I would spend every single afternoon in his room, when I was not, on rare occasions, in court. He was always hard at work. When I walked into his room, he would look up at me with that gentle smile of his and say, “My boy, have you brought your fee with you?” and I would reply, “Can I put it on the slate?” and he would laughingly say, “Yes.”
We would then sit down and discuss art, music, politics and philosophy. This was not only refreshing but stimulating, because my conversation with my Australian barrister friends was limited to Aussie Rules football, which I knew nothing about, and cricket.
Louis was the most unusual man I have ever met. At that time he had a rival, Keith Aiken QC. Voumard never forgot his humble country roots and was known – even though he became a silk later in life and a giant in the legal profession – for the abominably low fees he charged. I have a clear recollection of something that occurred when I was his junior in a matter of advice shortly before he died. I sent a bill of $30 for my fees and the solicitor sent me a cheque for $20, saying that $30 was the fee that Lou had charged in the matter. Lou told me that he charged low fees, firstly because he did not need the money, and secondly, poor people should be ablA Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property lawe to have access to his knowledge. At the time of Lou’s death in 1974, Keith Aiken was charging hundreds of dollars for an advice on law matters.
Then the first bombshell struck. Pat Gorman died and we were all in mourning for the great man. “Dashing” Des Whelan QC, who shared chambers with Pat Gorman, took over his magnificent room. Des Whelan was the leader of the Personal Injuries Bar, and later Chief Judge of the County Court. He was the father of a young barrister called Simon Whelan who came to the Bar some years later, took silk, was later appointed to the Supreme Court and later still to the Court of Appeal. Simon is a very gentle man and an exceptionally fine judge.
On August 15, 1973, I received an invitation from Des Whelan to come up to his chambers to celebrate the 75th birthday of Louis Voumard. We all went up to Des Whelan’s room that afternoon to felicitate dear, sweet Louis Voumard. I told Louis, “I know another great man whose birthday fell on August 15 and he replied, “Yes, Napoleon Bonaparte.’ Lou was born 119 years after Napoleon.
Some months later I when chatting with Lou in his room, he looked up and said, “My boy, I understand that you are helping Sonny with his book. Would you like to help me with my work? If you help me with my work you can take it over if anything happens to me. You will be made.” I was delighted and grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I then gave Sonny the sad news that I would not be working on his book but would be helping Lou with his work.
In the meantime Lou gave me a copy of his work. I did not dare tell Lou that I knew nothing about property law. At Cambridge, Property Law I was studied in the second year of the Law Tripos, and Property Law II was studied in the third year. In my second year, I studied International Law in preference to Property Law and in my third year I studied Roman-Dutch law in preference to Property Law as Roman-Dutch law was the law of Ceylon.
In Ceylon, although my master had a large property law practice, I did property law only during the six months that I was reading with him. After that I did not look at a property law brief. So when Lou asked me to help him with his work, I had not seen Contract for the Sale of Land in Victoria. I did not know what a defect of title was nor did I know what requisitions on title were. In fact, I knew nothing about property law.
I opened Lou’s work and could not understand a word of it. But over the next couple of months, I found some new authorities for him and my little friend was delighted. When my parents came out to Australia in December 1973 I invited Lou home to meet them. He drove up in his old Wolseley motor car with his paraplegic daughter, Susan. Susan was the cross Lou had had to bear for over 30 years.She had been a nurse and had been driving to Lou’s holiday home at Mt Martha many years earlier when a drunken driver swerved across the road, smashed her car, smashed her body and destroyed her life.
Noel Rice
It was the month of September 1973 and the barristers on the four big lists had a surfeit of work. Sometimes they had multiple briefs every day. I would spend most of my time twiddling my thumbs and listening to my neighbours ,Paul Bennett, who was on Foley’s list, and Paul McPhee, who was on Spur’s list, discussing the briefs they had and the income they had earned that year. Sad to say, both my dear friends are now dead. Paul Bennett proudly declared that he had earned $16,300 that year and McPhee triumphantly remarked that he had earned $17,000. I totaled up my fees and found that I had earned less than $5,000 for the 11 months of that year.
Then I had a stroke of luck in October 1973 in the shape of John McCartney and Noel Rice, the principal of the firm of Anderson, Rice and Nicol. Noel Rice was the solicitor who acted for the RACV Insurance Company in most of their motor car collision cases or what we commonly called “crash and bash” in the Magistrates’ Court. He was unable to find a barrister and Calnin telephoned me to ask whether I could go down and do a “crash and bash” at St Kilda.
Noel Rice as the RACV solicitor always acted for defendant motorists. In this particular instance he had paid in 80 per cent of the claim into court. This is what is called “a payment into court”. It is open to a defendant in a civil claim for money to pay what he or she thinks is what the complainant/plaintiff will receive by way of judgment. If the successful complainant/plaintiff receives judgment for less than the money paid into court by the defendant’s solicitor, the complainant/plaintiff is required to pay the defendant’s costs incurred in defending the proceeding.
The magistrate Kevin O’Connor took a liking to me and I managed to have my client found 60 per cent negligent and the other party 40 per cent negligent. I beat the payment into court by 20 per cent so the complainant had to pay the costs my client incurred in defending the proceedings. When I returned to chambers I gave Noel Rice the good news and he was delighted.
I heard nothing from him for about two weeks when he rang me up without going through Calnin and briefed me in another “crash and bash” He had paid in his usual 80 per cent and I got him an award of 60 per cent. This result led to a long and fruitful relationship over the next four years. He then started briefing me, first with one brief a week, and then two and soon I was receiving three briefs from him a week.
In December 1973, our happy chamber relationship came to a grinding halt. Patkin, Bennett and McPhee, having signed the Bar Roll in March 1971, were all offered rooms in Owen Dixon Chambers. However, the Victorian Bar had taken the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. I was given the choice of the rooms on the fourth floor so I took a large room looking out on to Bourke Street.
In March 1974 a new list was formed and a number of barristers on the new list – Muir’s – joined me on the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. A young barrister on our floor, Ian Sutherland, was double-booked and offered me a brief in the Magistrates’ Court. I grabbed it with both hands. It was from one of the leading solicitor’s firms in Melbourne – Corrs.
A young solicitor from that firm, Christopher Wren, came along with the client, a ruddy-faced little Jewish man. Yes, his Jewishness is relevant because he was discriminating against me because of my colour. His face was a feature when he saw me. He asked me what I knew about the law. I pointed to my certificate hanging on the wall and told him that I took a Second-Class Honours at Cambridge University and had qualified as a barrister in England in 1959, some 15 years before.
I studied his complaint, which disclosed that his neighbour had bulldozed his boundary wall with a tractor. The claim had been brought in negligence. I told Chris that it would have been preferable if it had been brought in trespass because it was strict liability. He would only have to prove that his neighbour bulldozed his fence, but in negligence he would have to prove a duty of care on the part of the neighbour.
The client started screaming and yelling at me at the top of his voice: “What the hell are you talking about? Trespass, negligence, what the hell does it matter? My fence has been demolished. You are just like my neighbour. You don’t know what you’re doing’
By this time I had had enough. Corrs may be the one of the biggest firms in Melbourne and I needed them. I was only two years at the Bar and no one in his right mind would insult a client of Corrs, but I was not going to put up with this nasty little racist man. I picked up the brief and threw it at him, saying, “Take your brief and bugger off.” I never got another brief from Corrs.
In January, we spent a happy day with Louis Voumard at his holiday home in Mt Martha. I am proud to say that I am one of the few members of the Victorian Bar who has been to Lou’s holiday home in Mt Martha and to his home in Kew. The months then flew by and I remember that fateful day – Thursday, May 2, 1974. We were chatting in his room that afternoon when the evening shadows slowly closed in, and we went on chatting until about seven at night. Lou drew me aside and told me, “My boy, this book is killing me.” He added, “I am very, very tired” We said our goodbyes and he left – and I was never to see him again.
On Friday morning something made me go down to see Lou. I found his room closed with a notice saying that he was ill and that he would not be coming in that day. I telephoned his home and Susan answered the phone. She told me, “Dad walked down to see his doctor in the High Street. He was having a pain in his chest and thought he had better see his doctor about it.” The silly old man had walked a mile to see his doctor when he was obviously having a heart attack.
I went into work on Monday morning and was reading The Age newspaper when the telephone rang. It was my friend Ronny de Kretser. He said, “Nimal, have you seen today’s papers?”
“Yes, but I’ve been reading the sports page”
He told me to turn to page two. I did so, and found there a huge appreciation of the life of the late Mr Louis Voumard who had died the previous Saturday, May 4. I sat there stunned. I was in a state of shock: my whole world had collapsed around me. The only dear friend I had known and would ever know in Australia had died. Who was going to help me? Whom could I turn to? I put the phone down, put my hands on my head and sat there sobbing softly. What was to become of me?
But then, as Benny Hill was wont to say, “The pickled pinger of pate intervened.” During the previous year in Equity Chambers and my close friendship with my dear friend Lou, I had also become very friendly with his secretary, Kathy Scheinman. Dear sweet Kathy was responsible for my second real break at the Victorian Bar, Noel Rice having been the first. She wrote off to the powers-that-be at Law Book Company and told them that a young man had been helping Louis Voumard with his book when he died.
The managing director, Tony Lees, wrote to me and asked whether I could take over writing the work. Tony then flew down to Melbourne, interviewed me and retained me to write “THE BOOK” I was terrified. I knew nothing about the sale of land, let alone land law.
I decided to take a chance and do the work. I telephoned my friend, John Rutherford, who was a solicitor at Cook and Cussen. He came down to see me with a contract for the sale of land and took me through the essential requirements of a contract. He also explained to me the purpose of requisitions on title and spent a couple of hours initiating me in the mysteries of land law.
This is the truth. Well, what was I to do with Voumard? I read Voumard from cover to cover 40 times during the next four years. I remember going to Italy for a holiday in 1977 and I read Voumard going over on the plane once, then read it again coming back on the plane.
The editing of the third edition of this work was in the hands of Sir Alistair Adam. I gave Sir Alistair what I thought were the relevant authorities. My knowledge of property law was non-existent, despite my having read this work so many times. As a result of my lack of knowledge, I omitted to give Sir Alistair the controversial decision of the House of Lords on part performance – The case of Steadman v. Steadman. Ross Sundberg QC reviewed this third edition and crucified my work. I was heartbroken.
(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
