Features
All Party Conference: Accelerated Reconciliation Program
by Rajan Philips
It is not my general purpose to coin new monikers for the President, but it seems appropriate to call President Wickremesinghe’s new All-Party-Conference initiative as Accelerated Reconciliation Program, inasmuch as it brings to mind President Jayewardene’s Accelerated Mahaweli Development Program that was launched 45 years ago. There are obviously more differences than any similarity between the two, but the premise for and the purpose of acceleration are about the same.
The Mahaweli Program was the centre piece of JRJ’s economic liberalization, although, and quite needlessly, the Mahaweli Program involved much over-liberalization involving the wholesale upending of competitive tender and technical supervisory procedures to build dams and power plants under the guise of bilateral grant agreements with several countries. The Rajapaksas later drove truck after truck through the procedural hole created by the Mahaweli Program and President Premadasa’s housing projects, as they set about building ports and roads through bilateral loan agreements with one country.
There is no direct economic dimension to the Accelerated Reconciliation Program of President Wickremesinghe and, hopefully, there will be no occasion for something like confusing FINCO with Trinco. The President is of course is carrying a whole different economic burden, which is not at all to open up the economy as JRJ did, but to lift the already open economy from the debt hole into which it has fallen. Rescuing the economy is a parallel and separate task, one which many would consider to be more ‘urgent’ than ‘reconciliation,’ and one that cannot be unilaterally accelerated, let alone be completed before February 4, 2023, which is the President’s target date for reconciliation.
In fact, there is no acceleration on the economic track, only falling and stalling. The third quarter (July-Sept) numbers show that the GDP grew negative by 11.8%, with Agriculture, Industry and Services declining by 8.7%, 21.2%, and 2.6%, respectively. At the same time, there is stalling in the IMF talks and on debt restructuring with China. The IMF delay is attributed to lack of consensus over restructuring among creditors, and the apparent lack of initiatives to reform money losing state owned enterprises (SOEs). If anyone thought reforming SOEs would be politically simple, they should think again as public opinion seems to be weighed against the selling of “national assets”, according to a recently reported survey by the Social Scientists’ Association.
Reforming SOEs should not be the same as selling out assets, like “selling family silver,” as the aristocratic Harold MacMillan told the grocer’s daughter, Margaret Thatcher. At the same time, opinion surveys could be better designed to probe a little more into people’s thinking rather than capturing what is out there in the public domain as fossilized notions. For example, should the CEB or the CPC be considered an asset or liability, based on their finances, debt burden, employment warehousing, and exorbitant pricing? If the national airline could be handed over to foreign airlines for proper and profitable management, why not the more land based liabilities? Specific to the electricity sector, as well as others, reform measures need not be either/or, but different components could be ‘unbundled’ and ‘reformed’ differently.
For economic reform measures to be successful, the public will have to be properly informed and persuaded. Otherwise, no reform will succeed. The onus is on the President even if he keeps insisting that he cannot be having any reform plan when there is no economy to speak of. With his hands full on the economy, how can the President take on reconciliation and accelerate it for accomplishment by February 4, 2023? That is a reasonable question, rational people can ask. The President will of course respond with his cynical wit that as the economy is going to take 25 years to turnaround, he can do other things like reconciliation during the long interval. Still there is the risk that reconciliation can go south (i.e., down) quickly, if people do not see any lessening of their heavy economic burdens.
All Party Dynamic
All that said, the parliamentary President would seem to have been in his elements at the All Party Conference last Tuesday, going by photographs doing the rounds after the conference. Sharing the podium were the President, flanked by Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena on his left, and on his right by former President/PM Mahinda Rajapaksa and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa. The symbolism of consensus making at the outset, howsoever it might turn out to be in the end, is remarkably better than anything one can remember from previous conferences. Restricting the conference to parliamentary representatives is also a positively smart move, going by the way JRJ set up the January 1984 APC, which was convened at India’s nudging, to fail disastrously by inviting all and sundry from outside parliament.
Apart from the podium-seated leaders, the Conference would seem to have been attended by almost all party leaders and many MPs, save for the conspicuous no show by the JVP and its quondam comrades – Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila. JVP’s absence is both inexplicable and inexcusable. It could and should have attended the conference, even if to make a statement outlining its objections to the exercise and indicating what alternative mechanism it will provide. To be sure, it is now a question of finding mechanisms and measures to implement something, instead of endlessly trying to produce the perfect devolution package with or without translation gimmicks.
We will get to this later on, but let me here reiterate the point that the JVP shot itself in the foot by not attending the conference. It still has plenty of time to rethink its position and attend future sessions, because for the JVP to be seen as a viable national political force it must be seen where relatively positive political action is going on. By staying away the JVP is losing the opportunity to a create positive impact of its own.
The JVP aside, there are three palpable sources of influence and implication that are shaping and driving the reconciliation initiative. First, there is the President as the prime mover who is taking, I dare say, positive advantage of his current circumstances to find maximum common ground among the Sinhalese MPs in parliament, involving both the government (SLPP) and opposition MPs. There are many irreconcilable differences between them, but they seem to have stumbled on a minimum common ground to lend initial support to the President’s reconciliation initiative.
Second, are the Tamil and Muslim MPs in parliament, who have their own differences and priorities, and their own experiential misgivings with President Wickremesinghe. The minority side of the Sri Lankan national question is no longer the monopoly of any single minority group. The Sri Lankan Tamils are not the principal or dominant minority group anymore. The hitherto ‘silent minorities,’ the Muslims and the upcountry Tamils, have now become forces in their own right to reckon with.
The three groups have their internal differences, and they have not been co-operative in the past and have often worked at cross purposes. However, MPs belonging to different entities within each group would also seem to have found common ground and overlapping interests in working with the President in his current reconciliation initiative. The multi-polarity of the minority side could also play a positive role in dealing with contentious issues by facilitating otherwise unreachable compromises. Examples would be not to insist on a north-east re-merger, and concede to the upcountry Tamils a ‘condominium’ unit of their own in the Central Province.
The third source of influence is the broader Sinhalese political community, which in the past have been manipulated by political leaders in parliament. Although it has often been suggested that Sinhalese political leaders have been forced by the Sinhalese people to act against the Tamils, there is sufficient empirical and electoral evidence to suggest the opposite. The question now is how the new consensus or ‘political contract’ that President Wickremesinghe is trying to forge in parliament will resonate in the broader Sinhalese political community.
The Times of India news story (December 14, sourcing the Press Trust of India) has noted that “there were no immediate comments from pro-Sinhala majority nationalist parties on Tuesday’s talks.” Indeed, the Sri Lankan media has shown rather lukewarm interest in the APC and the President’s reconciliation. The few that have appeared still keep dredging up the old 50-50 (even though it was not totally wrong), the so called colonial legacy (which can be argued more the other way), and India’s alleged imposition of 13A (that is only one of many ways of looking at it). Even a bylined piece after the APC focused on the statements of a rather marginal attendee at the APC, and ignored the summary of speeches in the statement put out by the President’s Media Division (PMD) after the conference.
The PMD’s statement is a rather extensive and somewhat edited ‘minutes’ of the conference. What is striking about the proceedings is the apparent tone set by everyone who spoke at the conference. There was hardly anything by way intransigent rhetoric that has been a characteristic of past efforts. The intervenors sounded more practical than political and focused on what could and should be done in the immediate short term. The emphasis was on acting along parallel tracks and accomplishing what is possible before the President’s independence day deadline.
There was acknowledgement over issues where immediate action is possible, viz., land, release of prisoners and missing persons. The two government ministers (Ali Sabry and Wijayadasa Rajapakshe) who are handling these issues were at hand to speak to them. There was also the call to hold Provincial Council elections as soon as possible without having to wait for constitutional changes. While major constitutional changes are impossible before independence day, a general outline of them could be finalized by early next year.
In sum, the APC talks last week were more productive and practically focused than what transpired in times past. That does not mean that every track that has been opened is well laid to reach its destination. The whole thing can backfire without any warning; like any further economic shocks, forget the accelerated reconciliation program. That said the initiative taken by the President is commendable, and for all the disagreements some of us vigorously articulate, it is all in order to wish him success in this instance.
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 . )
