Features
An alternative to inflation?
By Usvatte-aratchi
There is much concern about and discussion over inflation. We all realise that the rapid rise in prices, unmatched by a similar rise in incomes in recent months, creates problems for most of us. On the one hand, that process cuts down our real incomes. My income is Rs.100 a day and the price of mangoes goes up from Rs.25 a piece to Rs.50 a piece; my income falls from four mangoes a day to two mangoes a day. In gross fashion, that is what people are complaining about. On the other hand, all cash holders become poorer as prices rise. I own Rs.1,000 and the price of mangoes is Rs.25 each. So I am 40 mangoes rich one day. The price of mangoes doubles the next day. At Rs.50 a piece I am only 20 mangoes rich the next day, no fault of mine. Inflation makes money holders poorer. That is the second common complaint. Some other strange things happen in inflationary processes but let us not complicate matters for now.
It is common to blame the central bank for ‘printing money’. It is even more fashionable to demand that the central bank should act independently of government. Much ire is expressed at the provision that the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance is a member of the Monetary Board which statutorily controls monetary policy and financial system stability. I want to articulate that these arguments are misguided and that when you consider an alternative to inflation, there is none in our specific circumstances.
Mandate from the electorate
In November 2005, Rajapakse was elected President of the Republic by a very small margin over Wickremasinghe. In 2004 political parties led by UNP leadership lost the majority in Parliament. The loss in 2004 was mostly because Prime Minister Wickremasinghe’s government had followed fiscal policies which did not greatly raise inflationary pressure. That administration did not raise government employment. They kept expenditure on the war under control after having signed a cease-fire agreement (CFA) with the terrorists in the north. In 2005 he lost to President Rajapaksa in that part of the island that mattered because he had signed the CFA and could not match President Rajapaksa in the promises held out for larger expenditure on a variety of programmes including subsidies to the poor. Candidate Wickremsinghe came on the band wagon later competing with Candidate Rajapaksa to raise government expenditure. However, Rajapaksa prevailed on both counts, although by a slim margin. In several districts, President Rajapaksa received close to 60 percent of the votes cast. In Hambantota, Matara and Galle that percentage was close to 70 percent. Among postal voters, mostly civil servants, close to 80 percent voted for Mr.Rajapaksa.
The mandates for President Rajapaksa and his administration were quite clear: they must increase government expenditure and they must prosecute a serious war against terrorists. Now, neither party had put forward proposals as to how this increased expenditure by government both for war and for other purposes was to be met. There was only one newspaper commentator who raised the question at all and nobody cared two hoots for him. No party or candidate raised questions about higher taxes or higher borrowing locally or overseas. All parties, the electorate and university men and women were utterly irresponsible when they failed to consider how these expenses were to be met. It appeared as if resources did not matter. All that was necessary was the will to raise government expenditure and to conduct war against terrorists. Candidate Wickremasinghe was vilified as someone who had sold himself to the ‘international community’ and the LTTE and was too beholden to the IMF and World Bank in matters of economic policy.
Choices available to government
Now the reality is a little bit different from the fancy imaginations of the electorate and the political parties. Government had somehow to get hold of resources to keep the promises made to the electorate. After all, they had been elected on that platform and to go back on them would be both immoral (not that that mattered to our silly politicians) and politically suicidal (that mattered). Government expenditure (in current prices) rose from roughly Rs.600,000 million in 2005 to Rs.900,000 million in 2007, about 50 percent, from 25 percent of GDP in 2005 to 28 percent in 2007. Interest payments rose by about 40 percent and expenditure on defence by about 67 percent between the two years. Salaries and wages bills rose by about 45 percent from 2005 to 2007. Net increase in employment was about 50,000, about 5 percent; most of the increase in expenditure was on higher wages. Subsidy and other benefit payments, in fact, fell by about 7 percent between the two years. President Rajapaksa kept his promise that he would both increase employment as well as prosecute the war with greater vigour. It is these measures that pushed him to seek more resources.
What did that ‘somehow’ comprise? First, government could raise tax revenue. But recall that government had made no such promise to the electorate nor had the electorate demanded such policy. Yet tax revenue was higher in 2006 than in 2005 and was probably higher in 2007 than in 2006. Why could the government not collect more revenue from taxes? Because higher taxes may mean more unemployment in the private sector and that is something the government did not want.
Second: Government could borrow in local and foreign markets. Total outstanding public sector debt rose from Rs. 2.2 billion at the end of 2004 to Rs. 2.7 billion at the end of 2006. Heavier, borrowing entailed higher debt servicing costs. Interest payments in 2007 were higher roughly by 40 percent over 2004. Interest payments on domestic debt in 2007 were higher by about 30 percent and on foreign debt by about 200 percent when compared to 2004. As government borrowed more in the domestic market, money became tight and interest rates climbed in the local market; interest rates on 91-day government bills rose from about 7 percent per year in 2004 to about 17 percent in 2007. Government borrowed heavily from the Central Bank which wanted to accommodate the government. Central Bank’s holdings of government obligations rose from Rs. 109 billion at end 2004 to Rs. 119 billion at end 2006.
Now imagine that the Central Bank did not accommodate the government at lower interest rates than would have prevailed in the market. Imagine further that if the Central Bank had not lent to government, market rates on government paper would have risen perhaps to 20 percent per year. Then loans to business may have hit 35-40 percent per year because of tight conditions in the bond market and the uncertainty that would have come with such interest rates. Two results would have followed: first, cost of government debt would have risen further and the screw on the government budget would have got tighter every year; second, economic activity would have collapsed with high-interest rates robbing much remunerative employment. Among other things, that would have negated the government’s promise to the electorate to raise employment. If government had borrowed overseas, interest payments cost in foreign exchange to government would have been lower. However, there would have been severe speculation against the rupee in foreign exchange markets bringing down the value of the rupee against foreign currencies. Without considering other complications of that result, the rupee cost of servicing the foreign debt perhaps would have been of the same order as if government had borrowed in local markets. That would have raised the volume of rupee resources government needed to service foreign debt. On a balance of considerations, it was prudent for the government to have financed expenditure by borrowing from the central bank, that is by printing money, as it did, causing inflation.
Expenditure without taxation?
What was imprudent was for the electorate to demand higher expenditure without agreeing to be taxed higher. Now, the opposition parties cannot go around the country proclaiming peoples’ sovereignty from one end of their mouth and from the other end demanding that the ruling government renege on the mandate given to them by that same sovereign people. They cannot have it both ways. MPs who crossed over to government do have it both ways: their party proclaims that the government is wrong but they implement that wrong policy and even speak eloquently for it.!
Thirdly, government could borrow from the Central Bank and cause inflation and that is what the government chose to do. Inflation is a form of gaining resources for government without formal taxing or borrowing. And the way government gets hold of those resources is by reducing the real value of cash and cash-like assets that the public hold.
According to my understanding, the Central Bank has no business thwarting a government from implementing a programme of action for which government had received repeated mandates, two years running. If the Central Bank stood in the way of government, the latter had every right to pass legislation to compel the Central Bank to let government have its way. There is no widespread protest against polices of government which have caused high inflation. One cannot protest against inflation without opposing government’s programmes. In my judgment, the Central Bank has acted responsibly.
‘Freedmanites’ may repeat ad nauseam that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. However, if they lift that veil of money they will read in shining bold letters in Chapter 21 of Keynes’ General Theory “When a further increase in the quantity of effective demand produces no further increase in output and entirely spends itself on an increase in the cost-unit fully proportionate to the increase in effective demand, we have reached a condition which might be appropriately designated as one of true inflation’. That increase in effective demand coming from a commitment by government to the public to spend more money is not sensitive to the rate of interest and the central bank loses its weapon to fight inflation.
Independence of the central bank
That lands me exactly in the line of fire from those who argue for a central bank independent of government. They would fire at me bullets made of the independence of central banks in many countries. In all these countries, central banks work as a bank to the banking system with the added responsibility of maintaining both price stability and system stability. The central banks’ main concern there is with financial markets: money markets, where banks and similar other organisations principally trade and money, debt and capital markets, where both financial and real sector operators trade. Governments happen to be one party in the debt market. Those who sell government paper in secondary markets and all who buy them have choices to deal with them as they fit government paper into their portfolios after taking into account the risks and returns from government obligations. Government paper is one of the assets available in the market. Contrast that with the situation in Colombo. There is no corporate debt market. The stock market is puny, thin and illiquid. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka has no modus operandi by which it can work in the money market, as in most other countries, to change prices in debt markets and eventually in capital markets and so influence real sector activity. In Colombo financial markets, there is only one boy in town: government. Total outstanding government debt in the domestic market at end 2006 was Rs. 1,500 billion and market capitalisation of the Colombo Stock Market at end 2006 was Rs.835 billion. He had better be accommodated in the best hotel in town. The Secretary to the Ministry of Finance had better have a seat on the Monetary Board.
Obligation to explain
Let us recall that central banks were not invented to discipline government fiscal policy. In contrast the Bank of England gained its special privileges from William and Mary in 1694 by accommodating their request for money. Central Banks were invented and work to discipline money and debt markets and indirectly capital markets. The discipline of government fiscal policy is the responsibility of elected representatives of the people. If the electorate puts in power a group of people with a mandate to spend without raising taxes, what can a government do but tax them with inflation? What right has a bunch of bureaucrats to stand in the way of a government implementing the mandate it was elected to implement? A central bank can advise but so can the Department of Economics of the University of Colombo or the Chamber of Commerce. And a government with a majority in Parliament is under no obligation to accept anybody’s advice, even if it understood it. Now, an economist may consider it imprudent, but what is an economist or the whole bunch of them counted against the people? Economists and other pundits may argue that the people were misguided or worse in giving that mandate. Then, it is their responsibility to have guided the people. Journalists, academics and economists all fail people when they do not explain these things to the public. Let’s try.
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
