Features
An era ends
In Memoriam: Sirisena Cooray
by Tisaranee Gunasekara
“Where has the tree gone, that locked Earth to the sky?”
Philip Larkin (Going)
Sirisena Cooray gave his final interview three months before his death. A Sunday Sinhala paper had carried a wildly inaccurate account of the Premadasa era. Sirisena Cooray called the editor and asked for an opportunity to set the record straight. The resulting interview ran to two full pages and was carried on consecutive Sundays.
Sirisena Cooray spent the last years of his life as an observer of the Lankan political scene. He was willing to talk to those who sought his advice, but shunned further involvement. Though distressed by the national trajectory, he opted for silence, unable to identify with any of the political players. But these self-imposed restraints vanished when Ranasinghe Premadasa was maligned. Sirisena Cooray could withstand extreme personal and political vicissitudes. Any attack on the memory of his leader and friend was another matter.
“An obituary is a perfect framing devise,” wrote New Yorker columnist Susan Orleans. It is also a balance-sheet of a life. Sirisena Cooray’s story was inextricably intertwined with the story of independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka and the story of Ranasinghe Premadasa. The Premadasa-Cooray relationship defined and shaped not just Sirisena Cooray’s life but also that of Ranasinghe Premadasa and thereby modern Lankan history.
Without Sirisena Cooray, there would have been a Minister Premadasa, perhaps even a Prime Minister Premadasa, but never a President Premadasa.
20th Century was the age of Causes. No time in history was played on a grander canvas, or a bloodier one. It was on this stage of seemingly infinite possibilities that Ranasinghe Premadasa and Sirisena Cooray would live their lives. The national and international ferment did enable a breadth of vision and a reach that was not available to preceding generations. Premadasa could organise lectures for the young members of the Sucharitha movement on Politics (including an overview of Karl Marx and of different political and governance systems) and Religions and Doctrines (a summary of the four main world religions). Young Sirisena and his friends could meet and invite leaders of major political parties to attend a ceremony organised by their newly formed Sucharitha branch. Change was in the air, and dreaming big was normal. Two young men from Colombo Central could imagine one of them becoming the leader of the country electorally, peacefully transforming the land to the benefit of their marginalised brethren.
Busy years; happy years
Sirisena Cooray became a UNPer because of his father, a founder member of the party. But supporting Ranasinghe Premadasa was his own choice, though one backed by both his parents. Starting with a small part in Premadasa’s 1956 Ruwanwella campaign, Cooray’s involvement grew until in 1960 he took over Premadasa’s successful parliamentary bid from Colombo Central.
Though helping Premadasa became an axiomatic part of his life, Cooray never intended to become a politician. He enjoyed his work as a cinema manager. He particularly relished being sent to theatres across the country, the constant moving perfectly in synch with his own restless nature, and his desire to see and experience new places. He would recall with unconcealed glee that over a period of 13 years he managed 12 cinemas, involving 12 relocations with his patient wife and growing family in tow.
For many years, the two strands of his life, the personal and the political, moved side by side. This changed in the 1970s, when at the urging of Premadasa and the UNP, he contested and won the Suduwella ward and entered the Colombo Municipal Council. The transition was cemented once JR Jayewardene took over the UNP, and Ranasinghe Premadasa became his de facto second in command. Sirisena Cooray found himself in the thick of the UNP’s political campaigns, criss-crossing the country, at Premadasa’s side, while also building the Colombo Central organisation into a formidable electoral machine.
1977 was a year of radical break, both good and bad. Its most progressive component was the fracture with familial and dynastic politics. “I have no princes or princesses to crown,” was a constant refrain of JR Jayawardene’s campaign. His remade UNP consisted mostly of new men who were not sons, brothers or nephews of other politicians. Perhaps none symbolised this break with the past more than Ranasinghe Premadasa, an outsider both in class and caste terms. Colombo Central was Premadasa’s political family, the home of his growing tribe. And Sirisena Cooray was the man in charge of that vital space.
Throughout his life, Sirisena Cooray would be beset by two warring impulses. He loved travel, loved new experiences and vistas. He also wanted to be at Premadasa’s side, to help him realise their shared vision. After 1977, he planned to try his hand at farming, sold his house in Colombo and brought a land in Katana in readiness. Premadasa persuaded him to become the head of the Common Amenities Board, and set in motion plans to improve the living conditions of Colombo’s poor. In 1978, he became Sri Lanka’s high commissioner in Malaysia. One year into the job, he was summoned home by President Jayewardene, and asked to contest the Colombo Mayoralty. “Cooray, this man (Premadasa) can’t do without you,” JRJ told him.
His 10 years as mayor were a fruitful time, a period in his life he would recall with nostalgia. The work of these years included the construction of the new public library, setting up a network of mobile libraries serving Colombo’s poorer areas, the construction of the Khettarama Stadium solely with CMC funds, expertise, and labour and improving and expanding sanitation facilities by replacing bucket lavatories with water sealed closets.
“There were 5,000 bucket lavatories in just Colombo North,” Cooray recalled in President Premadasa and I: Our story. “Every morning, these buckets had to be removed manually. The refuse was taken in open lorries and the whole area used to stink. It was an appalling sight. I had found out all these details during my stint at the Common Amenities Board. Our plan was to provide residents with the necessary assistance and get them to construct septic tanks. This programme worked and as a result today there are no bucket lavatories in Colombo.”
The significance of this achievement becomes clear when one considers that Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, is not connected to a municipal sewage system. Its waste (and those of many other Dubai skyscrapers) is trucked out of the city to a treatment facility, where the trucks wait in queue up to 24 hours. Glitzy infrastructure can exist side by side with the absence of basic facilities when leaders prioritise appearance over substance.
His failure to prevent Black July was one of Sirisena Cooray’s lasting regrets. But it was due to his and Premadasa’s approach to housing that prevented Colombo Central, the most multi-ethnic and multi-religious electorate in Sri Lanka, from going up in flames. In the new apartment blocks, flats were allocated in such a manner that each floor consisted of families of different ethnicities and religions. You could not set fire to your neighbour’s house without endangering your own.
Presidency and beyond
From 1978 to 1988, Ranasinghe Premadasa and Sirisena Cooray were engaged in the slow political and organisational build up towards a future Premadasa presidency. When the UNP was compelled to make Premadasa the candidate, Cooray naturally became the campaign manager (a term first used by the late Roshan Pieris). The campaign took off with the famous Me Kawda, Monawada Karanne (Who is this? What is he doing?) poster campaign. The slogan was coined by a journalist friend of Victor Hettigoda who attended the first preparatory meeting. The overnight campaign was the work of the Colombo Central organisation, the one Cooray had nursed over the years.
The campaign hit a snag soon after when the Kandy UNP organisation and security forces agreed that holding the inaugural rally in the hill capital was impossible due to security considerations. Ranasinghe Premadasa, uncharacteristically, toyed with the idea of a postponement. Cooray refused, saying, “Sir, in that case resign from the candidacy, because postponing the first meeting is like accepting defeat.” Instead he took over the task of organising the meeting from the Kandy party apparatus and handed it over to Colombo Central branch. The meeting was held as planned.
Once the presidency was won, Cooray wanted to continue as mayor. But Premadasa wanted him in parliament and he eventually gave in, as he always would. Premadasa needed a custodian for his housing programme and his Colombo Central electorate. Cooray was the ideal choice, both in terms of ability and experience. Even more important was the issue of loyalty. There was no one Premadasa trusted more.
Absolute loyalty was not uncritical loyalty. Cooray had differences of opinion, and didn’t hesitate to express them to Premadasa. For instance, he felt that the premiership should have been given to either Lalith Athulathmudali or Gamini Dissanayake, and argued unsuccessfully with Premadasa on the issue. But whenever need arose, he was there, be it the impeachment, raising of the Maligawila Buddha statue or building a model village in Bodgaya at a time when relations between Colombo and Delhi were as cold as the Himalayas.
Post-assassination, had Cooray dumped the Premadasa legacy, had he changed colours to suit the new environment, he could have continued with his political career. But for him such betrayal was as impossible as not breathing. Cooray could say no to the offer of premiership without regrets. But he could not stop defending Premadasa.
Ranasinghe Premadasa who built so much never named a single village or a byroad after himself. It was Sirisena Cooray who named the Khettarama stadium after him, post-assassination. (Cooray who also built much never named even a passageway after himself. Like a majority of political leaders of that time, they built to serve, not to perpetuate their name at public expense). Premadasa’s subsequent rehabilitation in public memory and political arena was the result of the work Cooray enabled and presided over. Without Cooray, Premadasa’s memory would have become lost in fogs of lies and misrepresentations.
After he (and the UNP) lost the July 1960, election, Premadasa called a meeting at Lawrence College to thank his supporters. Looking at the audience, he turned to Cooray and said, “Sirisena, never forget the poor people of Colombo Central.” When Premadasa won the presidency, Cooray reminded him of this promise at a pubic function in the mayoral residence. That promise they made to each other was the other reason Cooray continued with his memorial and social service work, after he lost Premadasa.
In the last one year, with his public involvement severely limited by pandemic related health restrictions, Cooray still found a way to continue with his work. He would help individuals who visited or called him seeking assistance. If help was impossible, he would still listen to them, insisting that to the poor and the powerless, even a sympathetic ear meant much. For the Premadasa tribe, Sirisena Cooray was the last remaining link with an imagined, desired, and only partially-realised world where life was not determined by birth or bank balance. Until his death, he tried to be true to that role history and choice has bestowed on him.
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
