Features
ARE SRI LANKA’S DEBTS “ODIOUS”?
by M. Sornarajah
Emeritus Professor of Law
National University of Singapore
The economic crisis in Sri Lanka is due to massive borrowings by recent governments of the country. It is true that external factors, like the covid pandemic and, later, the war on Ukraine, contributed to the crisis but inability to service the loans was the primary and immediate cause of the economic crisis. The policies of the government like the reduction in taxation of high earners, the mismanagement of the covid pandemic and the banning of chemical fertilisers contributed to the situation. These were factors that operated on the primary cause, the unsustainable debts that had been incurred for purposes which lacked a clear public benefit and were tainted by corruption. Repayment of interests on the loans depleted the dollar resources of the state.
Sri Lanka now lacks resources to service the loans. The government has declared that it has no more than 50 million dollars in its coffers. That is less than the personal wealth of our corrupt politicians. Some arguments must be found for rescheduling the debts. Among them are the lack of public utility of the debts, the lack of transparency in the loan transactions, excess of authority of public officials negotiating the loan, the unfavourable interest rates and the complicity of the lender in making the tainted transactions. These reasons are encapsulated in the legal doctrine on “odious debts.” This article examines the possible application of the doctrine of odious debts to the debt obligations of Sri Lanka.
The restructuring of the existing debts so as to make repayments easier is necessary to ease the debt burdens of the country. In negotiating such restructuring, it is relevant to discuss whether the original purposes of the debts and the circumstances of their negotiations impact on the fairness of the debt obligations. A sovereign debt is unlike a commercial debt. A commercial debt is negotiated between private parties. The transaction is between the lender, usually a bank and a private person. The private person seeks the debt for a purpose of his own and the parties agree on terms relating to interest and repayment. The loan transaction is subject to the normal principles of contract law. Even in such private transactions, domestic legal systems are beginning to question the fairness of the terms of the loan.
The debt obligation of a sovereign state is different. For one, the sums involved in a sovereign loan is very large, unlike in private commercial transactions. The debt is negotiated between the government of the state through its officials with a foreign state or a foreign bank in order to serve the interest of a third party, the public of the state. It is the existence of this public interest that gives legitimacy to the debt obligation. Where that public interest is lacking, doctrine has it that the sovereign debt is an odious debt, particularly in the situations where the lender knew that the loan was tainted by an absence of public interest or corruption.
Creditor complicity in the taint exists where the creditor lent the money in order to achieve a purpose of its own, such as securing a political advantage or securing high interest rates using the ignorance of the sovereign borrower. The debt becomes odious also where the creditor is aware of the widespread culture of corruption in the state. The instances where the lender pushes the loans for securing monetary or political advantages for itself are regarded as instances of “predatory lending”, the existence of which supports a finding of an odious debt.
The doctrine of odious debts in international law casts doubt on the validity of debt obligations created by a government when it appears that the debt was not to be used and was not used for a project that benefited the people. In terms of Sri Lankan domestic law, the ministers or public officials who negotiate loans knowing that the public interest in the loan is non-existent or slim, exceed their bounds of authority. The sovereign loan, being an administrative transaction located in public law, would be treated as invalid due to excess of authority. The soundness of the premises on which the doctrine is based is unassailable.
The policy purpose of the doctrine is admirable in that it deters lending to states with corrupt leaders. It raises the question also as to whether lending states should use sovereign debts as instruments of diplomacy to further their influence with the state or the region. The legitimacy of a debt made to an authoritarian government by a lender who sought to cultivate a special relationship with a regime is an irksome idea. Why should such a debt be passed on to a later democratic government? Why should the people of the state have to bear the debt burden which is not to their advantage?
There are human rights issues that arise as well. The example of Sri Lanka indicates that such debts result in an increasing unavailability of the essentials of life, like medicines, electricity, cooking gas, transport, hospital facilities and schooling for children. They result in hunger and increase poverty. They implicate the violation of human rights such as the right to life. Such loans come into conflict with fundamental norms of international law and must be considered invalid on that count.
The debts that have been incurred by the Sri Lankan governments in the last few years do have hallmarks of odious debts. They were debts incurred by a government that the people allege was steeped in corruption. It is alleged that a part of the loans found their way into the pockets of ministers and public officials who negotiated the loan. Many of them lacked a public purpose, were not negotiated transparently and served the political interests of leaders of the borrowing state and the foreign policy interests of the lending state.
Many of the projects for which Sri Lanka sought loans lacked an overt public purpose. Many were projects which were objected to on grounds of feasibility, the harm they could cause the environment or the lack of potential to earn revenue. True it is that some projects involved the building of infrastructure such as roads and bridges but the raising of the loan as well as the tendering processes in these projects involved heavy corruption. The popular belief is that more than 10 percent of the sums involved in every government project found its way into the personal coffers of a particular minister. There are many projects that the public readily associate with corruption because of their obvious lack of utility to the public despite the high costs involved in their construction.
The megaprojects for which loans were granted have some common features. They are named after President Mahinda Rajapaksa, indicating that they were often vanity projects designed to keep the President’s name for posterity. Each one of them has been referred to as a white elephant in both the local and the international press. There was considerable local opposition to their construction. Besides the other common features, they were usually located in the Hambantota District, the native area of the Rajapaksa family. These debts were given by Chinese development banks which were influenced by the Chinese policy of securing a foothold in Sri Lanka. The projects so overtly lacked public interest that the lender should have known that the loans were tainted.
Many of the loans were raised in the context of a new foreign policy initiated by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. There was a tilt in foreign policy towards China. China itself was fast rising as an economic power. China was keen to establish links with Indian Ocean States. Sri Lanka provided strategic advantages in securing a foothold in the Indian Ocean. China also began a Belt Road Initiative, the object of which was to restore Chinese influence along the old land-based silk route as well as the maritime routes that the Chinese Admiral Zheng He had used in the fifteenth century. (It is a matter of our history that the Chinese Admiral visited our island on two occasions. He captured one of our kings, Alekeswara, and took him to China as a hostage. A regime change resulted. (See The Island, 31.05.2021 on the “Trilingual Inscription on the Galle Stela”. The inscribed stone left behind by the Admiral was found in Galle. It is kept in the National Museum.) Recovering the past influence was an object of the BRI in the context of which China is said to pursue a policy based on loans to the countries of the BRI region. If so, there was a political objective behind the giving of these loans.
Several loans were given by the Chinese Exim Bank. The Export-Import Bank of China is chartered to implement the policies of the Chinese state in the areas of international trade, industry and foreign aid. It was a principal source of loans to several projects in Sri Lanka. The Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port (Hambantota Port) was built with large loans given by the bank. The economic feasibility of the Port is suspect. As a result of problems in the repayment of loans, a 99-year old lease was given to a joint venture company in which a Chinese state corporation had 80 percent of the shares. There was a lack of transparency in the transaction.
The Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport was also built with loans from China. It was described by Forbes Magazine as the “world’s emptiest airport”. It provides a home for wildlife in the area and was used for storage of rice. The Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium is another white elephant built near Hambantota. It cannot attract sufficient spectators to make playing international matches there viable. The Stadium was built by the Sri Lankan cricket authorities though a Chinese company which is owed money for its construction. The Lotus Tower sticks out like a thumb in the Colombo skyline. It was built with loans. It is difficult to discover a public interest in its construction.
The Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapakse Theatre was built to resemble the Nelum Pokuna in Polonoruwa, built by Parakramabahu The Great in the twelfth century. It was built with borrowed money. There is also the building of the DA Rajapaksa Museum concerning which a case is pending. These projects could not have promoted public welfare. The loans to construct them must be regarded as odious debts.
Other projects connected with Hambantota, like the Southern Expressway (on which I recently drove comfortably from Colombo to Kataragama), though little used due to high tariffs, do have public utility. The same would apply to the improvement of road networks under the Rajapaksa regime. Though their construction involved much corruption, they were useful to the public. To the extent that the odious debt doctrine may have partial application, the doctrine may affect these projects as well.
Much is made in newspapers about the Chinese debt trap. There does not seem to be a case for that. But, there seems to have been an eagerness to court the Rajapaksas and give loans for unwise projects. There may also have been a need to show the success of the Belt Road Initiative behind the making of these loans.
China has used the odious debt doctrine in the past to deny its debt obligations. Immediately after the success of the Chinese Revolution, China used the odious debt doctrine to justify default on bonds issued in connection with the building of the Huguang Railway during the previous regime in litigation arising before US courts in 1952.
The odious debt doctrine can be used to justify default on payment of some debts. Strategically, it would be best to use the doctrine to renegotiate or reschedule the debt obligation. The doctrine will enable an argument that some debts which carried little public benefit should be rescheduled in a manner favourable to Sri Lanka. The countries that are using this doctrine will increase. The doctrine has been discussed in connection with Greece, Ecuador and Venezuela. The doctrine featured in the rescheduling of Argentine debts during its economic crisis in 2000.
In 2003, the Bush administration favoured the cancellation of Iraqi debts partly on the ground that the debt obligations were created during a dictatorial regime. Many Iraqi debts were cancelled. Debts incurred by colonial governments were renounced by the newly independent states, Algeria and Indonesia providing examples. In the immediate post-colonial period, developing states made the argument that they do not succeed to debt obligations incurred during colonial rule. The affinity with such past situations with the current debts of states exist when an authoritarian leader clothed in the vestiges of democracy commits his country to unwise loans that do not further the public interest but advance his personal interests.
The odious debt doctrine is not supported by extensive case law because it is an argument used largely for the restructuring of debts. It provides a useful tool to base an argument for cancellation or renegotiation of unsavoury debts. In the Sri Lankan case, the debts owed to China do attract the application of the doctrine. The Chinese debts form only 10% of our debts. The extent to which loans by private institutions can be subject to the doctrine is uncertain due to lack of information. Given the context in which Sri Lanka finds herself, exploration of the use of the application of this doctrine to the Sri Lankan debts is necessary.
The potential finding of the Sri Lankan debts as odious debts also requires reform of the rules that regulate the raising of loans by the state. In a country ruled by successive authoritarians, maintaining power through ethno-religious chauvinism, the practice of securing corrupt loans will be rife. There should be constitutional and other regulatory mechanisms controlling future governments raising loans from foreign banks. Besides complete transparency, there should be demonstration of clear public benefit objectives that are secured by the loan and the spending of the money.
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
