Features
Between the Prescriptive and Descriptive: The Challenge for Dictionary Makers
A review of An English Language Primer Focused on Sri Lanka (Especially for Tamil Readers) by Prof. S.R.H. Hoole.
Foreword by: Prof. Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan, Germany
Publisher: Baldaeus Theological College, Konesapuri, Trincomalee.
Printers: JR Industries, Uduvil.
Year of Publication: 2022. 340 pp. Rs. 1200 in Sri Lanka, 9786246077020.
(Available at Vijitha Yapa and Sarisavi)
By Suresh Canagarajah
Edwin Erle Sparks Professor,
Departments of Applied Linguistics and English,
Pennsylvania State University, USA.
It is said that the first lexicographer Samuel Johnson ushered a new orientation to language studies when he articulated his intention to document how English language is actually used in his Dictionary of the English language in 1755. Previously, it was the grammarians who held sway on any matters of usage or teaching of a language. The grammarians were prescriptivist in orientation. They articulated the norms of the language for handbooks, textbooks, and curriculum, which spelled out what was correct, according to their technical expertise. Lexicographers, on the other hand, claim their expertise as descriptive—i.e., documenting how grammar is diverse and changing in society, even when it deviates from what grammarians might find objectionable. This way of classifying their differences would also make us treat grammarians as conservative and lexicographers as progressive.
However, things are not so neat. Soon, dictionaries also started to be treated as prescribing norms. When our friends object to our speech and say “But that’s not in the dictionary!” they are treating the lexicographer as the final arbiter of grammatical judgements. Furthermore, it turned out that the judgements of grammarians were misguided because they treated Latin grammatical properties as the norm for English and other languages, based on Latin’s status as an educated lingua franca at that time. To further complicate the descriptive/prescriptive divide, there are different kinds of dictionaries. While dictionaries that feature semantics, etymology, and phonology are the standard ones and are relatively more descriptive, there are other dictionaries of usage (such as Merriam Webster’s Concise Dictionary of Usage or The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style). These usage dictionaries distinguish between meanings to articulate how the usage might be changing, differ according to context (i.e., region or informality) and relate to style (written versus conversation). In these frankly subjective usage dictionaries, the authors have a strong presence and voice, articulating their own preferences. Their examples and descriptions can be conversational and anecdotal, deviating from the brevity and rigor of generic dictionaries.
There’s a new challenge for dictionary makers when English has now become a global lingua franca and nativized in many countries. English has a history of more than 200 years in many postcolonial communities, as in Sri Lanka. In these communities, English has developed local grammatical and lexical norms that are used by millions of speakers within the countries. Not surprisingly, there are now dictionaries of local English for Australia, Canada, Singapore, Nigeria, and the Bahamas. We are now beyond that point when we can debate whether anything other than British or American English should be accepted as legitimate. The famous Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe once said that if English is a global language, it should be allowed to spread and diversify. If someone says a global language should be spoken like the British, they probably don’t appreciate the meaning of “global.”
That nativized Englishes are rule-governed, meaningful, and shared by millions of people leaves prescriptivists with a losing battle. Languages diversifying in new social, cultural, and environmental contexts is a fact of life. “Not deficient but different” has become the slogan among sociolinguists on how to assess postcolonial Englishes that deviate from British or American norms. Note that at one point even American English was perceived as a deficient slang by British people. It took Daniel Webster’s dictionary-making efforts to fight back against this bias and demonstrate that Americans had their local norms that were systematic.
This brief history brings us to the challenges of dictionary makers and language teachers in Sri Lanka. There are a lot of studies on Sri Lankan English now by leading scholars to demonstrate that many local lexical, grammatical, and phonological features are rule-governed. There is even a Dictionary of Sri Lankan English (published by Michael Meyler in 2007). However, when does a mistake become a norm? When does a deviation become regularized to be called Sri Lankan English? That takes a complex social, historical, and political process: i.e., social—many people start using this “deviation” as a norm and it becomes widespread; historical—over a long period of time such usage becomes patterned, regularized, and systematized; political—there is a policy or public opinion that develops an acceptance and even pride in the local norms. Once these processes occur, trying to stop such language change is like the story of King Canute trying to stop the waves with his mere presence (as once argued by the renowned languist Bernard Spolsky). In fact, Samuel Johnson himself wrote in his introduction to the first dictionary: “They that have frequent intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to accommodate themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect, like the jargon which serves the traffickers on the Mediterranean and Indian coasts. This will not always be confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but will be communicated by degrees to other ranks of the people, and be at last incorporated with the current speech.” He conceded that norms would change through the diversity of social interactions. However, since not all changes gain acceptance and normativity, there is value in conversations about which of them are acceptable or worth preservation. Textbooks, handbooks, dictionaries, and language teachers play no small role in the development of new norms.
Professor Hoole’s dictionary has the subtitle: “Raising Alarm Bells on Sri Lankan English” in the cover page. As we can see, a strong motivation for him to publish his usage dictionary is what he perceives as deviations from the British English. Though the title doesn’t announce itself as a dictionary, the main section in his book (Part 2) is titled “The Dictionary Section.” Part 1 introduces some grammatical terms which readers might find useful to understand the meanings elucidated in the dictionary section. The author’s preface is 14 pages long and gives useful information on his motivations for writing this book. He says that this book evolves from his experience teaching English to Tamil students in the Baldaeus Theological College. He has also focused on English corrections on his students’ writing while working as an Engineering lecturer at Peradeniya and the Jaffna University College. In this sense, this dictionary emerges from his practical experiences of observing the typical mistakes of Tamil students. He is also wise to target the dictionary to Tamil speakers as he is able to use Tamil in the book to illustrate the points or identify interference from the first language in the use of English. The dictionary features alphabetically organized words to explain differences between similar sounding terms, mistaken usage, fresh local coinages, and specialized registers. The book also features exercises to help readers distinguish words or identify the mistakes in local usage.
It is clear from the preface that Hoole was schooled in British English, both in Christian schools in Sri Lanka and during his graduate studies in the UK. He has had opportunities to be exposed to the norms of British English through social networks, education, and publications. He also describes the books he read as a child and dictionaries that accompanied him into graduate education, such as H. W. Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Oxford, 1927). These background details indicate the preferences of the author in the spirit of full disclosure. Referring to errors in the local news media, he states that “reading Sri Lankan English is dangerous to our knowledge of English as bad grammar may be instilled in us in that process of reading bad English” (p. xxiv). He also narrates anecdotes of students from an elite school in Colombo using that ubiquitous Sri Lankanism “bugger” to refer to one’s father as “Pater Bugger”, and criticizes such usage.
It is revealing that Hoole spent much of his life with usage dictionaries such as Fowler’s. His publication is also a usage and style based dictionary, and not descriptive in orientation. The entries are chosen from words featuring frequent errors or confusions to Sri Lankans. In many of the entries, the author offers helpful clarifications. In cases of certain variants, he is reasonable in allowing Sri Lankanisms in less formal contexts, although his preference is for the more formal variant. See, for example, the entries in page 122:
Except, Except for
Both expressions, “Except” and “Except for,” mean excluding the noun that follows:
All of us ate to our full except my mother who felt a little tired.
All of us ate to our full except for my mother who felt a little tired.
Both expressions are said to be correct. But are they? By the Loquacity Rule, “except for” involves an unnecessary word “for,” a pleonasm, and is therefore not the preferred form.
Eyes, I saw with my own eyes
It is needless to say “with my own eyes” in the expression
I saw with my own eyes.
We have a pleonasm in the words “with my own eyes,” because we always see with our own eyes and not other people’s eyes. This is clearly from the Tamil expression, [Tamil example given here].
It is an expression that will, however, stay with us arguing that it is used for emphasis or to say that what the speaker saw refers to a first hand report. Be that as it may, “I saw” is usually good enough.
We can see the Engineering/Math professor in Hoole preferring more economical expressions. In the second example, however, he pragmatically recognizes that the use of “with my own eyes” has become part of local usage and concedes that it can be used for emphasis. It is laudable that the author recognizes the style and context variations in questionable words to allow for diversity.
But in some cases, he is a bit too strict. In page 142, he has the following entry:
How about “I come there”?
This phrase in the heading of this section, and illiterate phrases like it, take the place of the correct
How about my coming there?
How about has to be followed by a noun: How about this? Or How about that?
It is possible that Prof. Hoole might be overlooking the simple distinction between conversational/informal and written/formal usage here. Conversational English grammar doesn’t follow written syntax in even native speaker communities.
Hoole also becomes a bit too prescriptive in page 237 where he chides the common practice of referring to the newspaper as “paper.” He mentions that “paper” refers to the material in which the news is printed, and therefore cannot be used to stand for the newspaper. However, the electronic version of the New York Times announces on its web “Today’s Paper” as an option for readers to click. Similarly, in his treatment of phrases like Thank you very much and Thank you so much, Hoole explains:
However, to me, “so much” implies a comparison like pointing to some rice on a plate and saying I eat only “so much:” Therefore,
“Thank you so much” seems to thank a person a certain amount without saying what that amount is.
I therefore strongly recommend “Thank you very much.”
However, even the usage dictionaries of the British and Americans are more tolerant on this one. They generally state that “Thank you very much” is slightly more formal than “thank you so much”.
Others feel that “very” is a superlative word used to add more emphasis to the appreciation. Therefore, it is not preferred by more reserved speakers who reduce the emphasis with the use of “so.”
These points are meant to demonstrate how complex usage is, especially at the global level for a lingua franca, and not meant to slight Hoole’s painstaking effort in publishing this book.
One has to appreciate his generosity in going outside his field, motivated by a sincere interest in helping local students master English. That the book derives from his teaching, and is still used by him in the theology school, demonstrates that it is not a mere academic exercise. Unlike many books that end unread in bookshelves, this book will be used by teachers and students in Sri Lanka. When there is a dearth of publications from international publishers, compounded now by the unfair currency exchange and inflation, and the lack of an English language publisher in Jaffna, this locally produced book is one that many learners will be able to own—and even treat it as their daily toilet reading (the way Hoole himself read dictionaries when he was growing up, as he describes in his preface). Students can treat the disparity between British English and Sri Lankan English as not mutually exclusive but choices for different contexts. While Sri Lankan English will be used in in-group conversational contexts, those who interact with foreign tourists, business partners, or educational collaborators will appreciate a familiarity with British English. Globalization increasingly calls for “code switching” into different varieties, as speakers shuttle between different communities and contexts where diverse Englishes are used. Therefore, teachers who use this book can remind students of the contexts where the British and formal norms will be useful, and compare the pronouncements in the dictionary with variations in other communities and contexts. Thus Hoole’s dictionary can generate constructive discussions and lessons about language norms.
The author’s website: https://sites.psu.edu/canagarajah/
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
