Features
Contradictions by Canada on ‘genocide’ in Sri Lanka
by Neville Ladduwahetty
A frontpage headline in the Daily Mirror of June 16, 2023 said: “Canada informs SL that NO GENOCIDE TOOK PLACE IN SL”. Two other sub headers state: “Canada’s Foreign Ministry informs SL that no finding on genocide in Sri Lanka” and “However, the Canadian PM renewed the narrative of genocide on May 18, 2023”. Continuing the report states: “In what appeared to be a clash of narratives among Canada’s leaders, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry has informed the Sri Lankan government that Canada had not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka, the Daily Mirror learns”.
If what has been reported is correct, the narrative of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry contradicts the position taken by the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, while making a statement commemorating the 14th anniversary of the end of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka, justified the unanimous adoption one year ago by the Canadian Parliament of a motion to make May 18 Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
Given the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry statement that “Canada has not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka”, it is beyond comprehension for any government of Canada, which proudly calls itself part of the First World, for its Foreign Affairs Ministry and for its Prime Minister to take such vastly divergent views in respect of charges of genocide in another sovereign country such as Sri Lanka. Such contradictions reflect not only the poor state of governance in Canada but also its scant respect for a sovereign country and its Peoples’ sensibilities. How should Sri Lanka handle such contradictions?
SRI LANKA’S RESPONSE
Whether the contradiction between Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry and its Prime Minister is fact, misreport or fiction, the response from Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry to Canadian PM’s statement was to state: “Such irresponsible and polarising pronouncements by the leader of a nation breeds disharmony and hatred in Canada and Sri Lanka, instead of promoting peace and reconciliation”. The statement continues to vehemently reject the “unsubstantiated narrative of genocide which has been deliberately construed by politically motivated anti-Sri Lanka elements, whose so-called recognition in Canada depends on spreading misinformation and a false narrative of hatred” (Daily FT, May 23, 2023).
The above response is directed only in respect of the comments by Canada’s Prime Minister. The response does not address the motion by Canada’s 338 Member Parliament which states: “this House acknowledges the Genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and recognizes May 18th of each year as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day”. The House of Commons unanimously accepted the motion”.
What is of deep regret is that although Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry was aware that a motion to declare May 18th as a “Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day” was work in progress long before the motion was passed unanimously by Canada’s Parliament, not enough was done to counter the “unanimous efforts” of the Canadian Parliament. For the SL Foreign Ministry to claim that its representative in Canada failed to present material evidence to convince even a few of a 338 Member Parliament to prevent the unanimous support for an “unsubstantiated narrative of genocide”, is unbelievable.
If the entire Canadian Parliament believes that there was genocide in Sri Lanka, should not such a charge be “vehemently rejected” via a unanimous decision of Sri Lanka’s Parliament, bearing in mind that anyone who opposes or abstains would by their action be endorsing the Canadian Parliament’s motion? Regardless of the outcome of such a resolution, the fact remains that it is appropriate that a claim, however indefensible by ONE Parliament (in this case Canada), should be countered by none other than by The OTHER Parliament (in this case, Sri Lanka) for the sake of parity of member states and the dignity of the nation, and NOT by the Foreign Ministry. Furthermore, in this case, it is only a Parliamentary Resolution in Sri Lanka itself that could prevent Tamil pocket boroughs in other countries from adopting similar motions.
WHAT IS AT STAKE
What is at stake is the inability of Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry to hold the LTTE that represented the Tamil community responsible for endangering the security of the Tamil civilian population by holding them hostage and using them as a human shield during the final stages of the armed conflict. This stems from the refusal of successive Sri Lankan Foreign Ministries to acknowledge that the armed conflict in Sri Lanka was a Non-International Armed Conflict and the applicable law is International Humanitarian Law as codified in “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions …relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict”. The explanation offered by the SL Foreign Ministry for not categorizing the conflict as an armed conflict is because of the lame fact that the Sri Lankan Government has not ratified the Additional Protocol II of 1977; a position that ignores the relevance of provisions contained in Customary Law relating to Non-International Armed Conflict.
What is at stake is the contrasting position taken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that Article 3 common to all Geneva Conventions is applicable to the armed conflict that took place in Sri Lanka. For instance:
Paragraph 182 of the above Report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees pertaining to the treatment of civilians and persons hors de combat contained therein. Common article 3 binds all parties to the conflict to respect as a minimum, that persons taking no direct part in hostilities as well as those placed hors de combat shall be treated humanely”.
Paragraph 183 states: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
Therefore, even if Sri Lanka has not ratified Additional Protocol II of 1977, Sri Lanka and the LTTE are bound alike by customary law, and taking civilians hostage and using them as a human shield is a violation of customary law; a fact incorporated in Article 13 (6) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution that state: “Nothing in this Article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to general principles of law recognised by the community of nations”.
What is at stake is the failure on the part of successive SL Foreign Ministries and Governments to present evidence relating to the indisputable fact that the LTTE took civilians hostage and used them as a human shield, thereby violating Customary Law. This is a gross dereliction of duty for which Accountability is needed. More importantly, it belittles the honour and dignity of the thousands of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel who gave their full measure of devotion to protect the civilians who attempted to find safety among the security forces, while defending the integrity of the State. These hard facts which are contained in several Presidential Commission Reports, the Reports of the ICRC and by others such as Lord Naseby were not presented to the Canadian Government or to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Instead the refrain has consistently been the cry of “unsubstantiated narratives”.
TAMIL GENOCIDE DAY
The term “Tamil Remembrance Day”, albeit not specifically stated, by implication means that genocide was committed by the Sri Lankan Government because GENOCIDE under International Criminal Law means the deliberate destruction of one group by another.
The word, genocide, as first coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943 “does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killing of all members of a nation”. Instead, “it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves”.
The fact that the majority of the Tamil people were outside the conflict zone and did not experience any attempts to destroy them in any way whatsoever, means that it could be categorically concluded that there was no genocide of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. Instead, what Sri Lanka experienced during the final stages of the armed conflict was conflict related casualties of those within the conflict zone made up of Security Forces personnel, the LTTE combatants and Tamil civilians, brought about entirely by the strategy adopted by the LTTE to take the Tamil civilians hostage and using them as a human shield for which the LTTE has to be held totally accountable for committing a war crime on the basis of customary law and subjecting a disproportionate number of Tamil civilians to face death. .
Thus far, the focus has been on the number of conflict related casualties. While large numbers have been the basis for charges of genocide, the more realistic numbers have been the basis for conflict related casualties. In the perspective of such a background, it is apparent that the Canadian Parliament relied on the high numbers presented by the Canadian Tamil diaspora in the absence of any efforts to counter such claims by successive SL Foreign Ministries and Governments. Under the circumstances, the only option for the Sri Lankan Parliament is to initiate a motion that presents realistic numbers from credible sources and reject the motion passed by the Canadian Parliament. Failure to do so would be seen by the citizens of Sri Lanka as another failed attempt to stand up and be counted.
CONCLUSION
The issue is not the contradiction between Canada’s Prime Minister’s position to recognise genocide in Sri Lanka and for its Foreign Affairs Ministry failing to find genocide in Sri Lanka. The real issue is the motion unanimously adopted one year ago by the Canadian Parliament to commemorate Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. The fact that the entire Canadian Parliament passed such a motion reflects their mental incapacity to distinguish between conflict related casualties who were a minority within the conflict zone and the majority of the Tamil community who was outside, experiencing only the effects of the conflict along with the rest in Sri Lanka.
It is indeed disappointing that not one single member of the 338 Member Canadian Parliament thought it necessary to exercise due diligence and view the motion before them objectively when they cast a vote in favour of a motion that by implication accused a sovereign state and its Peoples of a crime that it is not guilty of, because of their inability to distinguish between conflict related casualties with genocide. The claim that “tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed in the last phase of the war” was within the conflict zone because the strategy adopted by the LTTE to take Tamil civilians hostage and use them as a human shield resulted not only in committing a war crime but also disproportionately increased the number of deaths in the conflict zone.
On the other hand, genocide means the intentional destruction of the foundation of one group by another. This did NOT occur in Sri Lanka because the majority of the Tamil population that was outside the conflict zone did not experience any attempts to destroy who and what they were as a community. It is the inability to appreciate the differences in the experiences of those within the conflict zone and those outside that perhaps is the reason for the flawed conclusion reached by the Canadian Parliament. that there was genocide in Sri Lanka. The conclusion reached by the Canadian Parliament through a gross error in judgment by their elected representatives thus becomes a cause to shame Canada and its Peoples. The only way to redeem that shame is for Canadian Parliament to withdraw the motion they had unanimously passed.
The reason for this skewed perspective to persist is because of the inability of the SL Foreign Ministry to have a true and realistic understanding of the legal nuances associated with Sri Lanka’s armed conflict. They have dismissed the whole issue by falling back on their stock position to do nothing on the basis that Sri Lanka has not ratified Additional Protocol II of 1977, and in the process ignored the fact that taking civilians hostage and using them as a human shield is a war crime under customary law to which the LTTE is bound (Paragraph 183 cited above). Therefore, ratification is of no relevance.
In such a background it is appropriate for Sri Lanka’s Parliament to present facts from credible sources that hitherto successive governments have failed to do, and for the Cabinet to initiate a resolution that vehemently rejects charges of genocide. However, going by past practices, it is most likely for this government not to resort to any meaningful measure and kick the can down the road and dishonor the dignity of the Sri Lankan Peoples and the Nation notwithstanding the fact that doing nothing means the shame of genocide in Sri Lanka would remain.
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
