Features
Democracy Building Initiatives under Yahapalanaya Regime: Lessons learned
By Prof. Gamini Keerawella
(This article is based on the research conducted by RCSS in collaboration with the University of South Carolina Rule of Law Collective (ROLC). The research team consisted of Prof. Gamini Keerawella, Prof. Sarjoon Athambawa, Dr. Menik Wakkambura, Dr. Ramesh Ramasamy, Ms. Nimmi Jayathilake, Ms. Shavini de Silva.)
1. The democracy-building initiatives during the National Unity Government (2015-2019), commonly known as Yahapalanaya regime, represent the first concerted attempt taken towards political reforms in post-war Sri Lanka. At the end of the war in 2009, historic opportunity was available for Sri Lanka to embark on a new political journey by revitalising democratic institutions and processes. However, the continuation of democratic backsliding and faltering on the path of national reconciliation even after the end of the war created a need and conditions for a regime change in 2015.
It was a collective attempt to transform the negative peace (absence of armed conflict) into a foundation for positive peace. Democracy building is by no means a smooth and lineal process. Even though, the vigor of political reforms and democratic impulses of the National Unity Government dissipated by the end of its tenure, the initiatives taken at the beginning in establishing good governance and democracy-building marked a timely break in the authoritarian trend in Sri Lanka. These initiatives widened the space for a new discourse on democracy against the backdrop of long-term travails of democracy.
2. The regime change in 2015 and democratic reforms initiated under the NUG highlighted the potential of the people in halting the authoritarian trends and taking steps towards democracy building in the country. Unpacking these initiatives helps understand the workings of democratic political dynamics and the peoples’ power in post-war Sri Lanka. Before 2015, a perception was meticulously cultivated throughout the country that President Mahinda Rajapaksa was so strong and popular that he cannot be defeated. The driving force that destroyed that perception was civil society organisations.
The regime change in 2015 was interpreted as a victory of people for democracy against authoritarian abuse of power. Experiences under the Yahapalana regime also highlighted the certain limitations of peoples’ intervention beyond elections. After the initial enthusiasm for regime change was over, the people did not sustain their interests. In the main, they withdrew from political process allowing the political leaders to set the tone of political narrative. It highlighted the importance of constant vigilance and effective intervention throughout on the part of civil society.
3. The interest and commitment of the National Unity Government to fulfill the mandate of democratic reforms and good governance on which it was elected disappeared rapidly after taking initial strides. There was no roadmap for the government to move forward on the path of good governance.
The vacillation and bewildering delay in many key policy domains become the hallmark of the NUG. Even before two years, the cracks within the regime came to the surface and the co-habitation arrangement proved to be a failure. However, the democracy-building endeavour in the period 2015-2019 was not at all a sterile venture. Even though many initiatives did not retain after November 2019, its impact could not be erased so easily. The freedom of information has been added to the Fundamental Rights Chapter so that it became a judicially enforceable right. One of the durable legacies of the NUG has been the Right to Information Act.
4. The experiences under the NUG also highlighted the constraints and problems faced by democracy building in a country like Sri Lanka. Democracy building is not a linear process. It is also important to unpack what accounts for setbacks of the democracy-building endeavours of the NUG. The personality clash between the President and the Prime Minister contributed by no small measure to the downfall of the NUG. But the disagreements and conflicts between the two centres of power in the NUG cannot be relegated simply to personality factors. All the forces and groups who made the regime change in 2015 possible are responsible for its downfall, too. When disagreements and divergence between the two centres of power in the NUG surfaced there was no effective internal mechanism for de-escalation, containment, and conflict resolution.
The untimely demise of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha affected severely the civil controlling power of the political leadership. The Remaining leadership of CSOs did not have the charismatic stature and legitimacy that Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha had to intervene effectively. The experience also highlighted the certain weakness of the civil society organisations in Sri Lanka. There was no central leadership for CSOs after the passing away of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha. At first, their energy was channeled to a single target: to defeat the Rajapaksa regime. Once it was achieved, the different interests among CSOs surfaced.
5. It is also important to note that the civil-political movement for democratic reforms is a process and discourse with different waves. The particular wave that brought the Rajapaksa regime down in 2015 slowly emerged from 2011. In the face of many constraints and problems due to the repressive measures of the regime and some structural weaknesses of the civil society itself, the movement was progressing slowly in the first three years.
It witnessed momentum at the beginning of 2014, but it is still a Colombo and other main cities-centered movement that had a long way to go in getting rooted in the rural countryside. By the time of the declaration of early Presidential Elections in November 2014, the democracy reform agenda and its road map of the civil-political movement were not fully developed. In 2014, a qualitatively different phase in democratic reform discourse unfolded with the discussions between NMJS and the political parties. More intensive discussions and debates on main aspects of constitutional reforms, going beyond the slogan of the abolition of Executive Presidency, was taking place. Intentionally or not, the early call for Presidential Election detailed the process.
The pro-democratic reform civil groups and political parties were in agreement on the common candidate for the presidential race. He was hurriedly selected. There was no detailed discussion between the common candidate and the CSOs and other political parties before he was selected. The MOU was signed hurriedly. In the context of the election campaign rush, there was no time and space for a comprehensive agreement between the common candidate and the democratic forces on the political roadmap, except a hurriedly prepared 100-day programme. These shortcomings contributed to the setbacks and hiccups in the democratic reform agenda after the NUG came to power.
6. In the context of internationalisation of the ethnic problem and human rights issue, how to handle the external actors remained a key challenge that Sri Lanka faced in 2015. Having deviated from the hostile attitude towards the international Human Rights bodies, the NUG expressed its willingness to work closely with the international community, especially the UN. the NUG handled external actors satisfactorily and tried to come to some understanding with them.
In analyzing the role of external actors, first of all, the NUG took multiplicity of external actors into account. Further more, external actors remained a key variable exerting influence as a critical maneuver for democratic reforms in Sri Lanka in the period 2015-2019, especially in the peace-building sector and achieving of minority rights. However, the sustainability of democratic reforms seemed dependent on the cooperation between external actors and the political leadership of the NUG and domestic political dynamism that shaped image building of the external actors.
The failure of external actors to take into account domestic political dynamics often resulted in the erosion of credibility and effectiveness of their role. This becomes a sensitive yet crucial factor in dealing with the democratic reforms in Sri Lanka.
Further, the external influences on peace building often showed a sense of coerciveness, such as requirement of regular reporting to international monitoring bodies like UNHRC. Sri Lanka’s agreement to co-sponsor the post-war peace-building resolutions was interpreted as a naïve and inappropriate move without taking ground realities into account. Moreover, the time-line of UNHRC resolutions was viewed as unrealistic. The external role, depending on the context and modus operandi, could be counter productive and generates unintended constrains, derailing the entire process.
7. The NUG prioritised reconciliation as an overarching policy frame. The approach of the National Unity Government regarding the process of reconciliation takes into account four broad area: truth seeking; right to justice: reparation and; non-recurrence. It is also emphasized that the mechanisms to be established in order to address issues in these four areas must be independent, credible and empowered.
One of the major shortcomings of national reconciliation was the lack of a long-term national plan for repairing the damage caused by the 26-year-long civil war, where psychological damage, hatred, and memory prevailed in communities as barriers to sustainable reconciliation. Moreover, there was a lack of visionary leadership and institutional structures that could foster reconciliation, such as the functions of the Office of Missing Persons, the reparation bill and its execution, and various judicial and non-judicial actions for non-recurrence were also not effective.
8. The UNF has failed in building a minimal winning connected coalition – which considers more than numbers and focuses also on ensuring that there is a sufficient shared ideology among the members of a coalition to and pursue policy change – what achieved was ‘minimal winning coalitions’- a coalition that is no bigger than necessary to have a majority in government.
The NUG failed to abolish the Executive Presidency while the arrangement made in the 19th amendment to control the powers of President induced for power competition between the President and the Prime Minister.
9. Another important lesson learned from the democratic experiences during 2015-2019 was that it is rather difficult to go forward with the democratic reforms without breaking the dominance of the political class. The social and political force behind the authoritarian political project of the political class that came forward after the 1956 political change. The real political force behind the Rajapaksa regime was the political class. This explains why President Mahinda Rajapaksa commanded a considerable support base in the country except for the North and the East despite his authoritarian stance. NUG failed to overcome the dominance of the well-stretched political class who has been the real driving force behind the authoritarian political project. Breaking the dominance of the political class is not easy; nevertheless, it is essential for the progress of democratic political reforms. The attempts taken in the direction of state reforms to strengthen good governance failed because they touched only the outer ditch of the authoritarian social and political structures of the state. Antonio Gramsci describes the state as ‘an outer ditch, behind which there stands a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks’. The political class that is the champion of the authoritarian political culture represents the fortress and earthwork of the authoritarian state. Figuring out how to mobilize social forces to break not only the outer ditch but also the fortresses and earthworks of the authoritarian state with comprehensive political reforms is the fundamental problem in democratic reforms in Sri Lanka.
10. The NUG experiences highlighted the fact that democracy building must be an integral element of a broader political project of state reforms, aimed at developing an inclusive ideology for the state, related institutional frame, and building democratic citizenship. In the post-war context, national reconciliation, a political solution to the ethnic problem, and building an inclusive state must receive priority in democracy building. For National reconciliation to be effective and sustainable, it should be carried out with a clear strategic vision and plan to politically and socially empower the communities who were marginalized and alienated from the main political process. Democracy is not only a system of government by also a way of life, a mode of behavior, and an ideology. In a multi-ethnic country, majoritarian political culture is an anti-thesis to democratic norms and practices. The majoritarian political culture that prevailed in the body politic of Sri Lanka is a grave hindrance to democratic reforms to ensure the integration of minorities in the decision-making process done based on equality and partnership. NUG failed to launch an effective campaign to promote democratic culture in countering the majoritarian mindset. Ultimately, NUG also became a hostage of the majoritarian political culture and faltered in taking critical decisions to show the minority community it is genuine in promoting national reconciliation. Some aspects of besieged and island mentality of the majority community are often used to fan the support for an authoritarian political project. Having failed to effectively address key main barriers to democratic reforms, namely, the majoritarian political thinking and the power of the political class, the democracy-building initiatives appeared to be only cosmetic without getting rooted in the body politic. The vacillation and bewildering delay in many key policy domains including national reconciliation, the emergence of two centers of power, and lack of articulation between the two which crippled the general efficacy of administration gave renewed currency to a cry of ‘National Security State’ at the expense of the democracy-building political project, especially after the Easter Sunday carnage.
11. Democracy-building experiences during 2015-2019 highlighted the importance of the role of political leaders in implementing the mandate for democratic reforms and also the constant vigilance on the part of the citizens to check and monitor whether the political leaders adhere to the mandate. Their commitment to the principles of good governance and democratic reforms quickly faded away once in power. In this context, constant vigilance on the part of the civic democratic process is an essential condition for the continuation of democratic reforms. Why did the commitment of the political leadership of NUG to democratic political reforms disappear rapidly after taking a few initial strides? Why did the civil forces fail to intervene effectively, except at the beginning, when the leaders were vacillating and evading the implementation of the expected reforms? At the end of the day, the political leaders who stood with the democratic reform movement at the 2015 Presidential Election seemed to have used evolving urge of the people for democratic reforms only as a political slogan to come to power. How certain key appointments were made soon after NUG assumed power indicated that they were have not deviated from the practice of nepotism of the previous regime. The civil forces did not effectively intervene to check such behavior. The experiences under NUG indicated that it was not easy to proceed with the existing political leadership who were tempered in the corrupt political practices for years in pursuing substantive democratic reforms. The Central Bank bond scam and how others in the government came forward to conceal it destroyed the good governance credibility of the NUG, substantiating the above indication. The importance of building a new generation of political leaders who are truly committed to democratic reforms in Sri Lanka are highlighted by many.
12. Another lesson to be learned from the democratic building initiatives under NGU is that it is rather difficult to count on Sri Lankan business elites to promote democratic reforms. Ideologically and socially powerful business community could play a vital role as a driving force for democracy building. The economic dependency and political impotency of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie, mainly of the business upper class, were clearly illustrated in the period 2015-2019. The establishment of the rule of war, transparency, independence of the judiciary, and controlling the excessive power of the Executive with the intuitional check and balance system would benefit the business community in no small measure. Sri Lanka’s state-dependent business community counts on the state for protection, support and subsidies for its survival. As a result, they are incapable of playing an independent and strong role in influencing the political authority as far as democracy. They are always subservient to the regime in power. They failed to play an independent role as a bulwark of democracy in pushing forward the democratic reform agenda.
13. It is also important to note that ‘traditional’ trade unions that were at the forefront in the struggle for democracy in the past did not play a significant role in democratic building initiatives during 2015-2019. The changed behavior of the conventional trade union sector can be explained due to the structural changes witnessed in the industrial and service sectors of the economy and the decline of old Left ideology in the trade union movement. In the changed political and economic environment, a new brood of professional groups/organizations and the youth have come forward to fill the vacuum created by inaction of the moribund traditional trade union sector. The democracy-building attempts need to take these changes into serious consideration and should count on the new social forces, especially the youth and professional groups, and mobilizing them by using social media and art/music in which they are quite savvy.
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
