Features
Failure to Launch: Leninism and the NPP Manifesto
By Kusum Wijetilleke
Desperation has been a central theme for much of Sri Lanka’s citizenry long before the pandemic. Although it may seem far removed from the present multitude of issues, the Yahapalana/Mahinda Rajapaksa Constitutional crisis of 2018 set in motion a series of events that have contributed significantly to the current tragicomedy of the Sri Lankan State. At the time the ‘Unity’ Government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was struggling along, the economy was in a state of inertia, having recorded a GDP growth of just 3.1 percent in 2017, the lowest in over 15 years. For the sake of balance, there were notable accomplishments under Yahapalanaya that deserve mention: Independent commissions, increased exports to the EU, successive primary account surpluses and 1990 Suwa Seriya, to name a few entries on the credit side. The debit side entries only continued to grow, beginning with the infamous CBSL bond scam and the close association of the then PM to those involved. The public outcry over this major scandal, from a coalition promising ‘good governance’, was only compounded by the Hambantota lease agreement with China Merchants Port company.
Complexities arising from the 19th Amendment, especially regarding the powers of the Executive Presidency and the devolution of powers to the provinces, sparked claims from the Opposition that PM Wickremesinghe was steering Sri Lanka into a future federal state. The Ranilist faction, with hindsight, lost that battle in the court of public opinion. The co-sponsorship of the UNHRC Resolution of 2015 (30/1) and its explicit mention of “foreign judges… and investigators” was another major contributor to tensions that led to the eventual disunity at the heart of Yahapalanaya. The alleged and as yet unconfirmed assassination plot regarding President Sirisena cleared a path that led through the Easter bombing to the current presidency and policy paradigm of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the Pohottuwa.
Seasons of missed opportunities
The December-January season is critical to the Sri Lankan economy; the boost to local consumption from the season as well as the influx of tourists and remittances represent a windfall that sustains the operations of many businesses for much of the year. In December 2018, there were major disruptions to tourism and hospitality industries arising from travel advisories issued by major tourist origin countries, based on fears of political violence. Sri Lanka’s forex reserves reduced, the Rupee depreciated further and investors sold off treasury bills, all of which contributed to a ratings downgrade and a 3.7 percent drop in industrial activity during that period. The Governments of Japan and the US temporarily froze some $1 billion worth of development aid.
This season of missed opportunity would replay and extend itself in 2019 and beyond. The Yahapalanaya rupture and resulting security failures led to the Easter attacks and ultimately, to an election defined by national security. The context matters; Yahapalanaya, especially with the benefit of hindsight, was clearly an act of desperation. Some three decades of war against a terrorist organisation failed to spawn a meaningful National or ‘Unity’ Government, yet voters were desperate enough to hope that this coalition might be fruitful. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election was also a sign of desperation. The wave of anti-Rajapaksa sentiment that brought in Yahapalanaya dissipated and the public was sold a grand promise of a Lee Kwan Yew-esque administrative juggernaut with fresh ideas, powered by professionals promoted through a meritocracy. These notions seem almost delirious considering what has transpired.
As the President carries on, seemingly unwilling or incapable of making any of the very obvious policy ‘u-turns’ that might help ease the suffering, voters are beginning to feel that familiar tinge of desperation. Against this backdrop, the main Opposition, SJB has been accused of not meeting the moment with requisite energy and fortitude, leading to question marks over its position. There has been a media tilt towards alternatives with the National People’s Power coalition (Jathika Jana Balawegaya) and its leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) showing increased energy and organisation.
The JVP-led NPP recently released a manifesto of sorts entitled “Rapid Response to Overcome Current Challenges”; the voting public eagerly anticipated a set of policy alternatives, desperate for some semblance of a strategy to set Sri Lanka on a sustainable path to recovery. AKD’s strength has always been his clear, precise and colourful articulation of the corruption and excesses of government. It might be forgotten to history that the JVP was once a political ‘king-maker’ of sorts, propping up, for example, the UPFA Government of 2004 and the Mahinda Rajapaksa candidacy of 2005. The opening lines of the NPP manifesto alludes to the “misguided economic and social policies pursued by various governments…” of the past, of course this must necessarily include the JVP and many of its present leadership including AKD, who was cabinet minister in the mid-2000s. This argument is also used against the SJB leader Sajith Premadasa due to his seniority in the UNP during its brief periods in power. The crucial difference is that Premadasa, while senior, was certainly outside the UNP establishment of that time, unlike AKD, who was very much a leading figure in the JVP’s support for the UPFA.
Bullet points firing blanks
Political history aside, the NPP must be judged on the merits of its ideas and what proposals it can bring to the table. In discussing the economy, the manifesto makes an immediate critique of the open economic policy of 1977, specifically its “prioritisation of personal gain over social responsibility”. The heading of this section reads “A Thriving economy instead of a Dependent Economy” which then leads to obvious questions.
Given the interdependent and interconnected nature of global economies, given the limited size, scope and production capabilities of Sri Lankan industry and Sri Lanka’s inherent dependence on exports, how does Sri Lanka become self-reliant? Further, if the open economy has been destructive, what form does the alternative take? There are severe efficiency gaps in Sri Lanka’s manufacturing sectors, compounded by strong labour laws and regulations; just some of the reasons the worlds manufacturing conveyor belts are concentrated in specific countries. Does the NPP intend on enhancing manufacturing efficiencies, do they intend on relaxing labour laws, if not how do they intend on reducing the cost of Sri Lankan manufacturing? In fact, the NPP makes the point that “neo-liberalism” has failed to prioritise production and was instead focused on financialisation. This critique fails to realise that Sri Lanka benefits from “neo-liberal” trade policies, in fact Sri Lanka’s exports and consequently its economy depends on open markets and free-trade throughout the world. It must be said that the NPP is hardly alone in making a confused critique of neoliberalism and free trade, yet it points to the fundamental challenge facing the JVP led coalition; the need to balance its Marxist-Leninist roots with the challenge of positioning Sri Lanka in a global market. Turning away from the global market cannot be an option for Sri Lanka.
The Rapid Response Manifesto continues with a section titled “Our Approach” which advocates a “value-added economic approach”, with a number of Bullet points, that once again lacks any specifics with the only clue being to “gradually discourage the importation of goods that can be produced locally”. Here the NPP takes a popular route to production and industry but misses the key factor of cost. There are undoubtedly products that are imported which can be produced locally, the question is at what price. There are reasons why Sri Lankan businesses prefer to import raw materials for the production process rather than source locally and these include: cost, quality and supply chain efficiency.
Any plan to shift production locally must consider these key attributes of production; unfortunately, the NPP manifesto makes no such considerations.
The Bullet points continue with a call to “generate more foreign exchange by joining the global supply chain”. This supply chain is part of the aforementioned and much maligned global open-market and a direct result of globalisation, something the NPP rejects as a precursor to “financialisation”.
In discussing how to tackle Sri Lanka’s rising Government debt, the manifesto further states that more detailed measures will be released in the future with some basic measures being mooted for the time being. These include some sort of punitive action for members of previous administrations, a ‘formal’ five-year plan, working ‘diplomatically’ with creditors for debt restructuring and a mechanism to enhance contributions from migrant workers.
Presidency or Westminster?
These are wasted bullet points given that the country is facing both liquidity and solvency challenges. There is no critique of IMF programmes, no roadmap to restructuring and few plans to increase Government revenue. The very least one might have expected from a coalition with Socialist origins was a broad proposal for income redistribution through an overhaul of the SLPP regime’s tax cuts. As Sri Lanka now has some of this region’s lowest corporate tax rates, it represents an open goal for any political manifesto, one that the NPP seems to have missed completely. Rapid Response, despite the title, does offer some longer-term benchmarks on vital investments on healthcare and education, calling for annual minimum expenditures of five and six percent of GDP respectively.
AKD and the JVP have long been critical of the Executive Presidency; the NPP manifesto reiterates the need for a cabinet accountable to parliament and not to the President. It goes further in calling for the President to be elected by Parliament instead of by the people. This is perhaps where the political rubber meets the road when it comes to Sri Lanka’s unique electoral dynamics. Colombo’s liberal vote base seemed to support similar notions judging by their votes for Yahapalanaya and its purported Westminster model. The Executive Presidency is viewed by the liberal elites as a poisoned chalice, while rural voters in the Sinhala-Buddhist heartland believe this seat and its occupant to be a guarantor against minority rule through globalist proxy.
The NPP gets credit for articulating its position unambiguously; the question remains as to whether the Westminster gambit will be digestible to an electoral base that firmly rejected this parliamentary model in the 2019 election. This brings us back to the aforementioned inertia of the Yahapalanaya regime with its competing power centres and contradictory rhetoric, compounded by an inability to even issue a simple gazette. Sri Lankans will notice that little has changed with the current Pohottuwa administration, Consequently, Executive President or not, the inertia has come full circle.
The NPP’s stance on the Executive Presidency will perhaps force the hand of the main Opposition party in one direction or another. The SJB has political-brand name recognition; few in Colombo perhaps appreciate the strength of the Premadasa name in rural Sri Lanka. On the other hand the SJB also possesses other personalities that have won the trust of the electorate to varying degrees; MPs Harin Fernando, Dr. Harsha De Silva, Eran Wickramaratne and Champika Ranawaka to name a few. These MPs have all carved out their own niches in the wider electorate, consequently, the SJB ‘Team’ might bring its own set of advantages. Whether the core of the SJB believes steadfastly in the Westminster model or whether they utilise the innate ‘brand-name’ might well depend on which election the administration calls first. However, from an ideological standpoint, the SJB must clearly define its path, now that the pretender to the oppositional throne has made its stance clear.
Opportunistic vanguardism
Rapid Response, overall, represents a missed opportunity for the NPP to provide an actual roadmap to economic sustainability and political stability; to be perceived as a real alternative for the electorate. The manifesto seems confused about where it wants to take Sri Lanka’s economy and its people and this is somewhat emblematic of the Marxist-Leninist Communist JVP.
The ideological confusion may seem pedantic but it is hugely informative of why there always seems to be so little convergence of leftist movements and why they are so prone to circular firing squads. Lenin himself is a much-debated figure in history, especially among scholars of Socialism. Prof. Noam Chomsky has written extensively about Leninism and in particular its allegiances with Stalinism noting that for many ‘mainstream’ Marxists of that era, Lenin was a right wing deviation of the socialist movement.
Two of the more famous Marxist intellectuals, Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek have referred to what they view as Lenin’s ‘opportunistic vanguardism’. Chomsky notes that Lenin’s writing changed character around 1917; the notion that the radical intelligentsia were going to exploit popular movements to seize control of the state and then organise the populace into the kind of society that they chose. Considering the very core of socialism: Workers’ control over the means of production, this deviation by Lenin seems completely inconsistent. The original Marxists or what Chomsky refers to as ‘left Marxists’ such as Luxemburg and Pannekoek were notably aghast at the moves made by Lenin following the October 1917 revolution, something Chomsky refers to as a ‘coup’ rather than a revolution. One of Lenin’s first actions after seizing power was to destroy the Factory Councils developed by the Soviets, weakening worker control over production: The very antithesis of socialism. As per Chomsky: “Lenin reconstructed the Tsarist systems of oppression” moving away from the libertarian-socialist origins of Luxemburg and Pannekoek.
The JVP led NPP would do well to better understand what Lenin believed, right up to his death; that a socialist state would not be possible in Russia and was instead a holding action for the “real revolution”, which as per traditional Marxist theory would occur in the most advanced industrial capitalist state, which at the time would have been Germany.
The Rapid Response manifesto does little to suggest that the JVP/NPP represents a vanguard intelligentsia of any creed, offering nothing of substance as an alternative in these most desperate of times.
(Email: kusumw@gmail.com, Twitter: @kusumw)
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
