Features
GROWING COCONUTS ON ‘COCONUT LANDS’
by Chandra Arulpragasam
In 1958 I went to a lecture on coconut cultivation, because I knew nothing of the subject. The lecturer, a well-known coconut planter, started his talk with the platitude: ‘The duty of a coconut planter is to plant coconut, on coconut land’. But this set me thinking. First, who gave him the duty to plant coconuts? From his own point of view, he should be planting the crop that would give him the greatest returns, while from the country’s point of view he should be planting the crops that would provide the greatest return in terms of income, foreign exchange, employment and sustainability. Secondly, who decided that these were ‘coconut lands’? Was this not a terminology (‘tea lands’, rubber lands’, ‘coconut lands’) inherited from the British, who grew these crops because they could be grown on a plantation-scale for export?
A couple of years later (in 1960) when I headed the agriculture sector in the Department of National Planning, and again when I came with the ILO World Employment Mission to Sri Lanka in 1974, I had an opportunity to revisit these questions. If coconut was to be a mono-crop, it was important that it should meet the above criteria of greater employment, greater income and greater foreign exchange earnings compared to other crops. Coconut brings much lower financial returns than tea or rubber. As for employment, figures of 1960 showed that while one acre of tea employed 1.1 persons per acre per year, and one acre of rubber employed 0.4 persons per acre, one acre of coconut employed only 0.1 persons per acre per year. That is, only one worker was employed for every 10 acres of coconut, which was four times less than that employed in rubber and 10 times less than that employed in tea. This meant that the so called ‘coconut lands’ were under-utilizing the land not only in terms of income but also in terms of employment.
In physical terms, assuming that the coconut trees are planted in the usual spacing of 8m x 8m apart (which is accepted by the CRI as standard) and that their root system spreads only two metres around each tree (CRI stsndard), this would still leave 78 per cent of the land untouched and unutilized – the best lands in the ‘coconut triangle’.
This brings us back to the previous question. Why should these lands be called ‘coconut lands’? Is coconut the best or only crop that can be grown on them? Undoubtedly these lands are well suited for coconut, while coconuts are much in demand by our people. Not for nothing has the coconut tree been called ‘the tree of life’. But is it wise to relegate so much of our fertile lands to a relatively low-paying mono-crop? The British probably originated the nomenclature of ‘coconut lands’ when they grew coconut as a monocrop on a plantation scale, thus making it a land-extensive and labour-extensive crop, as opposed to the land-intensive and labour-intensive crops dictated by our factor endowments. Hence, this article is not against the planting of coconut: it is only against the planting of coconut as a monocrop on lands capable of yielding much more by way of intercropping.
The system of management of ‘coconut lands’ in the period 1960-1980 speaks for itself. Whereas tea and rubber estates were managed by resident estate superintendents or managers, coconut estates were ‘looked after’ by a ‘conductor’ or by a ‘watcher’, armed only with a torch and gun. The latter showed that the focus was on preventing the theft of coconuts, rather than on increasing yields or output. This locked large extents of these ‘coconut lands’ in a cycle of low expectations, low investment, low-level management, low income and low employment.
The Coconut Research Institute (CRI) in 1974 insisted that the optimum stand of coconut was 64 trees per acre, with an adequate distance (8 metres) between the individual trees and the coconut rows. It argued, on the one hand, that the growth of the intercrop would be stunted by the shade of the coconut, while insisting on the other, that the intercrop would deprive the coconuts of needed soil nutrients. After long discussions, the CRI experts ultimately agreed to the following propositions made by me in 1974.
First, it would be technically possible to inter-plant other crops during the first five years of replanting/new planting coconut without any adverse effects, since the coconut palms would be too small to block out the sunshine from the intercrop. This in itself was a big breakthrough, since an average of 9,300 acres was replanted or newly planted to coconut each year in Sri Lanka. Since intercropping would be possible for the first five years, the total acreage available for intercropping in the newly planted/replanted acreage in any particular year would be 46,500 acres (9300 acres x 5 years).
From this total should be deducted the 22 per cent of land that is actually occupied by the newly planted coconut, which would leave a net acreage of 36,000 acres for planting other crops. For purposes of comparison, this annually available acreage is more than double the extent of land opened up under land development/colonization schemes in each year, prior to the Mahaweli Scheme.
Secondly, the CRI ultimately agreed that in older stands of coconut (more than 25 years old), the trees would have grown so tall that they would not block out the sun from an inter-planted crop. It further now agrees that intercropping is possible without detriment to the coconut or its yields for 35 years of the trees’ 55 years of productive life. It is a pity that it has taken about 30 years for technical thinking to reach this conclusion!
But, thirdly, it was necessary to push the thinking even further. I argued that wider spacing between the coconut rows would result in less shade between the rows, thus enabling intercropping. The CRI in 1974 initially objected to this on the grounds that it would reduce the total number of trees per acre. But they ultimately agreed to my suggestion that if we increased the space between the rows but planted closer along the rows, the number of 64 trees per acre could still be attained, without any decrease in total production. Such further-apart spacing of coconut rows is now (40 years later) actually practised in Kerala and the Philippines, combined with intercropping. However, in Sri Lanka, although this was technically accepted in 1974, there has been little action along these lines by the Coconut Development Authority.
There remained the question of what could be grown as an inter-crop. When I travelled for FAO in Asia in the 1970s, I found pineapple, bananas, sisal, maize and manioc already inter-planted with coconut in the Philippines, and even cocoa under coconut in Indonesia, while livestock was common in most countries. Thus Sri Lanka lagged behind other South East Asian countries in this regard not only in the 1970s, but even so today.
Despite the government’s neglect, private planters in Sri Lanka have recently been adopting intercropping at an increasing pace. According to a survey done by the Coconut Research Institute in 2006, cashew was the most popular intercrop in the Dry Zone, while pineapple, betel and pepper were most popular in the Intermediate Zone. Tea, cinnamon and ginger were most popular in the Wet Zone, while bananas and livestock were common in all regions. Agro-forestry using tree crops (such as glyricidia) has also been recently recommended as a means of providing fodder for livestock, wood for fuel, biomass for fertilizer, control of erosion and soil moisture retention.
Obviously the possibilities of intercropping would be more limited in drier parts of the country with poorer soils. The inter-planting of cashew trees (pruned low) between the rows of coconut has now been adopted in the drier areas. I had also suggested (in the Short Term Implementation Programme of 1961) that groundwater was likely to be available at fairly shallow levels in the coastal areas north of Puttalam, which could be pumped up for higher value crops. I had also suggested the possibility of using windmills for such irrigation, which could be powered by the steady winds that blow during the dry season in these areas.
In 1994, I was able to revisit this question of inter-cropping under coconut in the drier areas. A women’s micro-credit in the dry north of the Puttalam District had used its loan to purchase a pump to irrigate an inter-crop on land newly planted to coconut. The women found groundwater at a depth of only four feet, which they pumped to irrigate chillie plants cultivated between the newly planted coconut rows. Their net return was Rs. 30,000 per acre within a four month period in 1994, which was more than treble the return from the adjoining coconut land for the whole year. Meanwhile, the fertilizer and water that they used for the intercrop were found to benefit the newly planted coconut too, in a win-win synergy. In the long run, the possibility of drip irrigation for coconut needs also to be considered. Such irrigation is needed only at the height of the dry season (cheap systems are now available) in order to reduce stress and increase yields.
To sum up, the Coconut Research Institute has now agreed to the following propositions that I proposed in 1961 and reiterated in 1974 (ref. ILO World Employment Mission, 1974).
· Inter-cropping between newly planted or replanted coconut can be done without prejudice to the newly planted coconut palms for the first five to six years of their life.
· In new plantings, the coconut rows could be planted farther apart, but with more trees per row, such that the total number of trees per acre will not be reduced. This would enable an inter-cop between the rows.
· Inter-planting among older coconut stands of over 25 years can be undertaken without detriment to the coconut trees or to the intercrop.
· Such intercropping can be done even in the drier regions using intercrops suited to the drier conditions, while irrigation would provide an added bonus.
· The yields of coconut actually increase because of the fertilizer and water used in the intercrop.
· There are other advantages of intercropping, such as providing biomass for fertilizer, increasing soil moisture and reducing erosion.
· The inter-crop (depending on the crop) is capable of yielding more than double the value of all the coconuts that could be produced from the same land.
Despite intercropping being both feasible and profitable, it was reported as late as 2007 that ‘in Sri Lanka, most of the coconut holdings are maintained as monocultures’ (Gunathilake, 2007). The question is why intercropping has not been more widely adopted when its feasibility and desirability were highlighted as early as 1974. The answers, in the opinion of the writer, are mainly structural and institutional.
The advantages of intercropping arise from its more intensive use of land and labour, with resultant higher returns per acre. However, the pattern of absentee ownership and management of larger estates raises the problem of supervising the casual, non-resident labourers needed for intercropping. Faced with this question, one of my estate-owner friends exploded: ‘Are you mad? The fellows (the labourers) will steal my coconuts’! Thus, although intercropping is recognized as feasible and profitable, the prevailing agrarian structure (with large holdings and absentee landlords not prepared to accept outside labour) seems to be the major factor inhibiting the wider adoption of inter-cropping on larger estates. Such estates (over 20 acres) occupied 18 per cent of the total area under coconut in 2002 (Agricultural Census of 2002).
Coconut, however, is mainly a smallholder crop in Sri Lanka, with 80 per cent of all ‘coconut lands’, covering almost 800,000 acres being made up of small holdings; 54 per cent of these are less than three acres in extent. Inter-cropping is gaining ground in this area, using mainly family labour. Although figures of comparative coconut yields between large and small coconut farms are not available for Sri Lanka, it is very likely that the coconut yields are higher in these small holdings compared to larger holdings, as proved in other countries. More importantly, the total value of agricultural production per acre in such small holdings is likely to be much higher than that in the large, well-managed coconut estates.
This is because the coconut smallholder invests more labour per unit of land to intensify and diversify his production by intercropping, in order to maximize his income. Most small coconut holdings are likely to include a papaya, banana or lime tree, some betel or pepper vines, some home-grown vegetables and some livestock. In fact, the small holder actually attains this higher level of total productivity per acre only by treating his land as much more than a ‘coconut land’.
Fortunately in more recent times, individual coconut planters in Sri Lanka have started to inter-crop on their own initiative, with encouraging results. The Coconut Research Institute has also helped by useful research into types of crops and land practices for intercropping. There has also been more forward-looking research and development abroad, in terms of ‘coconut based farming systems’ (CBFS) – a concept which is gaining ground in South India (Kerala) and some other South East Asian countries.
The purpose should not be merely to increase coconut yields, but to maximize the total productivity of these lands on a sustainable basis. This can best be achieved by a more holistic approach which seeks to develop the farming system as a whole, with each component synergistically supporting the other. While coconut would provide the pillars of such a farming system, inter-cropping would enhance its total productivity and ecological sustainability. Since coconut would still be the foundation of such a system, perhaps we could even be forgiven for referring to these lands affectionately as ‘coconut lands’!
(The writer who was a member 0f the old Ceylon Civil Service thereafter had a long career with FAO)
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
