Indo-Lanka agreement on ECT:

* Govt. sticking to yahapalana commitment says SJB MP

* JVP asks whether selling national assets panacea for all our ills

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Samagi Jana Balavegaya lawmaker Dr. Harsha de Silva yesterday (15) said that the SLPP government had adopted the previous administration’s strategy in respect of the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo Port having repeatedly decried what it earlier called the sale of the facility to India.

MP de Silva, who also played a big role in the previous administration said that the SLPP earlier strongly opposed the involvement of India and Japan in the proposed Public-Private Partnership (PPP) to develop the ECT.

The former UNP State Minister de Silva said that the government certainly owed an explanation as regards the SLPP’s turnaround having had exploited the ECT issue to the hilt in the run-up to 2019 Nov presidential election as well as 2020 parliamentary election.

Responding to another query, the senior SJB member emphasized that the SLPP’s stand had always been that the ECT would be under the exclusive control of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA). Therefore, the Presidential Secretariat statement that the incumbent administration negotiated the ECT agreement afresh with the SLPA having 51 percent of shares and the rest for the foreign investor, MP de Silva said.

Having repeatedly promised the ECT would only be developed by the SLPA, no less a person than President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at a hastily arranged meeting at the Presidential Secretariat on January 13 announced the 51:49 basis between the SLPA and the foreign investor.

The Colombo District lawmaker said: “The Terminal Operating Company was always a 51:49 joint venture with the majority of shares with the SLPA.”

Minister of Ports Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Secretary to the President Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, Secretary to the Ministry of Ports, Chairman of Sri Lanka Ports Authority and other officials and representatives of 23 trade unions had been present at the discussion.

The presidential declaration meant that the SLPP went back on one of its major promises. What had really happened was the SLPP endorsed the previous government strategy on the ECT, MP de Silva said, urging the people to be mindful of their strategies.

The SJB MP stressed that the then Opposition deceived the country with its high profile campaigns in the run-up to national polls in 2019 and 2020. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa told port unions the ECT would be developed with 51 per cent owned by the government and the remaining 49% as an investment by India’s Adani Group and other stakeholders

One-time Ports and Shipping Minister and SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem, now a constituent of the SJB told The Island that the Indian investment therein was nothing but a foregone conclusion. The lawmaker who is afflicted with Covid-19 threw his weight behind the project.

MP de Silva said that Sri Lanka entered into a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) with India and Japan in May 2019 on the ECT. The then Ports and Shipping Minister Sagala Ratnayake signed the MOC on behalf of the yahapalana government. Dr. de Silva said that he responded to The Island queries as a parliamentarian of the SJB as the party was yet to take a stand officially.

The agreement on the ECT was the first major investment on ports and shipping sector since China secured strategic Hambantota port on a 99-year lease for USD1.1 bn in 2017.

Trade union sources told The Island that major political parties represented in parliament seemed to be on one page on the ECT issue. The SLPP and the SJB parliamentary groups consisted of 145 and 54 members, respectively. The JVP with just three MPs is alone in campaigning against the agreement on the ECT though port trade unions affiliated to major political parties opposed foreign investment therein.

Former JVP MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa alleged that successive governments were bent on parting with critically important national assets. The JVPer asked whether selling national assets was the panacea for Sri Lanka’s ills. If such a strategy paid off, Sri Lanka would have been in a much better position today, the former lawmaker said.