Features
Japan’s global influence in combatting disability, getting started in Syria
Excerpted from Memories that linger: My journey in the world of disability
by Padmani Mendis
Japan’s influence in the world of disability was now spreading out. Another legacy of the Asia-Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons was the setting up in Bangkok in 2002 of The Asia-Pacific Centre on Disability, APCD, with the collaboration of the Thai government and sponsored by JICA. One of their early projects was the development of CBR in the neighbouring countries of Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, as well as Thailand of course.
Workshops were held annually with follow-up by APCD. Yukiko and I were among the resource persons for the first few years. I had been to these countries and that helped.
Disability was increasingly being included in bilateral cooperation packages. Syria was a country that sought Japanese cooperation to improve the situation of their disabled people at this time. A JICA expert was sent first for a preliminary look-see. A recommendation was made that the cooperation package should include support for CBR. Kaoru Takimoto followed as the JICA expert to initiate action. Yukiko joined her for a short visit.
The outcome of their studies and discussions with the government was that CBR be started in the three villages of Harran-Al-Awameed, Judaide and Hijane. The programme here would provide the country with learning experiences for expansion.
CBR in Syria in 2004
Before JICA came to Syria to support CBR, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, or MoSAL, had implemented with outside donor support a project they called CBR. It was in fact a time limited microfinance project which distributed loans for self-employment. The loans were never recovered and later follow-up showed that hardly anyone had started in self-employment.
When the first JICA expert came, MoSAL wanted JICA to support a similar “CBR project”. Discussions with ministry staff enabled them to know the advantages of a more holistic CBR approach. In these early years, in many parts of the world, I have heard of many projects expected to benefit disabled people being called “CBR”. Was this because it was fashionable to do so? Or because it was easier to secure funding?
A second constraint in Syria prior to JICA support for CBR started, was that there had been no voice for disabled people. There had been disabled peoples’ organisations, but they had been only service providers., similar to Sri Lanka. There was little awareness of the rights of disabled people. This is the reason one of the first tasks undertaken by Kaoru Takimoto was to focus on the involvement of disabled persons. First, with a national seminar with them in collaboration with the Arab Organisations of Disabled.
Next, importance was placed on home visits when community level activities started. People with disability were visited at home by community volunteers who had discussions with them and their families. They were encouraged to come out and be a part of their community.
The CBR team
To work with her Kauru had recruited two Syrians, Nayfeh and Nizar. Together, the three formed the JICA CBR team. The CBR team commenced regular study meetings with the three communities in December 2003, exchanging information with each as preparation for the projects. Each village was visited once a week. The WHO Manual in Arabic was used as an important tool. The next step was a workshop for disabled people, facilitated by a Lebanese resource person. This had 86 participants from the three villages, from Damascus and from elsewhere.
This preparatory phase then continued as workshop sessions in the three selected villages. Impairment caused by mobility problems was the most common disability in the three villages. Many adults had paraplegia and many children had cerebral palsy. Workshop sessions were aimed first at sharing knowledge and skills with selected family members and community workers for meeting the needs of these people.
The sessions also included discussion on social inclusion and adapting sports for disabled people in general. Sports was very popular with Syrian youth. Plans were being made to have disabled children included in summer camps, a popular phenomenon in Syria. It was at this time that I arrived in Syria.
Getting to know Syria
After I had completed the formal meetings with officials of all the required ministries the CBR team of three had arranged a programme for me to visit the villages in which community level activities had been started. This was to meet and get to know people involved and Syria’s community structures, networks and dynamics. And, in this context, to meet disabled people and their families. Community workers from government development programmes such as for youth, women, rural development and sports as well as for non-governmental workers were included. A very intensive programme.
For the second week they proposed that I facilitate two workshops of two days each. One at village level and the other at national level. The national workshop had been suggested by the three villages. The content of these workshops had not been selected. We did this in consultation with the people we met in the villages during the first week.
It was clear to me that here in Syria, the term “CBR volunteer” was used in a very broad sense and quite differently from other countries. The term was taken to mean any person who participated in the project in any way, whether it was in home visiting, organising community activities, sports or cultural activities for instance. Different people carried out different tasks voluntarily. This was an indication of community responsibility and participation and of the emphasis on disability inclusion. Another example of how the WHO CBR approach was adapted by a country as it was meant to, to suit its own ethos.
I found the community dynamics in the three villages remarkable. Their culture was a liberal one. Close knit communities with relatively easy mixing of men and women. Women greeted each other with a gentle hug and they did the same with me. They were mostly clothed in long dresses with their hair covered with scarves.
Men greeted each other with kisses on both cheeks. Me they greeted by placing their hand on the chest and saying a soft hello. Older men wore black trousers and long white shirts. Younger men had moved on to western dress with jeans and tee shirts. Altogether, the Syrians appeared to me as being a gentle, cultured, concerned and friendly people. I came to appreciate them in no time.
The villages were well organised architecturally with small traditional housing. In a few places I saw where the village had been extended with new concrete houses. In each village there was a centrally placed mosque with a tall minaret from which the call to prayer was disseminated to reach almost everywhere.
People interacted with each other through various networks. We would spend the whole day in one village; sometimes joining meetings of groups such as that of youth, women or sports groups; sometimes at a gathering arranged specially for our visit, may be in the community hall; and sometimes visiting disabled people with their family in their home.
Home visiting
We went around in a fairly large group. People joined us and left us according to their own plans for the day. I loved how relaxed and informal it all was. And every day the village had arranged lunch for us in one of their own homes. The group that was moving around with us at the time joined the hosts for lunch. There was always a large group sitting around on the special mats spread out on the floor of a central room in the home.
Lunch was always rice served in a very large dish as the main part of the meal, like it is in Sri Lanka. Here it was cooked with different meats, often lamb and sometimes beef with pine nuts. Rather like what we called buriani. The meal also included home-made Syrian bread which was just like Arabic bread. Also grape leaves stuffed with beef or lamb or rice with a strong flavour of lemon. There was always yogurt and always some kind of broth, often with tomato.
People helped themselves and each other from the dishes placed on colourful mats in the centre. Kaoru and I were always served by the householders because we were special guests in their home. We all ate with our hands as we do in Sri Lanka.
I had been told by Kaoru that I should never refuse food that was offered to me when we sat round for a meal. So of course I never did. But I learned how to avoid eating too much without actually refusing the food. This was hard to do because the food was absolutely delicious. But I kept reminding myself that there was much more work to be done in the afternoon.
There was continuous social chit chat over lunch, some of which was interpreted to me. Besides talk of the homes we had visited and what they could do about those families with disabled members, politics and the shows that would be on television that evening, I gathered that a popular topic was football.
My work in Syria
During the time spent in the three villages, we helped them to make plans for how they wished to proceed with implementing activities for their disabled people. And of the support they required. At every forum we had, numbers were large. Interaction was sometimes sharp with an exchange of different opinions, but always politely. Demonstrating extraordinary tolerance towards each other. Both women and men were equally vocal, frank in stating their views and their beliefs. There were always parents with their disabled children participating in the gatherings.
The extent of interest in CBR was remarkable. Disabled adults came forward everywhere I visited, to express their views. I thought that the team had done an extraordinary job of information dissemination and community preparation. Each of the villages had set up two special groups to take responsibility in particular areas. One was a “Committee of People with Disabilities” and the other a “Community Rehabilitation Committee”.
The second, the CRC, included people with disabilities. Decisions made by the first group of disabled people would be brought forward and discussed also within the second group. In this way, disabled people were also part of any decision making as well as making their own. Seeing these dynamics and level of knowledge within these communities it was easy to plan with them the first workshop.
At the same time I made a suggestion first to our team and then together to the two committees, to ask whether a representative group from the three villages would come to the national workshop in Damascus to share their experience with participants there. They felt rather privileged and of course were very happy to do so. They said two people would come from each village. For me and the team too, this would be a first experience.
Village workshop
The workshop was organised by the CBR volunteers. It was carried out very efficiently. The demand for participation I was told was very high, but they had to restrict that to a manageable number and then stretched it to observers making the maximum of 33. It is interesting to recall the varied backgrounds from which participants came, reflecting their understanding of CBR.
They came from the village or district women’s federations which included women with disability, disabled people as individuals and as organisations, family members, representatives of directorates of social affairs and labour, the health directorate and health centre, and the municipality. Participants included also the mayor, kindergarten teachers, school teachers, school directors, disabled people in employment, university students with and without disability, and many community volunteers.
It was held in the Youth Centre of one village. Government emphasis on the development of youth was high. The country had a Youth Federation with a network growing from village to national level. The Centre we were in was fairly recently built and was well equipped for sports.
Each village presented their report stimulating questions and discussions. The presentations indicated a significant interest and commitment to CBR from the outset. I shared an international perspective of CBR as it was being practiced in other countries. This provided participants with confidence in what they were doing. Also a chance to seek certain clarifications.
The presentation and discussion on education was extensive, because of the resources that called for investment to ensure physical access, teacher training and preparation of the education system. Besides, the value placed on education in Syrian society was high. During the workshop the possibility of including children and youth in recreational activities, summer camps and sports was discussed and plans made for this. They decided they would discuss the plans in further detail at future meetings.
Income generation for disabled youth was another topic that stimulated much discussion. It was because of difficulties they faced in this area that employers had been invited as resources.
Small group discussions focused on home visiting which had only recently been started, and on how this may be continued. Importance was placed on training of community volunteers. This discussion continued the next day on the roles and responsibilities to be taken by the disabled individuals and families. Also of the various community networks such as the two CBR committees, women’s and youth associations.
Finally, it was left to decide who would go to the national workshop and how they would share the presentation of their work. Altogether, the responsibilities that the participants perceived for themselves promised a successful outcome to this very interactive workshop. It looked not only at the present, but also inspired a vision for the future.
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
