Features
JVP or SJB in pole-position?
by Kumar David
By all accounts the JVP’s star is rising; everybody says so. We have had similar scenarios before where it seemed the JVP was at peak but the outcome in the subsequent election was disappointing. Will it be the same again? No one can say till the results of local government (LG) or provincial council (PC) elections, due early and later this year, respectively, are known. The regime like a headless chicken is scampering to foil elections; it fears the JVP or SJB, or both will do well while pro-government entities will flop. But election forecasting is black-magic; let us watch. If the government does badly at LG or PC polls a new game begins. Or before that president and regime may scrap elections; this danger is real but I will not pursue that line of thought today though Burkina Faso became the latest domino to fall to the military on Sunday. Still, unbelievably all Sri Lankas’s entities, political and civilian are sleep walking into the abyss. The political and economic situation today is reminiscent of January 1962 at the time of the attempted coup .
Back to my topic. The SJB must sell to the people the conventional liberal-democratic, market-economy; the conventional capitalist development strategy. People are accustomed to it; this has both advantages and disadvantages. The big obstacle is that Sajith will not agree to dump the presidential system though a majority of people of all races and faiths are fed up with it. The JVP-NPP has a harder sell despite belief that a new broom will sweep cleaner. There are two things to do; one, better present the alternative state and economic strategy, the key word is alternative; second, convince people that the wild old ways are gone. The bad old days are heavy laden with two problems; a proclivity to foolhardy violence and an unsound position on the national question. I have said my part, for now, about how it can spruce up the alternative constitutional and economic outlook in my columns of 2, 9 and 16 January on the NPP manifesto, therefore will give that a slip today. I will comment on the “bad old days” conundrum in this column.
There is a reserve of voters who would like to vote JVP-NPP but remain reluctant because of recollections of 1971 and 1989; either personal recollections or they know all about it. This means that not only one-foot-in-the-grave old folk but younger voters too are put off by the gonibilla stories. How can the JVP change this? It’s not going to be easy; words, apologies and promises cut no ice in the cut and thrust of practical politics. But a point to note is that this stain has not rubbed off on the NPP which did not exist in those bad old days, and more important, now includes people who at risk to life and limb fought that madness. Were they to wield authority now, they will not permit anything of this sort to recur. Hence one adjustment that will help reassure voters is if the NPP wields significant power in the alliance with a degree of authority to veto decisions. Does this sound as if I am whistling for the tail to wag the dog? Maybe it does, but cross transfer of leading personnel will be reassuring. There will have to be an NPP presence in the leading bureaus and committees of the JVP. If the JVP says “No” it needs to explain how it intends to win public confidence that the ultra-left excesses of yesteryear will not be repeated.
My suggestion of cross-fertilisation of personnel will provoke dissent but the JVP leadership needs to face facts. Recently the JVP established a Consultative (or Advisory) Council of significant people; three of them of long Marxist political vintage I know well (Lal Wijenayake, Prof Vijaya Kumar and Dr Michael Fernando). I am sure there are others who are important. Such persons can serve a better purpose if they are not on peripheral advisory councils but in JVP ‘hard-core’ decision making bodies. I say this bearing in mind the future of the JVP not the NPP. The former not the latter is the crucial element in the relationship and balanced power sharing is needed for the benefit of the JVP. JVP leaders participate in NPP gatherings and no doubt report back to the party but this is not the same thing.
I had an email from an ex-LSSP comrade Jumpy who is in a sense an ally of the JVP-NPP alliance. He said “I read your piece on Sunil Handunetti in Colombo Telegraph with interest. The JVP has not changed and is using the NPP as a mask. I know you will not agree”. True, I do not agree with Jumpy but the perception of lurking post-election left-authoritarianism in the mind of the electorate and democratic leftists must be addressed. The JVP must take structural steps to change the perception. This is a more general need than simply promising not repeating 1971 and 1989 type ultra-left excesses. The examples of Nicolo Maduro and Daniel Ortega renew such fears in the public mind at every turn.
The SJB does not suffer from perceptions of internal power imbalances, although the ex-UNP wing is predominant. The role of other partners is clear and the Front is seamless to outsiders. The presence of influential leaders with clout who do not have the same organisational genesis as Sajith – Champika Ranawaka for example – establishes a more equitable power distribution. The JVP will not gladly accommodate my suggestions for changes in power relationships, but honestly, I don’t see a way forward for the NPP and more significantly for the JVP except by opting for a less-closed, less old-fashioned semi-Blanquist structure. I hope for constructive comments from others; there is time enough for reconsideration and discussion.
The relationship of the JVP to the national minorities is also tricky. It appeared from Anura Kumara’s statements that the JVP was reassessing its reactionary position on the national question and close to admitting that its association with state forces that brutalised Tamil civilians during the civil war was wrong. However, that apart from Anura no other JVP leader has said anything similar or attempted to mend fences with the Tamils, Ceylon or Upcountry. (Forgive me if I am ill informed). Sunil Handunetti’s interview with Sirimantha Ratnasekera, Sunday Island, 16 Jan seemed to confirm my fears. His topic was opposition to “India’s plan to capture the Trinco oil tank farm and to take forward its expansionist intentions”. This is not a matter on which I have views; I have not studied it. What startled me was his next comment.
“The government has been compelled to sign this agreement. It is Déjà vu of the Indo-Lanka agreement which was pushed down the throat of Lanka on July 29, 1987. India got the JR Jayewardene government to sign the agreement by coercion. They dropped ‘parippu’ here, violating our air space. They sent an army of 150,000 while Sri Lanka’s army had only 72,000 cadre strength. This time they have used economic means for coercion”.
Let’s take a long view. I think it is correct to say that this is the opinion of four in five of Sinhalese people. However, I am also certain that four in five of Tamils distrust and fear the military and are pleased with the ‘parippu’ drop. (Many, from unpleasant experience however, are livid with the IPKF). Now I am not asking which view is correct; that’s not my point at all. The crucial matter is that there is not one uniform consciousness or common stance of the two communities on an event as serious as this. There are two different consciousnesses! And this is so in respect of much else of the conversation about ethnicity. A left party needs to take the fullest cognisance of this.
This puts a certain onus on the left about how to navigate these waters. I think the LSSP from the inception up to about 1960, and the Vama Samasamaja movement from its inception and the NSSP in its early days (I have no idea what the NSSP stands for anymore) did navigate this issue with leftist, liberalist and Marxist common-sense. However, it is difficult to believe that a conversation of depth and seriousness has taken place within the JVP on the “national question”. This perhaps is why the views of different leaders is disjointed and at times discordant. The JVP would do itself a favour if it set aside a goodly period of time and commissioned a thoroughgoing discussion of what its theoretical stance on the Tamil minority question is. What the NPP’s manifesto says is perhaps adequate for electoral purposes but a serious-minded party must have a thoroughly worked-out understanding, not bitty comments by this leader or that. The JVP needs to evolve from a robust and radical political party and reach the stature of an alternative government.
In other countries, say in North and South America and India there is vigorous dialogue among thinkers and activists about race. In the United States it is framed in terms such as critical race theory, the legacy of slavery and reparations, “black lives matter”, the case made by white supremacists, the looming Trump-Republican threat to curtail voting rights for people of colour, poverty and race, and so on. There is no dialogue of even remotely comparable depth or sophistication in our country. The SJB is sterile and has nothing new or old to say on the matter. The JVP must perforce move forward from a formula position to lively, no-holds barred open internal dialogue; the more open and the more outsiders are invited to participate the more productive it will be.
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
