Features
MINISTRY of JUSTICE LEGAL REFORMS: Treatments aggravating disease instead of curing
By Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2021 were passed by Parliament on July 6, 2021 under the Law Reforms Project of the Ministry of Justice for the purpose of making the country torture free by strengthening the law against torture.
This Criminal Procedure Amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month and examine the persons detained therein. Torture Convention Amendment Act has increased the fines that can be imposed on persons found guilty of torture.
Commencing the Second Reading Debate on these two Acts, the Minister of Justice had said in Parliament that Articles 11 and 13 (5) of the Constitution have guaranteed freedom from torture and presumption of innocence of every person, until proved guilty by law. The Release of Remand Prisoners Act of 1991 enabled the Magistrates to visit prisons, but the proposed Amendments have gone further to guarantee freedom from torture. The Government has identified the importance of treating suspects humanely and this proposal is just one of the measures that the Government takes to guarantee these rights of the people.
However, how lofty the Minister’s objective may be, it can be categorically stated that the Government would never be able to achieve its declared objective of eradication of torture in custody with these amendments. Both these are impracticable and unnecessary Amendments brought in, without a proper understanding of the ground realities and the actual operation of the existing law. The concerned authorities have found the Torture Act of 1994 impracticable due to an inherent weakness in a provision in the Act. Without identifying and removing that obstacle that retards its effective implementation, torture cannot be eliminated by increasing the fines.
Torture Act Amendment
By this Amendment Act, S. 2 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994 has been amended in subsection (4) of that section by substituting for the words ‘a fine not less than 10,000 rupees and not exceeding 50.000 rupees‘ of the words ‘a fine not less than 50,000 rupees and not exceeding 200,000 rupees.‘
Over the years, in a large number of fundamental rights applications the Supreme Court has found law enforcement officers responsible for torture and ordered them personally to pay compensation to the victims of torture. Human Rights Commission also has found in its inquiries a large number of officers responsible for torture and ordered them to pay compensation to the victims. Yet since the enactment of the Torture Act in 1994, only a very small number of officers have been prosecuted under the Torture Act.
The Torture Act of 1994 contains an inherent flow which prevents its provisions from being effectively implemented. Under S. 2 of the Act torture, or the attempt to commit, or aiding and abetting in committing or conspiring to commit torture is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years and not exceeding 10 years and a fine not less than 10,000 and not exceeding 50,000 rupees. Not only torture but even attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit torture is punishable with the same penalty, a mandatory minimum jail sentence of seven years and a minimum fine of 10,000 rupees. A police officer who slaps a man on his face causing a minor scratch, if indicted under the Torture Act, will invariably get a jail sentence of seven years.
Under the normal criminal law of the country, the maximum penalty that can be imposed for causing simple hurt, even with a sharp cutting weapon, causing the victim to receive treatment in a hospital for several days, is six months jail sentence. It is a compoundable offence. A court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case for causing simple hurt under S. 314 of the Penal Code without a certificate from a Mediation Board certifying that the dispute cannot be settled. In torture cases, under the Act, the Court has no discretion, but to impose the mandatory minimum jail sentence laid down in the Act. It is common knowledge that our Courts give suspended sentences to accused even in murder cases when they plead guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under certain circumstances.
The maximum penalty that can be imposed even on the worst torturer who subjects the victim to the most cruel, degrading and inhuman acts of torture is 10 years imprisonment. There is no much of a difference between the minimum sentence and the maximum sentence despite the varying degrees of acts of torture. Courts have no discretion on the matter of sentence. This imbalance in sentences which does not take into consideration the different grades of culpability has prevented the law enforcement agencies from giving effect to this provision of the Torture Act. So long as the minimum and maximum penalties for torture remains in this state, the Police, the Attorney General’s Department and the Courts will find it difficult to act on this law.
Sri Lanka acceded to the UN Convention against Torture in January 1994. In its first four-yearly periodical country report presented to the UN Committee against Torture in May 1998 outlining the steps taken to eliminate torture and punish perpetrators of torture, Sri Lankan Authorities had made a clever attempt to cover up its failure to prosecute torturers under Torture Act. The Report stated that action against torture had a place in Sri Lanka’s law since 1883 and that any person who tortures another would be guilty of an offence punishable under the criminal law of the country. It referred to Ss. 310 – 329 of the Penal Code dealing with voluntarily causing hurt.
Considering Sri Lanka’s Periodical Country Reports, the UN Committee has expressed its concerns repeatedly on the failure of Sri Lankan Authorities to deal with torturers under the provisions of the Torture Act.
In S. C. Reference No. 03/08, the Supreme Court, citing several previous Supreme Court decisions, discussed at length the constitutionality and the impact of mandatory sentences on the exercise of judicial discretion and held that the minimum mandatory sentence in S. 364(2)(e) of the Penal Code is in conflict with Articles 4(c), 11 and 12(1) of the Constitution and that the High Court is not inhibited from imposing a sentence that it deems appropriate in the exercise of its judicial discretion notwithstanding the minimum mandatory sentence laid down in the law.
A few years back, some Police Officers were indicted under the Torture Act in a High Court case and, on conviction, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. They appealed against the sentence and the Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court Judgement in S. C. Reference No. 03/08, varied the sentence of seven to two years imprisonment.
As early as 1999, in its comments on the first periodical report of the Government of Sri Lanka to the UN Committee in 1998, the Lawyers for Human Rights and Development (LHRD) pointed out this weakness in the Torture Act and the urgent need of amending the provision relating to minimum mandatory sentences of imprisonment allowing judicial discretion on the matter of sentence.
So long as the Torture Act remains in this state, the Authorities will find it difficult and be hesitant to prosecute their colleagues involved in torture under the provisions of the Torture Act. This amendment brought to the Torture Act for increasing fines that can be imposed for the offences under the Act is an utterly meaningless exercise. Torture cannot be eliminated by increasing fines. What is important is not the heavier penalties, but prosecuting all offenders under the provisions of the Torture Act. Only then it will have a deterrent effect. If the government is serious about giving effect to the law, it should amend the Torture Act laying down more realistic penalties compatible with the ordinary criminal law of the country and take necessary steps to enforce the law directing the IGP and the AG to prosecute all offenders.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021
The enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 is also another meaningless exercise. There was no need at all to bring this amendment and it will not serve any purpose. Existing legal provisions and judicial practices are quite adequate to address the problems if properly enforced with necessary guidelines and supervision. This Amendment will only add an additional, unnecessary burden on Magistrates. It is another instance of these legal advisers of the Ministry groping in the darkness without any understanding of the ground realities.
This Amendment has added a new Section – S. 43B to the Criminal Procedure Code:
S. 43B (1) It shall be the duty of every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month to ensure that the suspects under the police custody at such police station are protected to the extent provided for in the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Magistrate who visits the police station shall (a) personally see the suspect, and look into his well-being, welfare and conditions under which he is kept at such police station: and (b) record his observations and any complaint the suspect may make.
(3) Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the suspect may have been subjected to torture, the Magistrate may direct that the suspect be produced before a JMO or a govt. medical officer for medical examination, and a report be submitted by such medical officer to the Magistrate.
(4) Where the report of such medical officer reveals that the suspect has been subjected to torture, the Magistrate shall make an appropriate order, including directions to provide necessary medical treatment to the suspect and to change the place of custody of such suspect.
(5) The Magistrate shall also direct the IGP to commence an investigation into the alleged torture in order to enable the AG to institute criminal proceedings against the person who is alleged to have committed the torture.
This is impracticable and meaningless for the following reasons:
This amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once a month. It is a matter of common knowledge that almost all the Magistrate’s Courts are overburdened with work, having a large number of cases to handle every day. In the Judicial Division of every Magistrate’s Court there are 3 – 4 police stations. Despite their heavy schedules, every month a Magistrate will be compelled to devote at least two days to discharge this additional burden placed on them.
Under the normal law of the country, a person arrested cannot be detained in Police custody for more than 24 hours, they have to be produced before the lapse of 24 hours before a Magistrate. Such detention in Police custody over 24 hours is a violation of fundamental rights. Suspects arrested on the previous day are produced before the Magistrate on the following day before the lapse of 24 hours. Suspects are not arrested and not kept in Police custody every day. Quite often the Magistrates will find in their visits that there are no suspects held in Police custody for them to examine.
Persons arrested can be kept in custody for more than 24 hours only when arrests are made under laws with special provisions for detention of suspects such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Emergency Regulations or the Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Persons arrested and detained under these laws are not kept at Police Stations, but in special Police Units such as the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Terrorist Investigation Division (TID), Crime Detection Bureau (CDB) or the Narcotics Bureau of the Police.
Instead of making provisions for visiting these special units of investigations and examining detainees held therein, there is no point in requiring all Magistrates to visit all the Police Stations in the country situated within their jurisdictions.
Moreover, there are other institutions already functioning with adequate powers, facilities and resources to make regular visits to police stations like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of Sri Lanka. HRC has a 24-hour functioning hotline to receive complaints of torture and illegal detention of suspects in excess of 24 hours. The moment HRC receives a complaint of torture or arrests and detention of persons, HRC officials immediately contact the relevant Police Station and conduct inquiries, visiting the place if necessary. We know of a large number of instances where the HRC has intervened over the years in this manner.
As the Minister himself has mentioned in his speech in Parliament, there is an Act enacted in 1991 requiring all Magistrates to visit Prisons situated within their judicial divisions once a month.
S. 5 of the Release of Remand Prisoners Act No. 8 of 1991 requires every Magistrate to visit every prison situated within the judicial division in respect of which he is so appointed, at least once a month.
However, only a handful of Magistrates in the country have complied with this legal requirement. If the Ministry of Justice could ensure that this legal requirement is strictly complied with by all Magistrates that would certainly result in addressing many of the grievances of suspects in custody and reduction of the heavy congestion in our prisons.
As held by the Supreme Court in fundamental rights applications, when a suspect is produced in Court from Police custody it is the duty of the Magistrate to question and probe the suspect so produced and record his observations. To do that the Magistrate need not visit Police stations.
In this connection it is relevant to quote from the Supreme Court Judgement of Justice L. H. G. Wijesekera in the case of Pradeep Kumar Dharmaratne vs. Inspector of Police Dharmaratne and others, S. C. Appn. No. 163/98, SCM 17. 12. 1998: “In my opinion it is indeed a matter of concern and trepidation that Magistrates in spite of repeated reminders by this Court do not exercise what is their duty, namely to question and probe from a person produced before them from Police custody and to so record his observations. It has been my experience that Magistrates did act so and it was a deterrent to breaches of fundamental rights even when they were not enshrined by a constitution. It is a further tragedy that some members of the legal profession do not act with courage and fearlessness in what is their duty. I say so with responsibility inasmuch as an allegation of assault and of torture has been made to the Superintendent of Police on the 17th of February 1998 after this release of the petitioner by the Magistrate in consequence of which the petitioner was produced before the JMO, but the Attorneys-at-Law did not bring this to the notice of the Magistrate.’’
If the Ministry of Justice is serious about guaranteeing freedom from torture what the Ministry should do is not enacting this type meaningless and impracticable amendments but issuing a Circular to all Magistrates with the approval of the Judicial Service Commission stressing the need of strict compliance with the provisions in the existing law and the Supreme Court decisions and call for regular reports on the compliance with directions in the Circulars.
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
