Features
Proposed Penal Code amendmentand threat of promotion of sexual abuse of children – IV
by Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development
(The third part of this article appeared in The Island of 13 June 2023)
Joining the discussion, Freedom People’s Congress MP Prof. Charitha Herath has said that they would support decriminalization of same-sex relations, if and when the Bill is presented to Parliament.
‘‘We must engage with two domains to achieve the desired results. One is the political domain and the other is the cultural domain. We can change old fashioned political and cultural establishments through constant engagement. ‘’
‘’The technical approach alone will not usher in a meaningful change. That is why I highlight the importance of cultural discussions, as well, to overcome the existing barriers. Sometimes, I feel that these cultural platforms are forgotten by the younger generation,’’ Prof. Herath explained.
Minister Jeevan Thondaman countered the argument that culture was a barrier in achieving non-discrimination for the LGBTQ community in SL. He said ‘’ There is more than enough evidence from ancient history that same sex relations existed and they were very much embraced many, many centuries ago.’’ Thondaman pledged support to legislative reforms decriminalizing same-sex relations.
(E) Existing Penal Code provisions compared with Proposed Amendments
S. 365 of the original Penal Code: ‘’ Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.’’
In the Penal Code there is no definition as to what is meant by carnal intercourse against the order of nature. According to Indian cases, acts of anal sex and oral sex were considered as carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The Police had no idea as to what is meant by it. Only where there was a complaint of a person having anal or vaginal sex with an animal, like a cow, goat or a bitch, they acted on it. This happened very, very seldom and this provision remained almost unenforced.
However, with the promotion of tourism in the 1980s, many incidents of foreign tourists having anal sex with male children were reported. The Police used to produce the suspects in courts for committing an offence not under this Section but under S. 365A of the Penal Code, carrying a much less penalty.
By 1995 Amendments, S. 365 was amended by adding a clause making it explicitly applicable to punish sexual abusers of children.
1995 Amendment of S. 365 of the Penal Code –
‘’ Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be punished with fine and where the offence is committed by a person over 18 years of age in respect of a person under 16 years of age, the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding 20 years and with fine and shall also be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by court to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for injuries caused to such person.’’
The new Bill proposes to repeal S. 365 and substitute it with the following section:
‘’Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with an animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine.’’
Under the proposed Bill, anal or oral sex with any man, woman or child will no longer be considered as carnal intercourse against the order of nature; it will be considered as normal human sexual behaviour, not an offence punishable under the law.
This new Bill proposes to totally repeal S. 365A of the Penal Code, without any substitution.
S. 365A of the original Penal Code:
‘’Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to precure the commission by any male person, of any act of gross indecency with another male person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to two years or with fine or both, and shall also be liable to be punished with whipping.’’
This provision covered offences committed by male persons only. 1995 Amendment made it applicable to cover offences committed by both male and female persons and made provision for imposing deterrent penalties for offences committed on children.
1995 Amendment of S. 365A of the Penal Code –
‘’Any person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to precure the commission by any person, of an act of gross indecency with another person is guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to two years or with fine or both and where the offence is committed by a person over 18 years of age in respect of any person under 16 years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding 10 years and with fine and shall also be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by court to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for injuries caused to such person.’’
The Supreme Court Determination on the Bill…
Three persons had filed an application – SC SD No. 13 / 2023 – in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this Bill. Fourteen petitions have been filed by persons seeking Court’s permission to intervene in the Application and the Court has allowed their applications. Out of the 14 intervenient applications, intervenient petitioners only in two applications have supported the petitioners opposing the Bill. Intervenient petitioners in 12 intervenient applications have supported the Bill, opposing the petitioners.
Among the Intervenient petitioners who supported the Bill, there were representatives of four foreign-funded NGOs that have played a leading role in the anti-Sri Lanka campaign carried on in the UN HRC in Geneva making wild allegations against the Govt.
of Sri Lanka since 2006; representatives of 3 or 4 LGBTQ groups; a former Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo; a leading NGO figure who has served as the President and two other women who have served as members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka; a women who has served as the President of the National Child Protection Authority; the person who moderated the discussion at the Canadian High Commission and a major activist in the LGBTQ movement in Sri Lanka.
Having examined and analysed the arguments and submissions of the Counsels for the petitioners, intervenient petitioners, respondents and the Attorney General, the Court has made its determination in a lengthy a Judgement. As mentioned in the Judgement:
This Bill proposes to repeal S. 365A in its entirety. ‘‘It must be reiterated that the cumulative effect of the Bill, as captured in Clause (2) (iii), is that sexual orientation of a person shall no longer be a punishable offence, and any consensual conduct between two adult persons of the same sex, irrespective of whether it takes place in private or public, shall no longer be an offence.’’ – P. 10
‘‘The Counsels who appeared for the petitioners opposing the Bill have presented four arguments in support of their position that the provisions of the Bill are violative of Articles 1,3, 4d, 9, 12(1), 13(4), 27(1), 27(2)(d) and 27(13) of the Constitution…It must, perhaps, be stated at the outset that in our view, ex facie, none of the four arguments impinge upon the provisions of Articles 1, 3, 4d, 12(1) and 13(4) of the Constitution….
‘‘The first argument was that the safeguards provided in Ss. 365 and 365A for the protection of children and those under 16 years of age will be taken away by the amendments proposed by the Bill, thereby creating space for exploitation of children and leaving a lacuna in the enforcement of the law relating to offences against children.
‘‘In this connection it was further submitted that:
exposure to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programmes in schools could impact upon the free decision-making power of children and give rise to transgender children;
the enactment of the Bill would be contrary to the provisions in Article 27(13) which provides that ‘The state shall promote with special care the interests of children and youth, so as to ensure their full development, physical, mental, moral, religious and social, and protect them from exploitation and discrimination.’;
the protection presently afforded to children would be removed, if Ss. 365 and 365A are amended as proposed by the Bill, and that even a person under 16 years of age could engage in sexual activity with a person over 18 years of age.
‘‘ It is in this background that this Court was urged as the upper guardian of children to act in the best interests of the child and declare that the Bill is violative of Article 12(1).
The Stand taken by the State…
‘‘The learned Additional Solicitor General Haripriya Jayasundara, PC, submitted that women and children were the focus of the amendments introduced to the PC in 1995, and that while Ss. 365 and 365A were amended by increasing the punishment where one party was a person below the age of sixteen, S. 365B introduced a new offence titled ‘grave sexual abuse.’ It was further submitted by the Additional Solicitor General that the amendment introduced to S, 365B by the Penal Code Amendment Act No. 29 of 1998 specifically provides that consent with regard to any sexual conduct constituting grave sexual abuse is immaterial where the offence is committed in respect of a child below the age of 16. – vide S. 365B(1)(aa). It was her position that in the event the conduct of any person does not fall within the definition contained in S. 365B, S. 345 of the PC which deals with sexual harassment could be resorted to in order to protect children against any unwelcome sexual advances by words or action. Thus, the contention of the petitioners is unfounded and without any legal basis.’’
It appears that the Court has come to this conclusion on the basis of the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. However, her submission is far from correct. It does not appear from the Judgement as to whether the Counsels of the petitioners made any attempt to show the fallacy of the submissions made by the learned ASG.
‘‘The second argument of the Counsels of the petitioners was that the impugned amendment will dilute the Rule of the Law and result in the life and liberty of the citizens being at risk. This argument is even more tenuous and the petitioners have not been able to connect passing of this Bill to any violation of the Rule of the Law.
‘‘The third argument was that a majority of those with HIV and Aids have history of male or bisexual exposure and that decriminalization of same-sex relationships will give rise to an increase in the number of persons infected with HIV and Aids. It was further submitted that this would have an adverse impact on national security by destroying individuals, families, communities, economic and socio-political institutions, and the military police forces, and that the protection granted by the Chapter on fundamental rights cannot be truly enjoyed without the provision of a safe, secure and protective environment in which a citizen of Sri Lanka may realize the full potential of his existence.
‘‘However, little to nothing has been submitted to this court in support of this proposition other than a singular point that HIV and Aids affect those engaging in same-sex intercourse more than those engaging in hetero-sexual intercourse. Hence, the material placed before this Court by the petitioners does not support their position that HIV and Aids are only prevalent in homo-sexuals or that the proposed amendment will result in an increase in the number of persons afflicted with HIV and Aids.
‘‘Counsels for some of the intervenient petitioners presented three important arguments. The first was that it is not only homo-sexual males who contract HIV, but female sex workers, returnee migrant workers and those who use or inject drugs. The second is that criminalization of homo-sexual conduct between two consenting adult males has only resulted in such persons being marginalised from society and thereby being deprived to access of proper health care which if available would address the spread of HIV and Aids among those persons. The third is that the amendment of S. 365 and S, 365A would facilitate the outreach to individuals and groups at a heightened risk of infection. The intervenient petitioners and the ASG agree on the point that the perception that HIV is disproportionately higher in homo-sexuals is due to the social stigma caused by the criminalization of their relationships…..The Counsels of petitioners did not adduce any scientifically acceptable evidence in support of this line of thinking.
The fourth and final argument was that ‘‘homo-sexual activity is contrary to the principles of Buddhism and therefore violates Article 9 of the Constitution…. The petitioners did not explain the manner in which the decriminalization of one’s sexual orientation derogates from the State’s duty protect and foster Buddha Sasana nor the point of how the proposed amendments are prohibited by or contrary to Buddha Sasana, except to state that it is an offence (parajika) for a Buddhist priest to have sexual relations with another, irrespective of whether the other person is of the same sex or opposite sex.
‘‘On the contrary, Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardana, PC and Mr. Prasantha Lal de Alwis, PC, appearing for some of the intervenient petitioners submitted that: (a) Bhikkus and Bhikkunis have a separate code of conduct (Vinaya rules) and lay persons are not governed by the rules in the said code; (b) none of the ‘sutras’ focussed on the conduct of lay persons condemn homo-sexuality; (c) while the basic tenets of all religions are that all human beings should be treated fairly and equally irrespective of their circumstances, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism includes tolerance towards and equal treatment of all human beings and that Buddhism does not discriminate persons whose sexual orientation is anything other than hetero-sexual; (d) from whatever parity of reasoning, it would be outrageous for the petitioners to allege that a law which decriminalises homosexuality would result in the undermining of the Buddha Sasana.
‘’We are of the view that the final argument of the petitioners too lacks merit.
‘‘Most of the arguments put forward by and in support of the petitioners are largely based on speculation and may be disposed of summarily. For instance, the argument that children would be harmed by the passing of this Bill or the argument that there shall be an increase in the number of those afflicted with HIV and Aids is specious.’’ – P. 17 (To be continued)
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
