Features
Putting up a fight for appointment as Cabinet Secretary
Excerpted from the memoirs of B.P. Peiris
T. D. Perera, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, was appointed the first Secretary to the Cabinet in addition to his other duties. He was a mild man and rarely interfered with my work. He used to arrive at the Cabinet office at about 11 a.m. and, having seen the tappal and my orders thereon, leave about 10 minutes later. I was left more or less to act on my own responsibility.
But, in Cabinet, he was sometimes too talkative as Secretary and was snubbed on two occasions by the Ministers. Once, when he was arguing a point with E. A. P. Wijeratne, who was always polite, he was told by the Minister that the conversation would be carried on in that manner when the Secretary became a Minister. On the other occasion, G. G. Ponnambalam, in his usual bluntness, turned round to Prime Minister D.S. and said, “Sir, I am not prepared to carry on this conversation at this level”.
When I submitted a minute to T. D. that the Treasury connection in the Cabinet was undesirable, he disagreed and said it was most useful. It did not seem to strike him that in the Cabinet he was arguing the Treasury point of view and that he had already made an order against which the Minister was appealing. When the Minister started arguing, T. D. forgot that he was there in a dual capacity.
T. D. was succeeded by A. G. Ranasinha, who also held in addition, the office of Secretary to the Treasury. It was he, I heard, who expressed his amazement at the disrespect in the Legal Draftsman’s Department where assistants smoked in the presence of their Heads. I must confess I was a little nervous when his appointment was announced. I had not met him before and did not know him. Would he, I thought, object to my smoking in his presence when the Prime Minister had no objection to my smoking during a Cabinet meeting?
On the day of his appointment, he walked into my room and said, “I am Ranasinha. How do you run this office?” I told him that I attended to the work and seldom referred a paper to T. D. Perera. He said “Run it as before” and left. He was a charming man; my nervousness vanished. Here was a man, I thought, who has understanding and under whom I could work without friction. I am a very sensitive person and the slightest rudeness on another’s part upsets me.
Remember Mervyn Fonseka’s grilling. It has been my good fortune, during the period of my public service of 27 years, to have been stationed in Colombo in two departments and have had as my Heads five great gentlemen: J. Mervyn Fonseka, P. C. Villavarayan, H. N. G. Fernando, T. D. Perera and A. G. Ranasinha.
I mentioned to Ranasinha the slight friction which T. D. had with the Ministers after which he refused, as Secretary to the Cabinet, to be drawn into a discussion of Treasury matters. He used to say, and in my opinion quite rightly, that if any information was required, he would get his officials to come with the relevant files. Ranasinha did not come to office except on Cabinet days. He gave me complete administrative discretion.
I did not know that Ranasinha was a brother-in-law of Clement de Alwis of the Postal department, an old friend of mine. When the Government, in recognition of his services, conferred on him the titular rank of Mudaliyar, I received a special invitation from him to be present in the evening at his house at Kadawata. On my arrival, the Mudaliyar took me to the bar and, after a few ‘warmers’, I asked him whether a closed piano, which I saw, worked. The piano was so placed that a person playing could not see who was entering or leaving the house. When I had finished playing a piece, I heard Ranasinha’s familiar voice from behind saying “Play the Blue Danube”. The Mudaliyar kept filling my glass. It was past midnight.
My. boss probably thought I was ‘tops’. There was to be a Cabinet meeting the next morning and Ranasinha, on leaving, was gentlemanly enough to tell me not to bother to attend the meeting as he would “take it himself”. I do not remember at what time I left the party, but I did not want to take advantage of a man’s kindness. I was in attendance at the meeting.
In October 1954, the Post of Governor of the Central Bank fell vacant. Sir John Kotelawala was Prime Minister. At a Cabinet meeting he turned round to Ranasinha, and asked him immediately to resign his posts of Treasury Head and Cabinet Secretary as he was to be appointed as the Governor of the Bank. The Prime Minister also asked him to have L. J. Seneviratne appointed as his successor at both ends. I protested.
I said I had previously acted as Secretary, that I was on my maximum salary as Assistant and that I appeared to have no prospects if, every time the Cabinet post fell vacant, a Treasury official was to fill the vacancy. I heard Ranasinha’s voice in Cabinet, a rare occurrence. He said that since 1947 I had been doing all the work of the Cabinet Office without being paid for it, whereas T. D. Perera and he had been doing very little and been drawing the emoluments of the office.
He said that he did not agree with T. D. Perera that there should be a connection between the Cabinet and the Treasury (Lord! What a grand fellow, I thought). Sir John was a man of quick decision. He ordered that L. J. be appointed to the Treasury post and that the Cabinet post should not be filled until he returned from a 10 day visit to Jaffna which he was making the next day. This gave me plenty of time to think and, with my inability to bend my knee, I decided to put my case down in writing. I made the following minute to the Prime Minister:
“I respectfully ask that my name be considered for the post of Secretary to the Cabinet which is now vacant. Next March, I shall be 47 years of age. I am an advocate of 23 years standing with 18 years of public service. In the public service, I am junior by one year to Justice H. N. G. Fernando and senior by four months to Mr T. S. Fernando, Q.C., Solicitor-General.
The late Prime Minister selected me in 1946, out of all the draftsmen, to draft the Constitution and Elections Orders in Council. I am unaware of the reasons for his choice. When the Orders in Council became law, the late Prime Minister ordered me, on the telephone, to take charge of the Cabinet Office. Since then, that is October 1947, there have been 385 cabinet meetings, and I have attended and done the work of all these meetings except one which I missed because I had to attend court on summons.
I have done this work throughout unaided and on my own responsibility, because Mr T. D. Perera and Sir Arthur Ranasinha gave me a completely free hand. Neither of them has had occasion to find fault with my work. In fact, during these seven years, not more than 15 or 20 papers have been referred by me to the Secretary for orders. It will be seen therefore that during the last six or seven years, I have been de facto Secretary without the emoluments of office. I have acted as Secretary to the Cabinet on three occasions.
I am not aware of any other Dominion where the Cabinet Secretary holds office in another Ministry. In the early days, the late Prime Minister asked me to ascertain whether there was a Treasury connection in the United Kingdom. The following is the telegram I received from Sir Norman Brook, Secretary to the United Kingdom Cabinet:
“Chancellor of the Exchequer as Minister responsible for Treasury is member of Cabinet and puts forward Treasury considerations stop very exceptional for treasury officials to be present stop.”
Sir Norman told me that in the United Kingdom, they made it a principle that the Cabinet Secretary should be independent of all Ministers because no Minister should feel that any other had any special pull in the Cabinet by reason of the fact that one of his officers was also Cabinet Secretary. You are aware that in previous cabinets, Ministers have said that they found it embarrassing to express themselves freely while a Treasury official was present as Cabinet Secretary, as it was the same officer who had overruled their proposals in the Treasury. Cabinet practice requires that when an officer is wanted on any matter, he should be summoned to be in attendance on that matter only.
May I therefore ask that the position be now regularized with my appointment. I have no other avenue of promotion and have been stagnating on my maximum salary since 1952.
At Sir John’s first Cabinet meeting after his Jaffna tour, he told the Ministers that there was an urgent item which was not on the Agenda, namely, that the Cabinet was without a Secretary and that an appointment had to be made. He asked me to leave the room for a few minutes. He had read to the Cabinet my minute reproduced above. I was recalled in about ten minutes and informed that it was the unanimous wish of the Ministers that I should be the Secretary and I was appointed on October 14,1954. On my appointment as Secretary, my ex-officio appointment as a Justice of the Peace for the Judicial District of Colombo while holding the office of Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet lapsed and a fresh appointment was made.
The Press now complimented me:
The appointment of a fairly senior lawyer, who gathered his experience in the drafting department, as Secretary to the Cabinet, is a step in the right direction, for such a post should be held by one with some legal experience.”
Another newspaper commented:
The separation of the posts of Secretary to the Cabinet and Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Finance had to come some time, and the appointment of Sir Arthur Ranasinha as the Governor of the Central Bank, has evidently provided the opportunity to make the change. The position now conforms to that in Britain, where the Secretary to the Cabinet is also head of a department—the Cabinet Secretariat or the Cabinet Office as it is known.
It is this office that is responsible for the coordination of policy at the highest level, besides keeping records of the Committees of the Cabinet and the Cabinet itself, and for providing information and advice to Ministers and for issuing directions and promulgating decisions of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister to the Departments concerned.
Our Cabinet Office has yet to acquire a similar character. This it will no doubt develop henceforward, now that it is in full charge of the officer who has been in immediate control of it since the new constitution came into operation. Mr B. P Peiris, the new Secretary to the Cabinet, has also the advantage of having been associated with the drafting of the Constitution, which in fact was the reason for his being appointed Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet on its first formation. He is thus in the best position to organize the Cabinet Office as a clearing house for the Ministers.
I was privileged, on my appointment, to receive the following letter from the Chief Justice, the Hon. Hema Basnayake. I take the liberty of reproducing it in full:
“My dear Peiris,
“I am glad to hear that you have been appointed Secretary to the Cabinet. Let me congratulate you. Your office is one of great trust and responsibility. You have to keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut. I have no doubt that you will maintain the high traditions of your office and in due time become our Hankey.
“I think your office demands very hard work from you. Although you are not as a rule required to contribute to the discussions of the Cabinet, you should know all the Cabinet papers sufficiently well, so that, if members turn to you for guidance or help, you will be able to make some contribution to the solution of the problems before them. You should therefore keep in touch with the law, and I do not think you should give up your compilation of the Law Weekly Digest. You should not only know the judge-made law but you should also be conversant with the statute law.
“As you are the first holder of this office since its separation from the office of Secretary to the Treasury, the responsibility for creating the traditions of your office fall on you. You should set a very high standard to be emulated by your successors. I know that you are conscious of your responsibilities and I am confident that you will discharge those responsibilities with acceptance.”
I was fortunate to have the assistance and cooperation of a clerical staff consisting of honest, efficient and hard-working men who had been appointed by personal selection for their integrity and their loyalty to any Government for the time being, irrespective of its political colour, men who, as public servants took no part in politics except to register their votes at an election, men who were at the hub of Government, men who came to know all the secrets and who had no contact with the Press. Nothing leaked out from my office; and the newspapers called me the oyster in the public service.
I was unknown, unseen at public and diplomatic parties and unphotographed. I have been told by several Ministers that I have been a very efficient secretary. If that is so, a very large share of that tribute must go to my staff. I could not run the office unaided. When there was work to be done, they gladly did it, sometimes working till three in the morning. When there was no work, I did not bother if they disregarded the Government rule which demanded their punctual attendance in office at 9 a.m. They understood me and I understood my men. I should like to place on record my deep appreciation of the unfailing help I received at all times from every member of my staff.
Now, after many years in retirement, I ponder ‘Why was I liked, almost loved, by my men? Why was I respected? Why was I obeyed and my orders carried out loyally? Why were my punishments accepted without question?’ I could not answer these questions myself. But I put them to some of my men who still call on me sometimes in my retirement. They have all had but one answer: “Sir, your were human.”
The relationship between me and my staff was cordial. They were my friends and I always treated them as such.But Government requires a Head, in certain circumstances, to act according to prescribed regulations, and on such occasions, I have acted firmly with a sense of justice and fair play. I was never vindictive in any punishment I was compelled to impose and my officers knew and appreciated this.
I cannot close this Chapter without a reference to my friends, loyal servants of the Government, who are insultingly called “minor employees”. There was a great gentleman at their head, Arachchi Dissanayake. He was a rare type of gentleman, brought up in the ways of the bad old Colonial days. He was all courtesy. I have not come across another man like him. He was a podian in the Secretariat when my father was a clerk. When my father came to the Cabinet Office to see me, the Arachchi bowed low and greeted him, and my father remembered old times.
Mr Dissanayake retired from the public service after 43 years of loyal and honourable work. He had served a long line of distinguished Civil Servants including Sir Murchison Fletcher, Sir Bernard Bourdillon, Sir Graeme Tyrell, W. E. Wait, Sir Maxwell Wedderbum, W. L. Murphy, G. S. Wodeman, Sir Robert Drayton, Sir Charles Collins, T. D. Perera and Sir Arthur Ranasinha. Prime Minister Dahanayake made the following minute in his personal file:
Mr M. D. J. Perera Dissanayake, Arachchi in the Cabinet office, has had a most remarkable career. He had earned the trust and confidence of several superiors, who bear distinguished names, and his entire record is one of which anybody can be truly proud. His diligence, devotion to duty, loyalty and his general outlook towards work and responsibility is such as may be retold to all subordinate officers of the present and future as an example to be followed by one and all. I have great pleasure in recording my own high appreciation of his unique work.
When Mr Dissanayake retired, Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s Cabinet honoured him by posing for a photograph at Temple Trees, all standing. This was the first time that the Cabinet had posed for a photograph as a farewell to a public officer. The Ministers presented that Arachchi with a purse of one thousand rupees, a spontaneous gesture.
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
