Features
Ratification and accession to treaties under 21st Amendment to Constitution
By Dr. Dayantha Laksiri Mendis
BACKGROUND
It is an important issue to consider under the proposed 21st Amendment to the Constitution whether the President should sign, ratify or accede to treaties in consultation with the Prime Minister. In this article, it is proposed to provide an analysis of this important issue by reference to current constitutional law and practices of Commonwealth countries.
Before I deal with this issue, it is useful to outline the importance of treaties as outlined in the following references: (Richard Ware, “Parliament and Treaties” in Parliament and International Relations, (1991), pp.37-48; Lord McNair, Law of Treaties, (1961), pp.83-94; Sir Kenneth Keith, ‘New Zealand Treaty Practice: The Executive and the Legislature’ (1964), 1 N.Z.L.R., pp.277-281. J.E.S. Fawcett, The British Commonwealth in international law, (1963), at p.65; Anthony Aust – Modern Treaty Law and Practice, OUP UK 2006; F.A. Mann – Foreign Affairs in English Courts, OUP, UK 1986).
TREATIES IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
Treaty is an ancient legal instrument. It contributes to global and national governance. Treaty is a generic term and includes conventions, agreements, protocols, letters of exchange, compacts, etc. It can be defined as Agreements between States or between States and Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and between IGOs.
In modern times, negotiation and conclusion of treaties are regulated by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 VCLT) and the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations and between International Organizations (1986 VCLT). It is a specialized branch of international law and those who negotiate and conclude such treaties are diplomats and international civil servants. Usually, they have an understanding of the subject matter, as well as treaty law and practice.
Treaties can be multilateral, plurilateral or bilateral and they generally come into force on signature, ratification or accession. Important multilateral treaties signed, ratified and acceded to by Sri Lanka are: ICCPR 1966 and the Optional Protocol 1976, ICESCR 1966, Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, Geneva Conventions 1949 and the Additional Protocols 1977, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968, UN Convention on Climate Change 1992, UN Biodiversity Convention 1992, Paris Agreement, IMO Conventions, ICAO Conventions, etc.
Important plurilateral treaties signed or ratified by Sri Lanka are SAARC, BIMSTEC, IORAC, and they only apply to a group of states belonging to a particular region. Other famous plurilateral treaties are Treaty on European Union (Lisbon Treaty) and Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (CARICOM Treaty). These two treaties have established a single market and economy with free movement of persons, goods and services.
Important bilateral treaties signed by Sri Lanka are Rubber-Rice Pact 1956; 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, 1998 Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement, and 2018 Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. Other famous bilateral treaties are Camp David Accord 1976 and Shimla Agreement 1972.
Treaties must be distinguished from non-treaty instruments. Non-treaty instruments are MOUs, guidelines, codes of conduct and Resolutions of the UN Security Council, Human Rights Council, IMO, ICAO, etc. Unlike treaties, non-treaty instruments do not require consent of States. Some non-treaty instruments are legally binding on Member States and they are called “hard law” and some are not binding and they are called “soft law”.
Geneva Resolution 2015 30/1 of the Human Rights Council is a non-treaty instrument which applies to Sri Lanka. It was intended to bring reconciliation between the parties involved in the North-East armed conflict in Sri Lanka for a period of 30 years. This Resolution has created constitutional problems for Sri Lanka than any treaty or non-treaty instrument.
Article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 states, if a treaty (or non-treaty instrument) manifestly contravenes an internal rule of fundamental importance, a treaty could be rendered void at international level. This rule has evolved through Customary International Law and therefore it can be considered a part of Common Law of the United Kingdom and commonwealth countries.
In Sri Lanka, treaties do not apply at national level, as Sri Lanka is a dualist State where international law is considered a separate legal order. Hence, the transformation of treaties into national legislation by using suitable legislative techniques is necessary to give legal effect to treaties at national level as in other Commonwealth countries. (See: T. O. Elias, The Modern Law of Treaties, (1974), pp.142-50. According to Judge Elias, the question brings into focus the doctrinal controversy between monists and dualists schools of thought in international law. See also: D. L. Mendis, Legislative Transformation of Treaties, Statute Law Review, Volume 13, OUP, UK, 1992.
RATIFICATION OF TREATIES IN COMMON LAW COUNTRIES
In Sri Lanka, the President, under the 1978 Constitution has an inherent right to sign, ratify or accede to treaties without consulting the prime minister and without obtaining parliamentary approval by reference to constitutional provisions. This has led to bitter controversy among cabinet ministers since the Indo-Lanka Accord 1986.
In the United States of America, the President has to obtain approval of the Senate with a two-thirds majority to ratify treaties. Up to now, the President of USA has not been able to obtain the approval of the Senate for ratification of the 1982 LOS Convention.
In the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen signs, ratifies or accedes to treaties on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the ‘Ponsonby Rule’ was introduced in 1924 by late Mr. Arthur Ponsonby (then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) to obtain parliamentary approval prior to ratification of treaties with a view to encouraging open-government in foreign affairs.
The current application of the ‘Ponsonby rule’ is recorded in the twenty-first edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice in the following manner –
“When a treaty requires ratification, the Government does not usually proceed with the ratification until a period of twenty-one days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before parliament by Her Majesty’s command. This practice is subject to modification, if necessary, when urgent or other important considerations arise.”
The ‘Ponsonby rule’ is followed in many Commonwealth countries with variations and such varied practices relating to the modification of the ‘Ponsonby rule’ in “urgent” or “important” situations are noted in the U.N.I.T.A.R. Study. (See: O. Schachter, M. Nawaz and J. Fried (eds.) – Toward Wider Acceptance of U.N. Treaties, (New York, 1971), pp.95-96). Several variations of the Ponsonby rule are noted in the UNITAR Study at p.95).
AN EMERGING PRACTICE IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
In recent times, there appears to be an emerging constitutional practice in Commonwealth countries to obtain approval of Parliament either in the form of implementing legislation or by way of the Resolution prior to signature, ratification or accession in regard to certain category of treaties as provided hereinbelow:
1. A treaty itself may mandate the approval of Parliament either by way of a Resolution or in the form of implementing legislation prior to signature, ratification or accession to treaties. It is necessary in such circumstances to obtain Parliamentary approval by way of a Resolution or in the form of implementing legislation prior to signature, ratification or accession to treaties.
For example, Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) entered into force for the U.K. only after it was subjected to a heated debate in Parliament in November 1985 and was approved by the Parliament as required by the text of the treaty. Similarly, a large number of treaties initiated by or under the auspices of international organizations may require enactment of implementing legislation at national level prior to signature, ratification or accession to such treaties. (See: Articles of Agreement of the I.B.R.D., I.M.F. and I.F.C. require such approval. In moving the second reading in the House of Commons of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (M.I.G.A.) Bill, the former Minister for Overseas Development, Mr. Chris Patten stated: “The Bill is required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention establishing MIGA, which is an international organization associated with the World Bank…”).
2. In some Commonwealth countries, a “binding constitutional practice” has emerged in the sphere of public policy to obtain parliamentary approval in the form of implementing legislation prior to signature, ratification or accession to “important” or “controversial” treaties at national level.
For example, in the United Kingdom, the Hong Kong Agreement 1984 and the Single European Act 1986 were approved by the House of Commons and implementing legislation was enacted before such treaties were ratified by the Executive. Some treaties initiated by international organizations are also enacted into national law before ratification or accession to such treaties because of their political and legal importance at international and national level.
3. Constitutional or statutory provisions may require parliamentary approval in the form of implementing legislation prior to signature, ratification or accession to a certain category of treaties.
For example, section 3 of the Ratification of Treaties Act 1983 (No. 5 of 1983) of Malta provides that a certain category of treaties require parliamentary approval in the form of implementing legislation.
Similar provisions are also found in the Ratification of Treaties Act 1987 (No.1 of 1987) of Antigua and Barbuda. In such situations, approval of Parliament is generally obtained in the form of implementing legislation before instruments of ratification are deposited. The draft Millennium Challenge Compact (MCC) required the enactment of implementing legislation prior to signature for purpose of its implementation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In Sri Lanka, there is no reference whatsoever to treaties under article 33 of the 1978 Constitution. Hence, it is proposed that the following provisions should be inserted as article 33 (gg) the signature, ratification or accession to treaties by the President shall be undertaken in consultation with the Prime Minister.”
In Sri Lanka, parliamentary approval is not necessary prior to signature, ratification or accession to a treaty, as there are no constitutional or statutory provisions requiring such approval.
Many Commonwealth countries have enacted legislation requiring the approval of Parliament for a certain category of treaties as illustrated in the preceding parts of this article.
In the UK, Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires parliamentary approval for ratification of a certain category of treaties. Thus, this piece of legislation has taken the Ponsonby Rule to its logical end to ensure open government in foreign affairs.
In the Republic of India, the National Commission was established in 2001 to review treaty-making power under the Indian Constitution, as there are no constitutional provisions regulating treaty-making powers. The Commission recommended such approval of Parliament. However, up to now, there has been no constitutional amendment enacted to ensure parliamentary approval for a certain category of treaties, although an attempt was made on 5th March 1993 by George Fernandez to introduce a Constitutional (Amendment) Bill to this effect in Lok Sabha.
In Sri Lanka, the Yaha Palana Draft Constitution inserted the following provision to fill the lacuna in the 1978 Constitution in the following manner:
“47. XX The Constitution would require that every treaty, along with a memorandum explaining its implication, be tabled in Parliament at least one month before ratification. Parliament may adopt a resolution recommending ratification, reservation or even non-ratification. The Executive would be bound by the terms of such resolution.
Parliament shall be informed of the ratification of every such treaty forthwith.
The provision of a human rights treaty shall become part of the domestic law on the expiry of a period of two years reckoned from the date of ratification. Parliament may by resolution extend such period by one year or reduce such period. Any further extension of the period not exceeding one year at a time would require two-thirds majority. Where Parliament passes a law incorporating a part but not the entirety of a treaty before automatic incorporation, the unincorporated provision would become domestic law at the end of the period concerned.
In relation to human rights treaties to which Sri Lanka is a party at the time the new constitutional provisions come into effect, the two-year period shall begin to run from such time.”
I humbly submit that in Sri Lanka parliamentary approval for a certain category of treaties is necessary prior to signature, ratification or accession to treaties. It is the Parliament and only the Parliament should be the final arbiter on granting approval for signature, ratification or accession to treaties. A draft Bill, on this subject, by the author of this article, is contained in the book titled: PERSPECTIVE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN SRI LANKA, published by the International and Comparative Law Society, of Sri Lanka, 2021, pp. 492-501. (Editors: Dr. Hiran W. Jayewardene and Prof. Sharya Scharenguivel).
(The view expressed are personal and not that of Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute. He served as Ambassador to Austria and Permanent Representative to the UN in Vienna. He served as UN and Commonwealth Legal Expert/Adviser in many countries. He also served as Legislative and Treaty Drafting Expert at the CARICOM Secretariat in Georgetown, Guyana (South America) for several years. Email: mendis_law@yahoo.com).
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
