Features
Rehashing the failures of the Left
By Uditha Devapriya
In Sri Lanka, March conjures visions of big matches, cycle parades, and elitist tamashas in Colombo. This March, we will be seeing an outpouring of opposition, defiance, resistance. The outpouring is in the form of anger at the powers that be and their enforcement of austerity at any price. The elite of course see austerity as a prelude to stability, and conflate the two: hence the tendentious sermonising about the necessity of the reforms they are implementing now. Protesters and demonstrators, on the other hand, are demanding greater equity and fairness: they are not against these reforms, but against what they see as unfair taxes and tariff hikes. There is clearly a disconnect here.
The Sri Lankan State has always resorted to force to assert its will. This is what a State does, anywhere. Yet for all its flaws and excesses, the Gotabaya Rajapaksa regime thought twice about resorting to the kind of force that we are seeing today. That government was caught off-guard and plunged straight into a crisis for which neither it nor the country at large was ready. Against such a backdrop, the Rajapaksa regime did not know how to respond to an unprecedented groundswell of popular hatred.
As Lakshman Gunasekara has clearly, and aptly, observed, the protests showed not so much a seething discontent with the regime as a pivotal shift in the government’s constituencies, in particular the Southern peasantry and Sinhala middle-classes. In other words, the regime’s biggest supporters were turning against their man. The absence, in their eyes, of an alternative leadership in the Opposition meant that these classes had only one option, that of popular revolt.
The government’s seeming inability to mobilise itself in the face of these protests had to do with the fact that protesters came under one roof – in Galle Face – with one aim in mind, namely deposing the President. There may have been differences, and as the days and months progressed, as the President appointed his former arch-rival as his Prime Minister, these differences did come to light. But by and large, the President did not budge or blink. He remained where he was and this enabled protesters to proceed with their campaign to remove him. In doing this they were willing to overlook petty political differences. It is an open secret that Sri Lanka’s middle-classes have a phobia against socialist politics. And yet, with their aim of toppling a reviled President, they allowed left-wing elements, particularly the FSP-allied IUSF, into the protests, expressing solidarity with them.
Colombo’s liberal commentariat welcomed this. For them, it was something to be praised, encouraged. Yet underlying it was a fatal contradiction. The protesters were all united, yes, but only insofar as their goal of getting rid of Gotabaya Rajapaksa remained unachieved or unrealised. The IUSF managed to parade itself, understandably, as heroes of the day: when they walked to Colombo, nearly everyone at Galle Face got up and cheered them. Yet not long ago, when the police and army were deployed to baton-charge, tear-gas, and imprison them, the middle-classes valorising them today took to social media to excoriate them. The immiseration of this class transformed their outlook. They had once looked up to the army, nationalist politicians, and fellow travellers. Now they were looking up to student protesters and their fellow travellers. There was something astonishing about this.
Whether the Left’s aims in, and for, these protests were right or wrong is another debate altogether. I am concerned here with a much narrower perspective: that of political survival. From that vantage point, it’s clear that the Left failed to establish itself at the centre of the protests when they could have. Gotagogama had been patronised if not funded by moneyed interests: it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. These moneyed interests – including not just wealthy expatriates but also business elites hard done by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration’s economic policies – were admittedly invested in the popular uprising. But they were not willing to go beyond that moment. This much should have been clear to the Left when, after Rajapaksa’s appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe, a section of the protests moved out or sounded caution on the movement. Even at such a juncture, when it was clear the momentum of the protests would be lost, neither the IUSF nor the Left parties linked to it or associated with it did much to ensure their continuity.
There is an argument currently going around, peddled mainly by the Left, but also the liberal intelligentsia, that last year’s aragalaya transcended ethno-racial distinctions, that it had the trappings of a truly “Sri Lankan” movement. But this is telling only half the story. The silence of northern civil society, even in the face of growing unrest in Colombo and the rest of the country, revealed differences between those same ethno-racial groups that left and liberal commentators contended the aragalaya had brought together at Galle Face Green. And it wasn’t just ethno-religious distinctions. The aragalaya, typical for any leaderless movement, played host to an array of individuals and classes, some of whom may have envisioned the protests as a platform for tolerance, but many of whom were not above using chauvinist rhetoric to amplify their appeal. The homophobic slurs I was privy to at Gotagogama, on the day before Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation, showed that much.
Again, there is nothing really to critique in this. Liberals may beg to differ, but a popular uprising mobilises collectives and classes from across a wide spectrum. Given the lack of a definitive leadership in them, such uprisings typically make use of populist rhetoric to push itself forward. The fact is that in the context of the aragalaya at Gotagogama, this rhetoric was directed exclusively at, and against, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The Left was unable to use that rhetoric to their advantage because it was directed at a person and did not cover, still less address, the systemic dimensions of the crisis. There is a simple reason for this. By April 2022 a consensus had built up, peddled by Colombo’s economic establishment, that the roots of the crisis lay in an overstretched public sector and welfare system, and that this had entrenched political elites. The establishment was able to perpetuate this narrative so well that when the walls came crashing down on Gotabaya Rajapaksa in July, it swiftly turned the tables on socialist outfits that had until then enjoyed much support.
Supporters of the present government – or specifically, the present President – have frequently noted that it was the protests which enabled him to come to power. This is a line touted by the New Left, particularly the JVP-NPP, as well. As an affirmation or a critique of the status quo, it is only half-correct: the aragalaya demanded a system change, but did not quite specify what, or who, they wanted. Yet it demanded an overhaul of the status quo. By definition, this included Ranil Wickremesinghe. When Rajapaksa took him in as his Prime Minister, he may or may not have known that his days were numbered. On the other hand, Wickemesinghe may or may not have known that his time was coming. In that context, as a yet docile Premier, Wickremesinghe made use of the movement to project himself as a voice of sanity, a progressive political force.
What could the Left have done? It’s hard to say. What was undeniably clear then was that Rajapaksa would go: it was a question of when, not if. But what came after? I know a few JVP-NPP supporters who allege that the FSP stole the thunder or the moment, made use of its lack of representation in parliament, and started clamouring for a people’s parliament outside the democratic system. The JVP-NPP did not heed such calls at first. But faced with immense pressure, so the JVP-NPP’s supporters critical of the FSP tell me, they joined the call to walk to parliament after July 13. The result was that it became much easier for anti-Left elements in the aragalaya – and there were very many of them, prime among them the social media stars – who cautioned against these outfits and who successfully depicted the JVP-NPP and FSP as a monolithic movement. This only empowered Ranil Wickremesinghe to resort to the “Against Anarchy” line his regime has been touting ever since.
Will the Left learn from these mistakes? I think they should. And I think they eventually will. Yet the old problems remain. The recent spate of protests is directed at one thing: unfair taxation. The economic right today is busy depicting this struggle as contradictory to the aims of the very left-wing, socialist groups organising it: these groups, so the argument goes, are against higher taxation of the sort that socialist parties elsewhere are promoting. It is unclear what answers the Left has to such questions. Yet in the absence of clear, definitive answers to them, it will continue to run the risk of marginalisation – not by the State, but more insidiously by right-wing interest groups which have always opposed them, and which have, historically, preferred to side with the State against them.
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.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
