Features
Reviewing Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy
By Neville ladduwahetty
I t is reported that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has tasked the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) “with reviewing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and making recommendations on the structure of the island’s diplomatic apparatus” (The Sunday Morning, October 30, 2022). According to the Executive Director Dr. D. L. Mendis of the LKI, “once the consultations are completed, recommendations on a new foreign policy will be presented to the President and later to Parliament (Ibid). Continuing, Dr. Mendis stated: “Sri Lanka comes first. But we have to also be mindful of our neighbourhood. As a result, our relations should be a bit better with countries in the region, especially India. The Indians also expect us to take that into consideration. The recent Yuan Wang 5 vessel visit is an example.” (Ibid).
The report cited above was followed soon after by a report in the Daily News of October 31, citing the full text of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister, Dinesh Gunawardena at the Convocation of the Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute (BIDTI). The text of PM’s speech states: “Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is based on neutrality in international affairs and we extend a hand of friendship to every country. But this neutrality should not be taken as a weakness. It is merely a detached neutrality in regional or international power games. Though neutral, we will not allow anybody to use our soil against a third country. In such attempts we zealously safeguard our sovereignty”. The policy of “Neutrality” adopted by Sri Lanka and stated by the PM would in no uncertain terms serve Sri Lanka’s interests better in the background of increasing Great Power Rivalries in and around Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean with the formation of the strategic security alliance of the United States, India, Japan and Australia known as the Quad on the one hand, and China on the other. The fact that the policy of “Neutrality” is backed by the codified provisions in the “Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land”, entered into force January 26, 1910 would add strength to “zealously safeguard” Sri Lanka’s sovereignty as evidenced by the Articles of the Convention cited below. The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable. Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power. Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to: (a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea; (b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages. Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents. Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory. Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents. Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet. Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals. Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus. Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act. In the context of today’s technological advances some of the provisions in the Articles cited above have lost their relevance.
Despite this, sufficient provisions exist to justify any country that adopts a policy of Neutrality to “zealously” protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Neutrality in relation to India If the foreign policy of Sri Lanka is Neutral, its conduct in its relations with other countries has to reflect its core value of impartiality. This means Sri Lanka cannot afford to have special relations with some to the exclusivity of others. For instance, the common perception in Sri Lanka is that both geography and history of Sri Lanka and India are so closely knit together that its relations with India must necessarily be different to that with any other State. However, this perception that is founded on history and geography is based on an India that was so vastly different to what India is today. The past relations and bonds that Sri Lanka developed was with an India that consisted of several princely States.
While some of them had a profound influence in molding the culture and heritage of Sri Lanka, with the “gift” of Buddhism from one of these States to Sri Lanka, other States in the South of the subcontinent repeatedly plundered, vandalized and laid waste what was cherished by Sri Lanka. The India that the world sees today was crafted under British Colonial Rule when the entire Indian subcontinent was unified and eventually partitioned at an unimaginable human cost in the process of granting independence to India and Pakistan. It is in such a context that Sri Lanka has to fashion its policy of Neutrality, and not on a past that does not exist today. While Sri Lanka’s security and territorial integrity in the past was dependent on the ambitions of Empires in the Indian subcontinent, by a quirk of fate and circumstance, the security and territorial integrity of today’s India depends on the security and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. For instance, IF the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka were to separate from the rest of Sri Lanka, as attempted by the LTTE, the support of Tamil Nadu that was given so willingly on grounds of common kinship would have contributed immeasurably towards furthering Tamil Nadu’s own separatist ambitions; a process that would encourage other Southern States to eventually follow suit, with serious consequences on India’s existing territorial integrity, without which its aspiration to be recognized as a global power would have been dented.
It was to prevent such an outcome that India undertook a military mission to defeat the LTTE. Having failed, much to its embarrassment, all India could do was to come up instead with devolution of power to the Provinces in Sri Lanka under the 13th Amendment; a position from which India would not budge because of the unintended consequences that could follow. The common belief is that the choice of Province as the unit of devolution had more to do with appeasing Tamil Nadu instead of devolution to Districts that would have assured Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity and through it assured India’s territorial integrity too. The lesson to be learnt is that both India and Sri Lanka have to adopt policies that assure each other’s territorial integrity because it is in each other’s own self-interests to do so.
Viewed from the perspective presented above it is in India’s selfinterest to help Sri Lanka overcome its current debt crisis. Whatever contribution India has made towards this effort is to ensure that Sri Lanka gets over this crisis, because if Sri Lanka fails, other global powers are bound to exploit the situation at a serious cost to India’s self-interests. This means that any help extended to Sri Lanka is in the pursuit of India’s own self-interest. The important review process that the LKI is tasked to engage in, should develop a fresh perspective in respect of relations with India that is in keeping with current global developments, instead of being influenced by a past that has ceased to exist. Such a perspective should acknowledge that India’s aspirations to become a global power depends on its territorial integrity being intact.
This means axiomatically, that India makes sure that Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity stays intact too. This endeavour should make the relationship between India and Sri Lanka as equal partners engaged in the joint task of ensuring each other’s territorial integrity and not as a big brother or sister of Sri Lanka as believed by some. Sri Lanka’s policy of Neutrality must underscore this sense of reality. Practice of a neutral foreign policy How does a policy of Neutrality manifest itself in practice? First, it means a country that adopts a policy of Neutrality “extend a hand friendship to every country” as stated by the PM at the BIDTI Convocation. Second, such a country cannot be partial to any country over any other or others. Thirdly it must promote and live by the rule of law. This means, a Neutral country cannot pick and choose countries to parcel out infrastructure projects, as for instance to hand over the East Container Terminal to India and Japan and consider offering the West Container Terminal to The Adani Group of India along with a Solar Power Project in Mannar and/or Trincomalee.
Another instance on similar lines was to offer the Hambantota Harbour first to the United States, then to India and finally to China. The practice instead, should be for Sri Lanka to prepare relevant project proposals and call for Expressions of Interest for evaluation and selecting the offer that best suits Sri Lanka’s interests. This means unsolicited proposals have no place in the scheme of a Neutral country. The tendency of Sri Lanka to be influenced by the security concerns of India should have rational and meaningful limits. For instance, objecting to the award of a solar power project to a Chinese Company on the basis of Asian Development Bank procedures by India on grounds of security, should not have been entertained if Sri Lanka is to assert its independence, because no concrete reasons had been presented for India’s objections similar to the decision taken in regard to Yuan Wang 5 of China. As a Neutral State, Sri Lanka has every right to comply with the provisions relating to the “Rights and Duties of a Neutral State” cited above when it comes to addressing requests from other countries.
The exercise of a Neutral policy in a manner that is credible means the ability to act independently. To exercise that independence, Sri Lanka has to be economically independent. Such economic independence comes with food and energy security. Sri Lanka has to focus on these two areas if its Neutrality is not to be compromised. Conclusion The statement by the Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena on the occasion of the Convocation of Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute that “Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is based on Neutrality, is bold and courageous because he has dared to charter a new direction from the long held policy of Non-Alignment.
He has done right by Sri Lanka to recognize the altered geopolitical architecture and adopted a policy to guide Sri Lanka’s relations with the rest of the world in a manner that enables Sri Lanka to accommodate the rivalries developing in an around Sri Lanka made intense by the strategic location destined on the People of Sri Lanka. Unlike the specificity of the policy of Neutrality, the lack of specificity of the former policy of NonAlignment was perhaps the reason for the directionless and lackadaisical performance of the Foreign Ministry and its “diplomatic apparatus” that caused its performance to depend entirely on the leadership given by the Foreign Minister in how Sri Lanka conducted its foreign relations. This was most evident in Sri Lanka’s performance in Geneva. This new beginning means a new direction as to how Sri Lanka and its governments conduct themselves in a manner that makes the policy of neutrality alive as far as its relations with the rest of the world are concerned. If the policy of Neutrality is practiced as recommended above, there is a strong possibility that Sri Lanka would emerge from the crisis that is affecting all the countries without exception, with minimum cost to its image and its dignity.
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
