Features
Some British judges and experiences in outstation courts
Excerpted from the Memoirs of Cabinet Secretary BP Peiris
Sir Sydney Abrahams, Chief Justice, who had succeeded MacDonnell, said that on behalf of the little band of brothers of which he was proud to be the captain, he wished to tell his eldest brother how much they would miss him, how much they loved him and how much they admired him. Poyser left to assume duties as the Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements.
Of Abrahams, I know very little because, shortly after his assumption of office, I left the Bar for Legal Drafting. I do know that he insisted that R. V. Perera should take silk and should take his oaths wearing the Chief’s silk gown. I believe Abrahams left after some displeasure with the Government following the famous Bracegirdle case.
I must now speak of the few occasions on which I appeared in our outstation courts. I have mentioned how I came to be in my uncle Jayawickrama’s house at Matara on the day before a rape case in which I was his junior. The Magistrate was a man who was puffed up with his own pride, thought a great deal about his own self, used unjudicial language from the Bench and could be nasty to anyone, including senior members of his Bar.
My uncle told me that in his 30 years at the Bar, he had not had a “breeze” with the Bench, and had accordingly, during the whole of that Magistrate’s three year term as judge in the town, consistently refused to accept briefs in his court. He asked me to appear in court the next day and also give his own appearance. I was in court with my barrister’s blue bag on which were marked my initials. I was happy to meet three colleagues from the Law Library who had set up in practice there – R. H. E. de Silva, A. F. Wijemanne and Fred Alles.
An excise case, having been called before mine, the Excise Inspector got into the box and made his complaint to the effect that he had arrested the accused woman for being in possession of illicit toddy. The pot of toddy was produced in court. The judge listened to the Inspector’s evidence without putting pen to paper. He then told “the Inspector to clear out of court without wasting his time. He asked the Inspector to put his time to better use without harassing poor innocent women. He then called the woman and asked her to take her pot away which she proceeded to do.
She was then called back and asked why she removed the pot if it was not her’s. Receiving no reply, the judge fined her two rupees. Up. to now, the judge had. recorded no evidences, and, I asked Wijemanne about this new procedure. I was told that the judge often acted in this manner. He would record a summary of the Inspector’s evidence and add, “Accused pleads guilty – fined two rupees”. The senior proctors did not dare to file a petition of appeal. In order to avoid incurring the displeasure of the judge, they paid a junior a fee for his signature on the petition.
The next case was one of Wije’s which was down for legal argument. When he had developed his argument and started to quote a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in the New Law Reports, the pompous man on the bench interposed “Don’t bother to cite Supreme Court law to me. I gave a judgment to the same effect some time ago, and I prefer to follow mine.” There was a sharp interchange of words on this between judge and advocate. Wije, at that time, had that youthful short temper. My recollection is that he packed up his books and left the court without completing his submissions.
With this introduction to a type of Magistrate I had not met before, my case was called. I informed the court that Mr Jayawickrama appeared with me for the accused. “Who? Our Sylvester?” asked the judge, and continued “He never appears in my court. I should like to have him in my court. I will give you a date. What’s your name?” Now, this last question is one which a judge never puts to counsel in keeping with the etiquette of the Bar, the assumption being that the most junior advocate is well known to the judiciary of the country.
Normally counsel appearing for the first time in a strange court hands a chit with his name well in advance to the Secretary of the court and this chit is discreetly passed to the Bench when his case is called. To the question what my name was, I said “B. P. Peiris”. The judge apparently did not hear and, cupping his hand to his ear, kept repeating “D. P. ?” I turned my blue bag with my initials towards him. He looked at it, was obviously annoyed, but nodded.
He again asked me to take a date to allow Mr Jayawickrama to appear, but I protested, saying that the clients had been put to a deal of expense and that I was ready to go on with the trial. The Prosecution was therefore asked to lead evidence. The first witness was the Government Medical Officer who had examined the twelve year old girl who had been raped. The girl’s mother, a good-looking woman, was in the employ of the next witness, another doctor, who was a cousin of the judge.
When this witness, to whom the first complaint had been made, was in the box, the judge asked him “May I know, Doctor, in what capacity the girl’s mother is employed under you”. “As the ayah to my children,” answered the witness. Said the judge “I will put that down on the record, Doctor, to make the position quite clear.” After the evidence of the two doctors the judge forced a date on me and I had to submit. I did not appear on the next date; nor did my uncle. He probably asked the proctor to carry on. The judge “retired” a few years later to resume his practice at the Bar.
I appeared, some months later, before an equally arrogant man who was Magistrate at Gampola. My father’s brother, a poor man, was trying to eject a tenant, after due notice, from a small tea land which he owned. I was appearing pro deo. Having no car, I went to Gampola by train. The proctor for the tenant was E. G. Jonklass who came to court accompanied by two labourers carrying suitcases, said to contain law books, on their heads. My proctor asked me not to be nervous; the suitcases were there everyday but they had never been opened.
Jonklass obtained seven postponements in all. I was then compelled to tell the judge that I was determined to see the case to its conclusion and asked for a short date. He fixed a day three days later and said he would take the case up on that day even in the absence of Mr Jonklass. I wasted three days on each trial date, one to go up by train, one for the trial and one to come down; and the judge knew it. I said I would have to stay in the town. He said “Well, stay here, its a nice town; have a look round the place.”
In the evening, I paid a courtesy call on him with no intention at all of discussing the case. We were both advocates and I saw nothing improper in it. A very interesting conversation, over whisky found the time passing quickly. It was 9 p.m. and I stood up to leave. The judge said, in parting, “Peiris, I hate that fellow Jonklass; he had all the Civil Service judges in his pocket with his big house, his tennis court and his bridge parties. He can’t have me. I’ll give you judgment but I am weak on the civil law. Direct me.”
‘What ho!’ I thought, I was a bloody fool to have come. But, having come, what was I to do? Tell Jonklass? Tell my proctor and throw up the brief? Was it the judge speaking, or the whisky? My mind was confused as I walked away fulminating. In the end, I decided to lie doggo, take Sandara’s advice, and go into court with an open mind. In court the next day, it was smooth sailing at about five knots. I was asked to submit my argument at dictation speed and every word was taken down. The judgment was so strongly in my favour that even the appeal court could not upset it. Here, I felt, was another unjudicial judge. He also “retired” prematurely and started practising in another outstation.
T. F. C. Roberts, my good friend, took up his first judicial appointment as Magistrate of my home town, Panadura, and as friends, we visited each other frequently. Naturally, I did not expect him, by reason of our friendship, to extend to me the slightest preferential treatment if I had occasion to appear in his court. I did appear once, again pro deo, and had to call a number of witnesses to prove that my client, who was charged with theft was, at the time of the alleged offence, several miles away from the scene of the offence.
Although, at this time I was living at Panadura, I was considered as “Colombo Counsel” and my case was called first. The judge had a heavy roll that day and lost his temper when I had seven witnesses. “All you people seem to think, when you come here, that you are in the Supreme Court. You must remember that this is a summary trial,” to which I replied that a summary trial was not necessarily a short trial, which appeared to make him more angry. “Call them all, call them all”, he shouted at me, referring to the witnesses, and after hearing them, gave my man the maximum sentence.
Lalitha Rajapakse appeared free for my client in appeal and got him off. Fortunately, there are still honourable members of our profession who are willing to appear and who have appeared pro deo in certain circumstances for clients who are unable to pay their fees or when they are called upon to assist the court. Among these are eminent and expensive silks. But why should these gentlemen be asked to give their time and their services to save an innocent pauper who has been ordered to undergo some punishment by a judge who is peppery and impatient, or who, that morning, has had a quarrel with his wife, or whose qualities are such that he should never have become or been appointed a judge?
In another case before judge Roberts, a friend of mine, a photographer in Panadura, was charged with the theft of a Colt revolver from a British soldier who was, at that time stationed in the town. My friend had volunteered for service in the war of 1914-1918, had fought at Gallipoli and at other places in France and returned home safely with a long row of medals. In World War II, he used to entertain the British soldiers in the town lavishly in his studio. He was not the man to steal the revolver of another soldier.
Only one witness was called for the defence, my father, Gate Mudaliyar Edmund Peiris, J.P., U.M. who gave evidence as to the good character of the accused. Judge Roberts found him guilty and imposed the maximum penalty, I believe, six months jail. My friend, A. H. C. de Silva appeared for him in appeal before Dalton J. I advised my client to come to court with all his medals pinned on his breast and sit in the last row at the very back of the court. At the end of counsel’s argument, Dalton asked whether the accused was present in court and, to a reply in the affirmative, said “Let him stand up”. He studied the man’s medals for some time, he probably recognized them, and dictated a judgment returning the case to the Magistrate for the imposition of a nominal fine of one rupee.
In concluding this Chapter, I must refer to the three bits of advice which B. F. de Silva gave me at the beginning of my career as an advocate: about reading the New Law Reports – I did that assiduously, indexing every case.
About not appearing for less than one guinea, I have a story. A proctor friend of mine asked me to come to the Court of Requests instead of wasting my time in the Appeal Courts and promised to give me all his work and that of a friend of his provided I showed my bona fides by just sitting in this crowded court for two weeks. After two weeks, I told him I had done so and he immediately gave me a brief for the next day. Inside the brief was a five-rupee note. I asked him what the money was for and was told that it was my fee. I told him that my fee was one guinea and was rebuked for standing on my dignity. I was asked why I should be paid a guinea when he was able to retain the then most senior advocate practising in that court for the same fee. I handed the brief back and never entered the Court of Requests thereafter.
About never signing a proctor’s receipt for more than the actual fee paid, I have, again, a story. I had been retained as junior to a silk and had been paid the usual guinea but had not been given a brief, with the result that I did not know what the case was about. We were for the respondents and were not called upon to speak. In due course, the proctor brought the bill of costs for my signature “Fee paid to Mr Advocate B. P. Peiris. 3 Guas”. I said I was paid only one guinea and would sign for that.
Then came the bargaining as if I was buying half a pound of brinjals off a basket-woman. “These are hard days, Mr Peiris, I’ll give you another guinea and you sign for three. We’ll split the difference.” I told him that if he gave me another guinea, I would sign for two. I did not get the other guinea. I signed for one, and I never got another brief from that proctor again. B. F., that honest and upright man, must have known all about the dishonesty in the profession and the tricks of the trade.
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
