Features
Some courtroom encounters in Victoria
Excerpted from A Life In The Law by Nimal Wikramanayake
It was now late in the year 1976. I made a calculated decision that I was not going to appear any more in the Magistrates’ Court. I was not going to put up with the boorish behaviour of the magistrates, nor was I going to appear before the justices of the peace. My clerk, Wayne Duncan, was horrified and told me that I would probably starve the following year if I refused to appear in the Magistrates’ Court. I had received a negligible number of briefs from him and if I had relied on him, I would probably have starved for the 16 years that I was on his list.
In December 1976, I was briefed to appear for a man who was accused of fathering a child. Unfortunately, the client was not able to see me before the matter came up for hearing but was able to see me on the day of the case. Despite my misgivings about the Magistrates’ Court, I continued to appear there. I turned up that day and asked Magistrate Moon to delay the matter for an hour so that I could obtain instructions. I duly obtained these instructions and went back into court at 11 am.
My opponent was full of righteous indignation and told me that he was going to fix my client up for the dreadful thing my client had done to his poor lady client. One lesson my father taught me in my early years as an advocate was never to get personally involved in my cases as it would affect my health. My opponent could have done with this advice. He was metaphorically foaming at the mouth. My client was a married man who had a beautiful home in Frankston and my instructions were that the woman had been sleeping around with other men, and that she was a “gold digger.’
When the case was called, my opponent led his evidence. The complainant was an extremely attractive, willowy young lady of Eastern European appearance. After she gave evidence in chief, it was my turn to cross-examine her. I got up, leered at her and said, “Madam, I suggest that you are a common prostitute, and that you would sleep with any man who was available.”
My opponent bounded to his feet with howls of protest. The magistrate started shouting and screaming at me, telling me that I had no business putting such a horrible question to such a lovely young lady. By this stage I had decided that I was not going to put up with any more rudeness from magistrates and I told Magistrate Moon that he was not entitled firstly to raise his voice at me and that he should keep his voice down when addressing me, and secondly, I told him that it was my case that this woman was a loose woman who had slept with many men, including my client. Any one of these men could have fathered the child and I would establish it.
I then cross-examined the lady for about three hours. I began in a fairly gentle manner but it was a rather excruciating experience for her. I suggested to her that on one occasion she was having intercourse with my client in Ballarat late at night in the front seat of his semi-trailer. My client was employed as a truck driver. ‘Ihis act of intercourse was carried out on one of the main streets of Ballarat, the town was sleeping and the street was deserted. When they heard several cars driving up to the semi-trailer, my client sat up in the driver’s seat while the girl slipped under the dashboard.
There were two carloads full of young men who walked up to the truck. One of them asked my client whether he was “fucking the young lady” whom he mentioned by name. Before my client could reply, the young man said, “I would suggest that you get stuck into her because she is no better than a common prostitute.”
When I put this little incident to the complainant, she vehemently denied that the young man had used such words to describe her. I then asked her whether he had used any words to describe her and her response was: “Yes, he told your client to fuck me, as I was the town bike,’ After that, I raised my voice and began to attack her. I took her to a number of incidents at a number of parties she had attended where she had walked out of the room where the party was being held and into a bedroom where on different occasions she had intercourse with a number of different men.
I mentioned to her that I had several witnesses who were going to testify to these facts. She then readily admitted them and I sat down at 3.45 pm, thoroughly satisfied with myself.
Magistrate Moon enquired from my opponent whether he had any other witnesses, to which my opponent replied “No.’ Magistrate Moon then told my opponent, “In that case, I am going to dismiss your complaint as any one of these men could have fathered that child.” My opponent was distraught.
I quietly slipped out of court with my client. That was the end of my practice in the Magistrates’ Court.
The year 1977 started well and I soon began collecting other solicitors. My dear friend, Egils Stokans, a young solicitor who was a partner in the firm of Kahn and Clahr, had now begun to brief me extensively in the County Court. I had picked up a number of other solicitors and things were beginning to look up.
In the middle of the year I got a brief to appear in the County Court for a plaintiff in a timber contract case. My client had been cutting and hauling timber for a timber contractor and had not been paid for the work he did. The case came up before Judge Arthur Adams in the County Court. Judge Adams was an eccentric judge ant was on the verge of retirement. I had appeared a couple of years earlier before him in a fairly unusual traffic case.
On that earlier occasion my client, a Sinhalese man like me, was charged with refusing to take a breathalyzer test. He had a most unusual defence for refusing to take the test, a defence unknown to law. He had played in a cricket match at a club in Rosebud and after the match had a couple of beers and then had a hamburger for dinner. He told me that the hamburger had onions and onions usually made him violently sick.
He was driving back home when he felt sick. He stopped the car, opened the door and vomited all over the road. He then sat back in the car and fell asleep. He was rudely awakened about two o’clock in the morning by a police constable flashing a torch in his face. The constable asked him whether he had been drinking and he replied yes, that he had had a couple of beers, and then related his unusual story. The constable started laughing and said, “Don’t give me that shit, you rotten little black bastard. Get out of the car and take a breath test’
My client said that he was incensed at this statement by the constable and refused to take the breath test because he was not prepared to be subjected to this racist abuse. When the case came up for trial before Judge Adams, he appeared on the bench with his wig askew. His bands were at a 70-degree angle to his collar and he had buttoned his jacket in the wrong buttonholes.
The constable gave his evidence. When I started cross-examining him, I put my client’s version of the events to him. Judge Adams was outraged that I could put such nonsensical allegations to a fine upstanding constable, and he told me that there was no racism in this wonderful country of ours. I ignored his outburst and continued with my cross-examination. I again put a question to the witness and again Judge Adams exploded, saying, “That is a stupid question – in fact it is the stupidest question I have ever heard”
I looked him the eye and said, “Your Honour, my client is seated behind me and when you tell me that I am putting stupid questions to the witness, he will think that he has retained a blithering idiot to appear for him.” Judge Adams was suddenly quite contrite and said, “I am sorry, Mr Wikrama, I will not make any comments about you again and I will not interrupt you in future”
A few minutes later while I was cross-examining the constable, he interrupted me again. I said, “Your Honour, you promised me that you would not interrupt me again and now you have broken your promise to me.’ He was very contrite and told me that he would not interrupt me again.
I then put my client in the witness box and led evidence from him that he had recently migrated to Australia from Sri Lanka. He was working at several jobs, firstly as a clerk in a suburban firm in Melbourne, secondly, he waited on tables in a restaurant several nights a week, and thirdly, he played drums in a band on some Saturdays in the month.
Judge Adams looked at me and said, “Mr Wikrama, how can you raise allegations of racism in this country when see what a wonderful life your client has in this great country of ours? In fact, I heard on the grapevine that you are now editing Louis Voumard’s great work. As a coloured man, shouldn’t you be grateful for the wonderful breaks you are getting in this country?”
The upshot of it was that at the end of the case Judge Adams dismissed the complaint against my client. I was astonished that no one asked my client why he ate a hamburger with onions if it made him sick.
I had done several timber-contract cases in Ceylon, and in Australia I kept referring to the forest as “the jungle” for in Ceylon one cut timber in the jungle, so Judge Adams kept referring to me as the jungle-man’. Once when I was doing a timber contract case before Judge Adams, I put a question to one of the witnesses, and the word “hammer” came up. Judge Adams queried the word and asked me to spell it. I then proceeded to spell it out for him: “Etch- a-m -m -e-r”.
Judge Adams said, “Mr Wikrama, in addition to being incompetent [all barristers who appeared before him were incompetent] you don’t even know the English language. It is not etch but haitch “
I then adopted my best Cambridge accent and told His Honour, “Your Honour, I was educated at a small University in England called Cambridge, which you probably have heard of. I sat at the feet of two great jurists, Cecil Turner, the author of Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law, and Tell Ellis Lewis, the editor of Winfield on Tort. These learned gentlemen told me that the word was “etch”, and it was only the cockneys in East London and the Irish who called it “haitch” As Your Honour pleases, witness, would you mind answering the question.”
Judge Adams was, of course, Irish. He looked at me aghast and did not interrupt me for the rest of the case. Not only that, bless his little cotton socks, the good man entered judgment in my favour. He then did a startling thing. He refused my client his costs on the ground that he was not entitled to them as he was “muddle-headed.” Of course, we appealed to the Court of Appeal on this particular point and the other side cross-appealed.
The matter came up on appeal towards the end of the year and Sir George Lush, who was presiding in the Court of Appeal, looked askance at me and asked whether I had made a mistake in my petition of appeal. I said no, the reason why my client did not get his costs was that he was “muddle-headed” The appeal on costs was allowed and my client got his costs in both courts.
This case had its lighter side. During the proceedings, I developed a high fever. My temperature was 102°F and I was quite ill. Judge Adams looked at me and said, “Mr Wikrama, I am sorry to have to mention it but you look off-colour, you look extremely pale.’ I told him that I was running a temperature of 102°F and he very kindly said that he would adjourn the case to the following Monday.
At this point, Mr RC Taylor, a florid, ruddy-faced “ocker” solicitor from Frankston who was the instructing solicitor for the defendant, sprang to his feet and objected vehemently to the judge granting me an adjournment. He told him that there was no reason why the matter should be adjourned as he had fought in the jungles of Papua New Guinea with an extremely high temperature. He told Judge Adams that there was no reason why I could not conduct the case with a temperature of 102 °F.
Nevertheless Judge Adams adjourned the case to the following Monday and of course as I mentioned, I duly won it. Judge Adams retired shortly afterwards and a few years later while I was returning to the car park after the Flemington races, I heard a shout, “Ah, my jungle friend!” It was dear old Arthur Adams.
Later on in 1977, I received another buffet of fate. My dear friend and chief supporter, Noel Rice, decided to retire at the age of 68 and had sold his practice to two young solicitors. After they bought the practice, one of these gentlemen took me out for lunch and we had a warm, congenial afternoon. However, all good things must come to an end.
After a few months being briefed by this new firm in December 1977, I received a telephone call from the other partner advising me that they would not be briefing me in the future, as they had found a brilliant young barrister who would be taking over my work. He told me that this barrister’s name was Tony Howard, and he was greatly impressed by Tony. Tony Howard later became a Queen’s Counsel and was appointed to the County Court bench. An extremely able man, he is the husband of the Governor of Victoria, Linda Dessau.
Family law
I had a large and successful practice in the District Court of Colombo in Ceylon, and in my 12 years at the Bar there I encountered every form of sexual perversion and sexual deviation in my cases. In one case, my client had been coerced into marrying a woman by his elder sister, who was many years older than him. Like Liza Minelli, who returned home early one afternoon to surprise her husband, he returned home one afternoon to surprise his wife. He did get a surprise. He found her in bed with his sister!
I was now also gradually building up a successful practice in Australia under the new Family Law Act which had been enacted in 1975 by the Labor Party under the guidance of Lionel Murphy. In June of 1977, I was briefed to appear in a custody matter in the Family Court of Australia. It was a no-fault jurisdiction which entitled either party to a marriage to a divorce after a separation of one year. This was a new and a startling concept. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act, which had previously been in force, a person could only get a divorce on the grounds of adultery, malicious desertion, constructive malicious desertion or non-consummation of the marriage.
At the end of May 1977, I was briefed to appear for a young wife in a custody case. It transpired that her husband, who was in his mid-twenties, had a Charlie Chaplin-like desire for young girls. He had seduced his wife when she was 15-years old and filled her with a baby before she turned 16. In order to escape punishment for his folly, the husband married his pregnant girlfriend on her 16th birthday.
The husband then had numerous affairs with young teenage girls. One of these girls, a 14-year-old, agreed to give evidence for my client. She had been sacked from school for stealing and had been caught shoplifting at Woolworths in Frankston.
I saw my client and the young lady in conference, and the young lady gave me detailed descriptions about her sexual activities with the husband. I then devised an ingenious plan of action. My father had taught me that the leading of evidence of a witness in examination-in-chief was as important as the cross-examination of a witness.
I had the benefit of sitting at the feet of my father, who was a brilliant advocate. In Ceylon, whenever Dad was cross-examining a witness, the courts were packed with young lawyers waiting to learn something from the old man. I would often ask him why he put a particular question to a particular witness, and he would explain in great detail why he did it. He instructed me early on that the purpose of cross-examination was specifically to get the ingredients of your case out of the opposition witnesses and after that to contradict them. But he also told me that examination-in-chief was an art which was very rarely practised by “advocates.” I decided to put Dad’s advice into practice in this case.
I planned to lead the bare bones of the girl’s evidence and let my opponent fall headfirst into the mire. After my client gave evidence, I called this 14-year-old girl into the witness box. After the usual preliminaries I pointed to the defendant and asked the girl whether she knew him, to which she replied, “Yes” I asked her how well she knew the defendant and she said ” Intimately”. I then asked her what she meant by that and she said that she had had sexual intercourse with him on more than one occasion.
I sat down and my opponent got up to cross-examine her. He walked right into the trap I had set for him. He asked her whether she had been sacked from school for stealing, to which she replied “Yes”. He then asked her whether she had been caught shoplifting at Woolworths in Frankston, to which again she replied “Yes” She was the sort of girl who would misbehave herself. My opponent suggested to her that she had concocted this whole story about having intercourse with his client. She vehemently denied this, and said no, she had had intercourse with the defendant on a number of occasions.
He then made the fatal mistake of asking her when they first had intercourse. She said, “We got into the back of his car and he started tickling my boobs. When he started tickling my boobs I got very randy and asked him to fuck me.” My opponent realized what had happened and quickly sat down. The judge, Justice Stephen Strauss, said, “Wait a minute, I want to hear more of this’
The girl then gave a graphic description of all the acts of sexual intercourse she had had with the defendant. My opponent did not call his client and the judge gave my client custody of her little girl, who had been conceived out of wedlock. I was delighted with my success and prepared for my next expedition in the Family Court.
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
