Features
The Petroleum Bill – its quiet passage and disquieting politics
by Rajan Philips
The Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Bill had a quiet passage in parliament with a majority of 60 votes, 77 for and 17 against. What is disquieting is that only 94 of the 224 MPs (excluding the Speaker) were in parliament for the vote on a Bill on petroleum products, the mismanagement of which turned the country upside down in a matter of months this year. The Bill itself is not some masterpiece of legislation to foster proper management of the petroleum sector, but a simple seeming amendment to the Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) Act No. 33 of 2002. It underscores the point that in the absence of real infrastructure and supporting policy regime, there is no legislative, regulatory or constitutional way out of the crisis in the petroleum sector or any other economic sector.
The legal purpose in both the principal enactment in 2002 and the new amendment is to enable the granting of licenses to entities outside the Petroleum Corporation “to import, export, sell, supply or distribute petroleum.” While the 2002 law vested the licensing power in the “Energy Supply Committee” established under the Energy Supplies Act (No. 2, 2002), the new Amendment transfers that responsibility to a (new) committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers. The Amendment also redefines the subject Minister by the words “the Minister” instead of “the Minister in charge of the subject of Power and Energy,” as it was in the original Act.
The Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of some of its provisions and the whole Bill itself. The Court held that the Bill itself in one respect and some of the provisions were indeed inconsistent with the constitution but suggested changes to the Bill to remove the inconsistency and the necessity for a two-thirds majority in parliament and even a referendum. Parliament has now passed the bill into law presumably including the changes suggested by the Supreme Court.
Media reports have been calling the amendment as a law to “liberalize the petroleum sector,” obviously taking the cue from the Minister of Power and Energy, Kanchana Wijesekera, who said in parliament that the new Amendment “will allow global suppliers to enter as retail operators, eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) on Jet Fuel and liberalize energy sector.” There is nothing in the eight clauses and four pages of the new Amendment that is not already in the main Act that is going to cause global suppliers to drop everything and rush with petroleum products to cashless Sri Lanka. If at all the new Amendment might be used to create the path of least obstacles to local petroleum wheeler dealers by replacing one obscure committee with another. This aspect of the Bill came up in the hearing before the Supreme Court.
Petroleum Saga
In an earlier article (July 24) I alluded to the saga of the petroleum industry – from pre-nationalization to nationalization in 1961, selective privatization thereafter, and the shift from CPC monopoly to CPC-LIOC duopoly – being a crucial case-study backdrop to the current fuel crisis. Any such case-study should be an exercise in political economy and not constitutional interpretations. Tragically, however, for all the political tumults about the supply and delivery crisis of petroleum products there has not been any corresponding ‘agitation’ in parliament either at the level of soliciting and securing up-to-date information on the supply and status of petroleum products, or at the level having some serious discussion about the petroleum crisis, its causes and potential solutions.
While no one in parliament is showing any serious interest in these matters, it is left to the Supreme Court to step in to fill the void. But filling the void is not solving the crisis and it is not in the business of the solve anything. Nonetheless, the Court’s ruling on the amending bill provides a good summary account of the “existing legal framework” for the regulation (I would add ‘and deregulation’) of the petroleum sector, beginning with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Act, No. 28 of 1961.
The current Minister who is now claiming that his new law will eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, should know from the Supreme Court ruling (if he is not directly familiar with the CPC Act) that the 1961 law that nationalized the petroleum industry has always included provisions permitting the supply or distribution of petrol, kerosene, diesel oil or furnace oil by non-CPC entities with the approval of the Minister or CPC Board of Directors.
These provisions were not utilized by governments not because, as was suggested during the Court hearing, the CPC Act did not ‘contemplate’ regulatory measures for their application but because no government until after 1977 contemplated using them for the import, supply or distribution by non-CPC entities. This included both the governments of the Left and the Right. In fact, it was the UNP government of Dudley Senanayake that entrenched the monopoly of the CPC by building a new refinery in Sapugaskanda with the capacity to meet virtually the entire domestic demand for petroleum products by importing and refining crude oil from Iran.
Legal Labyrinth
Contemplation, if any, to use non-CPC sources for the supply and distribution of petroleum products began after 1977 with the changes in economic direction and philosophy, under a different UNP government led by PM turned President, JR Jayewardene. His government enacted the Petroleum Products (Regulation and Control of Supplies) Act No. 34 of 1979 to provide for the regulation and control of the distribution and use of petroleum products. Nothing much came out of it, and the JRJ government, as I wrote earlier, baulked from making a serious and considered decision about the petroleum sector (or the electricity sector) – whether to continue the CPC monopoly, ‘liberalize’ the whole sector, or selectively ‘unbundle’ it to create a healthy blend of both public and private sector involvement.
The next set of laws came after more than 20 years, in 2002, when Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister, co-habiting with President Chandrika Kumaratunga. There were three pieces of Legislation – the Energy Supply Act, the Petroleum Products Act and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka Act, all enacted in 2002. The Energy Supply Act was enacted to purportedly deal with the emerging energy crisis in the country, and the Act enabled the creation of a new Committee, the Energy Supply Committee, but it also provided for the of regulation of “activities of persons engaged in the importation, exportation, storage, distribution and supply of petroleum and petroleum products.”
However, the Energy Supply Act was in operation only for a period of two years from March 2002 to March 2004, and would seem to have died with the sacking (through dissolution of parliament) of the peace-process government of Ranil Wickremesinghe by President Kumaratunga. At the same time, the Petroleum Products Act that was also enacted in 2002 by the Wickremesinghe government has survived his alternations in and out of power and, according to the Supreme Court, has provided “a more empowered regulatory regime over the petroleum industry.”
The Court ruling suggests that the Petroleum Products Act (PPA) “sought to regulate the downstream petroleum sector by removing the monopoly of the CPC and providing for the issue of licences subject to prescribed conditions.” With respect and in policy parlance, the PPA legislation actually sought to achieve the opposite: to deregulate the petroleum sector! Pertinent to the new amendment to the PPA legislation, the latter provided for the licences for the import, export, sale, supply or distribution of petroleum products to be issued by the Minister on the recommendations of the Energy Supply Committee. The latter committee would somehow seem to have survived the demise of its enabling legislation. As I have indicated at the outset, the new Amendment is replacing the Energy Supply Committee by a new Committee.
A word on the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) Act to round off this legal labyrinth, and the underlying overlapping of vested interests. The intended purpose of the Commission (and the Act) is to provide “a framework for the regulation of public utilities industries, which originally included (in the Act’s schedules) only the Electricity Industry and the Water Service industry. The Petroleum Industry was added to the PUCSL list four years later, in 2006, just after Mahinda Rajapaksa became the new President.
As the Court duly noted in its ruling, it was unclear “during the hearing whether there was agreement amongst parties on whether the PUCSL did exercise any regulatory power in terms of the PUCSL Act over the petroleum industry.” And the Court concluded that “the PUCSL does not have any power of regulation over the petroleum industry merely upon it being included in the Schedule to the PUCSL Act.”
What next?
The question now is what difference is the new amendment going to make to the operation of the petroleum sector? The Minister might think that he now has a freer hand to break the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and get non-CPC entities to import and supply petroleum products for local distribution. If the Minister, or the government, wants to really end the monopoly of the CPC, even though there is no monopoly now anyway, it must bite the bullet and privatize the CPC. That way whoever is willing to take over the CPC can use its infrastructure the same way the CPC used the infrastructure of the multinational oil companies after nationalization. In trying to create a parallel system besides the CPC, the government is only leading the country into the worst of both (public and private) worlds. The same way the JRJ government destroyed the bus industry and the school system. Very soon there might be an international university on climate change headed by a new Jennings from Norway!
As for falling into the worst of both worlds, the Supreme Court ruling has laid down the markers to indicate where things easily go wrong. The Court held that in three areas the new Bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and suggested changes. First, the Court directed the new Committee to be restructured to include two additional Ministry Secretaries similar to the Energy Supply Committee. Second, it struck Clause 7, a deeming provision that made any previous act by the Energy Supply Committee legal and unchallengeable in courts. Third, the Court held the whole Bill inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as new Committee was kept outside the purview of Bribery Act. The Court directed the Bill to be changed to include the Committee as a Scheduled Institution under the meaning of the Bribery Act.
Why was it excluded from the purview of the Bribery Act in the first place? The answer is because the real intent behind half-baked attempts at licensing is to create the path of least obstacles to local importers and their foreign suppliers. Even with privatization, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that proper processes are in place for setting criteria and standards, for competitive bidding, and for the granting of licenses and contracts. That has not been the case at all in Sri Lanka, starting from 1977 and made worse after 2010.
Specific to the petroleum sector, the legislative changes in 2002 under Ranil Wickremesinghe and in 2006 under Mahinda Rajapaksa leaves one to opine if, after all, Mahinda Rajapaksa was continuing from where Ranil Wickremesinghe left. Is it now the other way around? And is national politics now reduced to the two trying to rise together via Ekwa Negitimu? Not to mention, as has been reported, the long distance conversations between Ranil Wickremesinghe and Basil Rajapaksa to consummate a no-contest electoral marriage between the UNP and the SLPP.
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
