Features
The World after Gorbachev and Sri Lanka after JR Jayewardene
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev who died last Tuesday was hardly known outside the Soviet Union when JR Jayewardene made himself Sri Lanka’s President in 1978. Seven years later, on March 11, 1985, Gorbachev would be become the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. He was 54 years old and was the first leader of the Soviet Union born after the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that turned Tsarist Russia into the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR).
He was also the one to preside over the dissolution of both the Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He announced his resignation as Soviet President and Commander Chief on Christmas Day 1991. The changes he unleashed in little over six years are still reverberating throughout the world and more so in the attritive war between Russia and the Ukraine, the two largest republics of the old USSR.
Sri Lankans have had a split attitude towards the October revolution and the Soviet Union thereafter. There were those who were fascinated and inspired by the October revolution, and others who felt threatened and were fearful of its ripples reaching the shores of feudal Sri Lanka. Such fears were not unwarranted.
The Sri Lankan Left movement that emerged in the 1930s was both inspired by the example of the Soviet Union and also vigorously carried into Sri Lanka the bitter ideological disputes among Russian Bolsheviks. The UNP governments after independence were markedly pro-western and anti-Soviet in their foreign policy. The SLFP governments after 1956 took a much friendlier attitude towards the Soviet Union as part of their non-aligned approach to international relations.
The Third World exuberance over global decolonization in the 1960s further augmented the Soviet-Sri Lankan relationship. The Soviet Union and other East European socialist countries became new destinations and scholarship sources for young Sri Lankan students and professionals seeking university education and qualifications.
New cross-sections of Sri Lankan society benefited from the new foreign openings, which until then had been limited to students from traditional elite circles going to western, mostly British, universities. Literary connections were established through translations of writings between the Russian and Sinhala and Tamil languages.
The economic nationalism of the era led to the opening of several industrial corporations directly based on Soviet financial and technological support, in areas where import substitution had become necessary and for which there has been no private sector interest despite years of trying. What no one remembers now is that state industrial corporations were first established by GG Ponnambalam, the self-acknowledged “unrepentant opponent of socialism,” but a brilliant Minister (of Industries) in the DS Senanayake (UNP) government after independence.
Some of them were against the recommendations of World Bank experts, which were equally expertly rejected by Ponnambalam. Ponnambalam’s ministry even delicensed failing private industries, so much so that Pieter Keuneman, a young Communist MP at that time, mockingly called Ponnambalam the “vitriolic minister” for ‘dissolving’ small private industries.
The highpoint of Sri Lankan economic nationalism in the 1960s was the nationalization of the petroleum industry and the setting up of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) to take over what was then the monopoly of three global multinationals, Shell, Esso and Caltex. Interestingly, it was the UNP government (1965-70) of Dudley Senanayake that built the oil refinery in Sapugaskanda for the state petroleum corporation to refine crude oil from Iran for local consumption and potential exports.
Through all the economic crisis and shortcomings of industrial corporations that marked the 1970-77 United Front government, the CPC’s performance at Sapugaskanda was steady and even a new urea plant was built next door (by the State Fertilizer Manufacturing Corporation) to produce urea (for fertilizer for domestic agriculture) using naphtha, a byproduct from the refinery.
However, the economic changes after 1977 hugely increased the demand for petroleum products, and for electricity, and the CPC and CEB were stretched virtually overnight beyond their production capacities. The UNP government decided to export naphtha, shut down the new fertilizer factory, and hand it over to a private business for producing nails!
As I wrote a few weeks ago, it is now poetic justice for Ranil Wickremesinghe to be called upon as President to put Sri Lanka’s petroleum and electricity houses in order after they were neglected and mismanaged over 17 years (1977-94) by the UNP government of JR Jayewardene in which he (RW) was a cabinet apprentice.
From Gorbachev to Putin
It was during the same 17 years that President Jayewardene introduced fundamental changes to Sri Lanka’s political and economic systems. And over six years (1985-91) midway through that period, General Secretary Gorbachev launched far reaching changes within the Soviet Communist Party on the then famous planks of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), hoping for the inner-party changes to spill over into the broader Soviet society and institutions. Gorbachev pursued both political and economic restructuring, in contrast to China which focused on a thoroughgoing economic restructuring while maintaining the Communist Party’s stranglehold over the political system and society. The changes worked in China but failed in the Soviet Union.
China did not have the burdens that Gorbachev had to unload off the Soviet Union: a complex and multi-ethnic federal system under the control of a single Party; the costly system of political and military control over Warsaw Pact countries; and the blood sucking war in Afghanistan. In addition, the Soviet economy that recorded impressive strides in the pre-war and post-war periods (a fact now acknowledged by mainstream economists) had irretrievably fallen to the pits during the long, soporific tenure of Leonid Brezhnev (generally attributed to Cold War military budgets and poorly advised resource allocations and production priorities). The Soviet political system was also not easily amenable to radical changes because of its entrenched bureaucracy, depleted institutions and a stunted civil society.
At the same time, Gorbachev’s changes created far reaching effects in Europe and worldwide. He pulled Soviet Union out of the Afghan quagmire. He successfully forced nuclear disarmament treaties on the US and on NATO. And he let the Berlin Wall fall, which many consider to be the beginning of the post-colonial phase of globalization. East European countries broke free of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself, much to Gorbachev’s mortification, imploded leaving Russia alone in its winter of discontent without a Tsar and without a Politburo. He was reviled in Russia but was celebrated in the west. For all their public adulations, however, western leaders, especially the US, did not purposefully and sincerely support Gorbachev achieve his perestroika goals.
While Prime Minister Thatcher and President Reagan publicly warmed up to the man, they did not persistently overrule the hawks in their administrations and in NATO who resisted change on the grounds that they could not trust Gorbachev. The American Right believed that it was America’s economic strength and military might that forced the Soviet Union to accept ‘defeat’ in the Cold War and adopt glasnost and perestroika changes. This thesis has been consistently debunked by western historians, most notably by Oxford University’s Archie Brown who has reminded that Gorbachev’s emergence in the Soviet had nothing to do with any US policy.
The West’s biggest betrayal has been over its unwritten undertaking to Gorbachev that NATO will not expand into Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw agreements. NATO and the West went ahead expanding and collecting new members regardless of Gorbachev’s protestations from retirement. The NATO expansion is the most weighted single factor behind the emergence of Putin and now his war in Ukraine.
Nina Khrushcheva, a Professor at New York’s New School and the great-granddaughter of Khrushchev who ordered the Berlin wall built in 1961, has recalled in her obituary what Gorbachev told her when she asked him why he did not send tanks to Germany in 1989 to protect the wall: “We shouldn’t dictate to sovereign countries their way of life.” Gorbachev stood by that principle all through his six years in office, and has lived by it for over thirty years after retirement.
On the other hand, Gorbachev’s principle of non-interference has been repudiated not only by Russia’s Putin but also by the West and NATO. To wit, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, two invasions of Iraq, another long distance war in Afghanistan, and continuing imbroglios in the Middle East and North Africa. And the Western countries that fomented and cheered disruptions in Eastern Europe as democratic revolutions, are now having democracy threatened in their own countries by new populist manifestations of the old forces of race, bigotry and fascism.
The emergences of Boris Johnson in Britain and of Donald Trump in America are not accidental aberrations. While Britain has been able to get rid of Johnson without too much fuss thanks to the parliamentary system, the US with its presidential system is stuck with Trump even after getting him out of office after a single term.
From JRJ to Ranil-Rajapaksa
For the rest of the world, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a market economy powerhouse have meant the removal of the Socialist Second World from the world order. The Left Parties in the Third World lost their external reference points for the argument for socialism in developing countries or emerging economies. In Sri Lanka, the 1977 victory of JR Jayewardene was an electoral repudiation of the people’s experience of what was politically bandied as socialism over nearly two decades. But President Jayewardene’s agenda went beyond more than reviving the economy and relieving people of their scarcities.
While Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union were intended to open up politics and facilitate power sharing, Jayewardene’s agenda was to centralize and personalize executive power behind the facades of the old parliamentary system. Where Gorbachev failed, President Jayewardene succeeded almost perfectly by his expectations. But 45 years on, what was once celebrated as calculated political success has turned out to be a wholesale disaster for the country. Both economically and politically.
If the emergence of the Rajapaksas exposed the faults of the presidential system, the failed presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa has made everyone sick and tired of it. Enter Ranil Wickremesinghe, the apprentice in 1977 and now the elder statesman – first as Gotabaya’s Prime Minister, then as Acting President, and now as interim President, but actually carrying himself as if he is a new President elected by the people. It is not clear if President Wickremesinghe is now intending to get rid of the executive presidency, or if he will try to keep it at least a term longer so that he can make one last electoral go at it.
In addition to being President, Mr. Wickremesinghe is also his Minister of Finance. On Tuesday he presented the interim budget replacing Basil Rajapaksa’s non-budget for 2022. It was really a precursor to the IMF’s statement a day later that the IMF Team in Colombo and government officials have reached staff-level agreement to support the authorities’ economic adjustment and reform policies with a new US$2.9 billion funding facility over a 48-month period. The agreement is subject to ratification by the IMF Board in Washington.
The expectation is that the IMF agreement would help Sri Lanka obtain debt relief from Sri Lanka’s creditors along with additional financing from multilateral partners to help ensure debt sustainability and additional funding support. The infamous ‘haircuts’ that creditors should agree to bear are yet to come and the discussions around it are reportedly being facilitated by Japan. China remains non-committal even as its agreement is essential for reaching agreements with other bilateral creditors and private lenders. Haircuts can be significant and varying arrangements have been used for different countries in the past. The Russian experience in 1998-99 involved a rather ‘tough haircut’ (50-70%) for external creditors and more favourable treatment in dealing with domestic debt.
There are already calls against delaying and using different mechanisms for domestic debt restructuring to prevent the Employees’ Provident Fund going bankrupt and significant losses to domestic banks. A related political question that is bound to arise will be about the ‘haircuts’ that Sri Lanka’s parliamentarians, especially SLPP MPs, are willing to take for themselves. Already, many MPs are known to be against early elections to secure their pensions, and SLPP MPs are not looking for any haircut but prioritized compensation for damage to their properties during the May 9 violence that was in fact provoked by their own leaders. The President will have his handsful in determining who in parliament will get haircut and who will get compensation and in which order.
Mr. Wickremesinghe had it easy lecturing helpless government clerks in Anuradhapura that they should either work or go home. His words will carry far greater weight if he were to say to Nivard Cabraal that he is not entitled to extra pension, or to former Presidents that they are not entitled to government pensions and retirement residences if they continue to be active in politics and remain lawmakers in parliament. Mikhail Gorbachev lived for over 30 years after his retirement on meagre government support to which he was entitled. He did not look for any American Green Card but chose to remain in Russia, occasionally defending his legacy even though his legacy was already dead.
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
