Features
Traveling for UNESCO: India, US, Cyprus and Riyadh
Gratifying to see the number of Lankans in the hotel and airline trades in Saudi Arabia
Excerpted from volume ii
of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography
Coming back to UNESCO affairs, our visit to India with the DG was on a far grander scale than the seminars that have been described above. The Indian Ministry of media had organized a major international conference on the New International Communication Order. They had invited the DG M’Bow as a special guest of the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to preside at the opening session. M’Bow agreed and requested me and Dilip Padgoankar, the media chief of his personal secretariat, to accompany him.
This was a signal honour as well as a great responsibility because both the reputation of the DG as well as of UNESCO was at stake in these missions. Everything had to go perfectly to the satisfaction of the big man. We had several planning sessions before touching down in Paalam airport for a grand reception and transfer to Hotel Ashoka, the massive state owned hotel, in the heart of fashionable New Delhi.
The meeting was held in the Vidhya Bhawan’s cavernous auditorium. We were all seated and were expecting the arrival of the Prime Minister. All eyes were focused on the side entrance from which she was to enter the hall. Then I saw an unforgettable sight. A small Indian made car stopped near that entrance and a tiny figure in a saree opened the car door and stepped out without any fanfare. Indira Gandhi walked briskly towards the stage and the whole house got on to their feet to welcome her.
In its simplicity and her imperial hauteur, this entrance was unbeatable and would remain in the mind’s eye of all the participants. She then sat next to M’Bow and engaged in a friendly discussion. She spoke fluent French and our DG was made to feel at home. Some years earlier, in their capacities as Ministers of Education and Information, they were members of the UNESCO governing board and were friends.
She told us later, to make his visit to India a memorable one, she had designated two senior diplomats to represent India in the IPDC’s Governing council. They were G. Parasarathy [GP] who was India’s legendary diplomat and was Jawaharlal Nehru’s protege and family friend and Mani Dixit, a hard driving and frequnently unreasonable diplomat who belonged to the Foreign Office officials `corps’ which believed in India’s hegemonic role in the region. He had strong views and had as many friends as enemies in the South Block.
They were joined from time time by Ambassador Kaul who claimed to be a relative of the Nehrus as they were all Kashmiri Brahmins. As the Director of IPDC and a Sri Lankan I had good relations with them. GP was particularly close to me and would invite me for a meal at his Lodhi Gardens home. In this way I also became a friend of GP’s son Ashok who was a scientist who later became a Permanent Secretary of an important Ministry in the Central Government.
These relationships affected my future. President JRJ wanted me later to come back as a ‘back channel’ to these decision makers in New Delhi when our ethnic conflict had dragged India into becoming a major player in the fracas.
The New Delhi visit was a great success. India agreed to make a cash donation to the IPDC Fund. But more importantly Indira backed M’Bow fully in his emerging conflict with Western countries, the US in particular. The West was baying for his blood and the US under Ronald Reagan was threatening to cut its funding to UNESCO, which accounted for about a third of our Budget. Reagan was looking at the UN system with a jaundiced eye. He had already cut his funding to UNFPA accusing it of promoting abortion.
The Anti-Abortion lobby was one of his big vote banks. Another vote bank were the Jews, who though traditionally Democratic Party supporters, were cheering their President Reagan on in his fight with M’Bow over some UNESCO funding for Palestine. So our DG needed all the friends he could muster and India and Indira became valuable strategic partners. This tour helped him to secure that flank and he always treated Padgoankar and me as valuable allies in his struggle for survival.
Washington DC
After a visit by an influential Under Secretary of President Reagan to Paris to discuss American concerns with the Director General of UNESCO, the relationship with the US got worse. We heard that there was a heated argument on two issues: media and Israel. M’Bow lost his temper and told the US official that he represented the UN and could not be spoken to as if in a plantation in the American south.
I heard from US diplomats in Paris who came for IPDC meetings, that a cut in the US financial contribution to UNESCO was imminent. This news was conveyed to the DG by Bolla and me. He then suggested that I should visit Washington and lobby against such an eventuality. His office contacted the iconic American lawyer Elliot Richardson who was the Chairman of the UNESCO Association of the US, to facilitate my visit.
Richardson, a ‘Boston Brahmin’ was the legendary Attorney General who refused to carry out an order of President Nixon during the Watergate episode. He had no hesitation in quitting his job rather than bending the law. His successor also refused to comply with Nixon’s order and was also fired in what was then described as the ‘Saturday night massacre’.
I stayed overnight in the Mayflower Hotel, close to the White House. The following morning Richardson and I went by a side gate to the White House. At that time security was minimal and we had to go through only one checkpoint located in the corridor leading to the office complex. Several senior officials received me cordially and took me and Eliot to a spacious room for a discussion which was already scheduled.
I put the best case for IPDC saying that with the growing interest in media, many countries would want modern technology which is available for sale only in the US. I made special mention of Arthur Clarke and his predictions of greater demand for new technologies. The US’s successful space programme had developed many new technologies which would have a profound impact on the media scene. I quoted Homi Baba, the US educated Indian space researcher, who famously said that the poor countries could ‘leap frog’ to development with newly invented technologies.
Then something extraordinary happened. My hosts rolled out a large screen and established a link with Reagan who was flying on Air Force One to California. A senior official spoke to him and referred to the technology angle as being important for the US. Reagan who appeared on the screen before us was brief. He agreed and asked his interlocutor to contact a person he knew in California who was a large-scale manufacturer of advanced communications equipment.
Not a word did he say about UNESCO. To me it appeared that for him it was purely a political matter. He would decide, as it happened later, not on the merits of the case but on the electoral value of his decision. US officials in Paris had told me that they had strongly urged that they should remain in UNESCO. Reagan did not listen to them. But before he took a final decision we had our IPDC annual sessions in Tashkent in which the US was present as Observers since they were not members of the Intergovernmental Council.
Cyprus
The DG then asked me to represent him at a media conference held in Nicosia, Cyprus. There had been a lot of tension at UNESCO meetings on the issue of Israel. The cultural programme of our organization, particularly relating to archaeology and language studies, had evoked much controversy between the Arab states and Israel. Both sides were keeping a sharp eye on the archaeological digs in the region because of Israel’s claims of the presence of a Jewish nation on those lands in ancient times.
They would cling onto any evidence either on the ground or in ancient writings like the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ about the boundaries of Judea, to justify their modern claim for land in a ‘greater Israel’. On the other hand the Arabs were keen to ensure that new justifications for Israeli expansionism should not be provided by UNESCO experts researching in the region.
When I discussed our conference with UNESCO officials in the region, I was told that since Cyprus was in close proximity to the contested areas, Nicosia was seething with spies and agents of different interests reflected in the politics of the region. In addition Cyprus itself was divided into the Greek dominated and Turk dominated sectors. There had been a costly confrontation between Turkey and Greece for control of the island Cyprus.
The Greek Cypriots had been led by Archbishop Makarios who was the head of the Greek Orthodox Church and later Prime Minister [At Peradeniya University in my time any undergrad who sported a big beard was called Makarios]. Makarios also became a prominent member of the Non Aligned Movement as it helped him to bolster his country’s independent status. The Turkish sector was ruled direct from Ankara and the Greeks feared an invasion from Turkish forces which were stronger than them.
The conference I attended, though ostensibly dealing with media, was also meant to strengthen Nicosia’s position both regionally and globally. Our DG must have smelt a rat and realized that it was not prudent to participate in this hot spot at his level and that the IPDC, which had established good relations all round and of which I was Director, should represent him.
But the programme was sponsored at the highest levels. We were invited by the Prime Minister of Cyprus, a layman who had succeeded Makarios, to a dinner held in his Greek style mansion on top of a hill. In a speech he emphasized the importance of the history of their land; Cyprus had been a Greek island which had been captured by the Turks who refused to concede Cypriot sovereignty.
The tragedy of Cyprus was dramatized during our visit to the ‘line of control’ which had been established by the UN to stop the fighting. Towns and villages had been cut into two and people who had lived together in neighborhoods for a long time were subjected to different administrations. Both sides maintained an uneasy peace mainly because the ‘Blue Hats’ of the UN would intervene if there was a resumption of fighting.
The UN had a hard time preventing the Turks from overrunning the Greek sector with their superior fire power. One evening we were entertained at a Greek taverna, with wine, local food, group dancing and smashing of plates and glasses. But when we were to return to our hotel, slightly inebriated, we had to walk past the heavily sandbagged demarcation line which cut the hotel garden into two.
I remembered the ethnic crisis in my country and the calls of some Tamils for the bifurcation of Sri Lanka. In the international arena Sri Lanka was occasionally coupled with Cyprus as problem states. My experience in the divided island of Cyprus forcefully demonstrated to me the evils of partition and the distress it causes to communities that have lived together for a long time.
One good result of my visit to Nicosia was my interaction with Arab decision makers and media personnel. With our representative in the Middle East Tayyib Salih, who was a well-known Egyptian author, we were able to interest some Arab potentates from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE in participating in IPDC activities.
Riyadh
I followed up my visit to Nicosia with a visit to Riyadh, on my way back to Sri Lanka for a holiday and a meeting with President JRJ. UNESCO had got a favourable response from Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding the hostility of the Reagan administration. This was partly due to the emergence as Foreign Minister of Prince Turki who wanted to play a bigger role in world affairs, in keeping with his country’s wealth and oil resources. Turki was lionized by the bigwigs of UNESCO.
At the invitation of M’Bow we all assembled in the main hall to listen to the new voice of Saudi Arabia. He was fluent in English, being a forerunner of young western educated Saudi princes who were cutting a dash in US universities with virtually inexhaustible wealth. Turki made a contribution to UNESCO funds which was most welcome in the context of the US leaving the organization with their annual contribution in their pocket.
The Saudi government had a practice which no doubt delighted their official visitors. From the time we set foot in Riyadh we were guests of the Royal house and all bills were settled by them. This was regarded as a kind gesture since hotel prices in Riyadh were astronomical. But what astounded me was the number of Sri Lankan workers in every department of the airline and hotel trade in Saudi Arabia.
This was most gratifying as they had their beginnings in the tourism drive that I had been associated with as Secretary in charge of tourism. They too were happy to see me and urged me to make full use of the hotel bar. This was not as attractive an offer as it seemed since the hotels did not serve hard liquor. They had a non-alcoholic beverage in traditional liquor bottles. However, when I visited the palatial home of their media controllers they had an array of genuine alcoholic drinks that would have made a Hollywood mogul green with envy.
At that time the Saudis were facing a major policy problem regarding the media. They had purchased all the best media equipment for TV broadcasts. But there was a debate between the traditionalists and modernists regarding programme content. Up to then only religious and news programmes had been allowed. The Royals thought that modernizing the media Would lead to a delegitimizing of their charisma as they were the custodians of the Holy places, including Mecca, and the guarantors of the sanctity of the Islamic faith.
Any crack in t hat belief would have serious consequences for the regime. The answer was not to inhibit change but to manage it in the light of technological change. The mansions of the Saudi bigwigs had all the modern western programmes which they could view with the latest display equipment. But public screenings were another matter. It took a long time for these orthodox Wahabists to relate to the new media. Even with the reforms of modern times this issue has not been fully resolved.
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
