Features
University Education in the 21st Century
The basic principles that we should work on include –
a) Breadth of knowledge in context, not depth that is
essential only for those going on to do research
b) Better communication skills including teaching
skills that will facilitate the sharing of knowledge
c) Thinking skills that promote innovation and
analysis of different perspectives
d) Social awareness and sensitivity that contributes to
coherent and productive planning and action in the
world of work
———————-
Text of keynote address on ‘The Future of University Education’ delivered by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha at the Sabaragamuwa Student Symposium, yesterday.
It is a pleasure to come back to Sabaragamuwa, and the more so this time as it is after several years. And though I am now old and lazy, and was a bit put out when I was told the text of my presentation was needed in advance, the topic given me, ‘University Education in the 21st Century’ was convenient. For I had been in fact reflecting on the subject, for the posts I now put up daily on what I term my political Facebook Account, that of the Council for Liberal Democracy.
The series that I called ‘Productive Initiatives’, as a contrast to the depressing series I am also writing, about the destruction wrought by J R Jayewardene and his political heirs, also however turned out depressing. For unfortunately most positive initiatives in education in the 20th century were promptly subverted, beginning with Kannangara’s Central Schools which J R Jayewardene soon straitjacketed in monolingualism.
It was the second great educational innovator of the last century, Prof Arjuna Aluwihare, who conceived the idea of Affiliated University Colleges, from which this University springs. He engaged in such innovation because by the eighties it had become clear to many youngsters that the education system was a mess. Though we prided ourselves on our literacy rates, and on providing free education up to university level, it was clear that the quality of the education provided was abysmal as far as many students were concerned and did not help them to gain decent employment.
There were of course many other causes for the radicalization of the young, and the insurgency that burst out at the end of the eighties. But the Youth Commission report that President Premadasa commissioned noted clearly the need to expand opportunities for rural youth. And though the school education system continued a mess, Arjuna Aluwihare as Chairman of the UGC proposed a radical new approach to tertiary education, and set up what were called Affiliated University Colleges, intended to provide a broad education to youngsters, including compulsory English and wider general awareness, instead of concentration on one or more subjects with no effort to relate them to the world of work.
His ideas were not supported by the majority of universities which were happy to continue doing the same thing for a few more decades. The only university which embraced the idea enthusiastically was Sri Jayawardenepura, which had a very dynamic Vice-Chancellor, Prof S B Hettiarachchi. So USJP conducted programmes in five AUCs, including the flagship programme of the AUCs, the English Diploma course.
This was open to students who had not done English at the Advanced Level. Very few schools in fact offered English at that level, so the intake at the three universities which offered English as a Special Subject was largely confined to students from Colombo and Kandy. This meant that only a few students offered English each year at these universities, but the Departments got vast amounts of funding on the grounds that they were producing English teachers for the nation. Given their exclusivity, hardly any of their products went into teaching except at a few elite schools.
I had long complained about restrictions on the study of English at tertiary level, and when I mentioned this to Arjuna he promptly got me involved in his new programme, which I had not known about before. And I believe I have every reason to be proud of what I achieved. One of my brightest colleagues at USJP, where I first returned to the University system, once told me that there was no point in being a teacher unless one’s pupils turned out better than one was oneself. When I look at my students who excel here, and at the Uva Wellassa University, and in the Department of Technical Education and Training, I feel that at least the English programmes I began in the early nineties have succeeded. Those I started later have done less well, but that is another story, once again to do with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s wickedness.
However, while the Science courses that Aluwihare initiated also I believe did well – and full marks again to this university in particular for that – the AUCs and their successors failed in other respects to live up to his vision. For instance the general courses he had thought of, essentially to increase the general knowledge of youngsters woefuly deprived of this in schools, fell into the trap that affected general courses elsewhere. They were stuffed full of specialist knowledge, and did not engage students to think of the realities of the world they lived in. Sri Lankan studies for instance regurgitated what students had learnt in school, without helping students to position Sri Lanka in the modern world. Unfortunately there was no clear understanding of soft skills, which we are now told at every turn is what the Sri Lankan education system fails to inculcate. And no one thought in those distant days of studying what happened elsewhere, of looking for instance at the development of what are called Core courses in American universities.
So where students should have been given first and foremost better communications skills, and the ability to work in teams, they were instead given detailed knowledge of science and history, formulas about systems for the former, catalogues for the latter.
Later, when I joined Sabaragamuwa University, having already been involved in developing curricula for the degree courses it was developing, both for new students and for those who had completed AUC Diplomas, I decided I should study Core courses as they were being developed in the United States where they had first started.
They had developed initially because American schools were not like British ones from which students could proceed to specialize because they had been provided there with soft skills and wider knowledge. American High Schools as they were called provided more basic education and those going on to university needed catch up teaching as to the knowledge and skills better schools provide.
But in the early 19th century there was not too much of this. Later, by the end of the 20th century, the few core subjects introduced a century earlier had to be expanded as the range of skills needed for productive employment in a changing world also expanded. Derek Bok, President of Harvard for many years, led seminal changes to the system, which I was able to study. And though we did not do as well as Harvard, I think the Core courses we started here back in 1997 equipped our students well for the world of work. And I was able to introduce something similar at the Military Academy when we looked after their degree course.
But none of this had a wider provenance. So that is why, a quarter of a century after Prof Aluwihare showed the way, we have the Prime Minister in his budget speech highlighting ‘the need to build a knowledge-based economy, and the need to promote sport, particularly among the young generation. The Prime Minister also points out that education reforms are important to tackle issues especially among unemployed young generation’.
I would find this funny, if it were not so tragic. Six years ago, when I wrote to him to say the country needed reforms instead of the elections that had turned into his substitute for action, I drew attention to the need of the following –
a) A new Universities Act that provides meaningful training that promotes employability free to those who need it, whilst facilitating the establishment of other centres of excellence through private/ public partnerships
b) A new Education Act that ensures holistic education, with greater stress on skills and competencies that are developed through extra-curricular activities such as Sports and Social Service and Cultural Activities
But of course nothing happened. And if the inaction of the last year is anything to go by, nothing more will happen and instead we will simply hear more and more platitudes about the need for reform.
This is the sadder in that reform would be so easy. I have no regrets personally about having resigned from the post of State Minister of Higher Education five years ago, in time to avoid all taint of Yahapalanaya crookedness and incompetence. But it was sad for the country since those who took over – and indeed had been put on top of me – had no idea about what was required. The last Chairman of the UGC did try, and I am sure the present one will also try. But what the country needs is thoroughgoing reform that is based on general social needs, and that is inconceivable to those stuck in the ivory tower concept which we still cling to, in terms of not 20th century but rather 19th century British models.
The basic principles that we should work on include –
a) Breadth of knowledge in context, not depth that is essential only for those going on to do research
b) Better communication skills including teaching skills that will facilitate the sharing of knowledge
c) Thinking skills that promote innovation and analysis of different perspectives
d) Social awareness and sensitivity that contributes to coherent and productive planning and action in the world of work
Together with these let me draw attention to something that is particularly relevant to what we are concerned with, the research that students have engaged in. I should note though that when I was responsible for preparing a new curriculum for what was a new university, way back in 1997, I was not keen on what was described as a thesis. Not only did I feel that our undergraduates would simply reproduce material culled from others, I also thought that they would not be properly supervised. And though I agreed in the end to what we called a dissertation, I insisted on an oral viva because it was vital to check that students understood what they were presenting.
This may seem excessively cautious, but those were days in which plagiarization was rife in the universities. I recall interviewing someone for a senior position who had no idea of what anything in his master’s thesis meant. His response was that some authority had said this – which the thesis itself had not acknowledged – and I sent a rocket to the Colombo university Vice-Chancellor who was gracious enough to admit their error. He promised that in the future they would insist on an oral test to check on the understanding of the candidate as to what was in the thesis. But whether this happened I do not know, and of course nothing could be done about those masquerading as scholars on the basis of what they had copied.
The oral test was essential, but I am glad Sabaragamuwa has moved further on this and makes students present their research and respond to questions. But I believe too that we should go further, and ensure that research is practical and at undergraduate level oriented towards community development.
This was one of my last proposals when I was Minister, when I suggested to Vice-Chancellors that they should focus all research at undergraduate level on the area in which they were situated. So political science students could for instance look at the work of Grama Niladhari Divisions and Divisional Secretariats, economists could look at enterprises and employment opportunities in the area, sociologists at family structures and welfare statistics, English students at English education, Sinhala students at writing skills amongst students, geography students at water problems – which six years ago I told the then President was one of the greatest problems we had to face, something that thankfully, if six years too late, the current President has acknowledge.
I suggested then to the Vice-Chancellors, who seemed to think this a good idea though they promptly forgot about it after I resigned, that the students of each final year should focus on one administrative division, so that the university could then prepare a comprehensive development plan for that division based on the research of its students. That research would of course have included consultation of the people of the division, consultation that now rarely occurs when development plans are made.
Politicians will of course think this unwarranted interference, but in a context where many politicians can neither think nor plan, there has to be some sensible input. Of course I may be being unfair to politicians in this area, for I had thought of the need for such interventions after much work in the North and East. In those areas what were termed District and Divisional Development Committees had in the period between 2010 and 2014 been entrusted to scoundrels such as Bathiudeen and Hisbullah and Piyasena – and two of them, enthroned then, went on to engage in even greater destruction over the next five years too.
Such individuals would resent academic involvement but I have no doubt sensible politicians would welcome this. Of course the plans prepared by universities would be subject to further discussion, but they would provide a better basis, with greater factual input, and greater input as to what the people want, than any plans prepared by politicians or even any central government agency could have.
So let me leave you with this suggestion, which I hope the Dean and the Faculty will take up, with the support of your new Vice-Chancellor. Focus on a socially productive outcome in your next cycle of research, one that will allow staff and students of the Faculty who are concerned citizens to work together coherently to make things better for the community in which you are situated. That is what the university of the 21st century should make a priority, development with precise knowledge, deeper understanding, and social sensitivity.
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
