Features
What was said and not said in the President’s Policy Speech
Gotabaya and his Contenders – 2
by Rajan Philips
What struck me most about the President’s policy speech to parliament last week was its subdued tone. It was more than mildly defensive, but fully free of boast and bluster. The last two years have certainly clouded the aspirational vistas of ‘Saubhagya Dakma’, even though there were two references to it in the speech – one in connection with the Eastern (port) Terminal (now with the Indians), and the other on renewable energy (ostensibly with the Chinese in Jaffna’s isles). Despite its subdued pitch, the President’s speech did not give any indication that his administration is in control of any of the crises he is literally presiding over. From that standpoint, and to the point of today’s title, the speech left many key things unsaid compared to many that were said.
My purpose is also to look at the implications the President’s speech might have for the near-term political paths of his two emerging contenders, Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake. As I concluded last week, the two contenders have a long way to go in pursuing their claims to power even as the President and his government are running out of road. Will the policy speech help to extend that shortening road for the government? More bluntly, is the speech a good turning point for the government to pull itself out of the hole that it keeps digging? Looked at it another way, what markers are in the speech that the two challengers might use to differentiate themselves not only from the government but also from one another, and to assert their own alternative approaches?
Only speech, no shuffle
When the President prorogued parliament in December, there were two expectations. First, there was going to be a major cabinet reshuffle in which the President will get rid of the old deadwood and bring the best and the brightest of the Viyath Maga stars (whoever that might be) to the front benches of the government. Second, the President will use the resumption of parliament to deliver a new road map and demonstrate to the country that he and his new cabinet will deliver in the next three years what he and his old cabinet could not do in the last two years.
Proroguing has come and gone, parliament has been shut and re-opened, but there is no new cabinet. Only the firing of a backbench State Minister who was a front bench cabinet minister under Mahinda Rajapaksa. That was all the President could accomplish in spite of all the powers he allocated to himself under the 20th Amendment. Especially, the power to fire a Prime Minister and to unmake and make cabinets at will – the power that had been checkmated by the 19th Amendment. The President now has the power he coveted but he cannot carry out his threat to shuffle the cabinet. Because shuffling the cabinet would mean breaking up the government. A break-up will not be enough to bring down the government, but more than enough to chip away the President’s two-thirds majority in parliament. So, the President is stuck with his old cabinet. That may have been a reason for the subdued tone of the speech to parliament. Indeed, in his speech the President beseeched parliamentarians of all hues for their support “to overcome the challenges that the country faces today.”
As for the speech itself, it is not his fault but whoever who wrote the speech harnessed the President to ramble on from start to finish – touching on a range of topics with no thematic order. Rather, in this order: the role of parliament and parliamentarians; the two lost years due to Covid-19; vaccination success – a modest boast; national security – now resolved and apparently forgotten; national reconciliation – of sorts; law & order and judiciary – a sermon of support from a dubious guardian; the (new) constitution – just three sentences; development and infrastructure – ad nauseum; the economy – a rather casual assurance that normalcy is returning; a litany of projects – almost all on irrigation and drinking water; foreign exchange crisis – the biggest problem for everyone, but mentioned as a postscript; education – an honorary lecture on university education; technology – full of digital vistas. Finally, the President’s blessings to his subjects: “Theruwan Saranai!”
There is no need for us to ramble on the speech in the same order, but there are a few pickings for a passing look. On national security, the President bemoaned that “many have forgotten that the key issue facing the people of this country when I became the President in 2019 was national security.” Actually, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has not forgotten anything. Only, the Cardinal remembers differently and constantly reminds the country that it is the President who has forgotten the “key issue” on which he campaigned and won the election. True to form, the President recalled how his government has dealt with ‘underworld terrorism,’ ‘drug terrorism,’ and how he as Defence Secretary finished off the old LTTE terrorism. But there was no mention whatsoever of Easter terrorism or the alleged masterminds behind the Easter Sunday bombings.
This Administration hardly has any credibility to lecture on human rights, law and order and the judiciary. But these topics somehow found their way into the President’s speech. What was resoundingly left out was any reference to the ‘One Country, One Law’ Task Force. Understandably, the two could not be reconciled in the same speech. But which one of them – one country – one law, or universal justice for all – is the President really committed to? On reconciliation itself, the speech actually fell far short of media expectations that the President was going to include something substantial at the behest of India – a political payback for the forex swap.
Nothing New
There was nothing new or substantial about reconciliation in the speech. The very next day, the TNA leader R. Sampanthan and his colleagues were at the Indian High Commission to hand over their letter addressed to Prime Minister Modi, and pleading for a different swap. Remarkably, and as the Daily Mirror reported, President Rajapaksa is yet to hold talks with the Tamil leadership or elected MPs since his election to office in November 2019. Apparently, in June 2021, a meeting between the President and a TNA delegation was scheduled, but the meeting was cancelled by the President’s office and a new meeting has not been scheduled since.
The speech had three sentences on the new constitution: “Governments since 1994 have, on various occasions, attempted to introduce a new Constitution but to no avail. Therefore, I appointed an Experts Committee, with the approval of the Cabinet, to study this subject in depth, broadly consult public opinion and prepare a preliminary draft for a people-friendly constitution. I hope to submit the recommendations of this Committee to the Cabinet and the Parliament for broad discussion.” We can hardly wait, and it is not clear what the Experts Committee might have produced. Just recommendations, or a whole new draft.
On the economy, foreign exchange crisis and fear of food shortages, the speech offered platitudes, blames and excuses. There were no serious clues about how the government is planning to turn things around, except the claim: “Today we are self-sufficient in turmeric”! There was no mention of IMF at all, or whether the government is going to stick to bilateral swapping until Sri Lanka’s exports suddenly start booming. On organic fertilizer, the President is stubbornly sticking to his belief that the failure of the whole switch is merely because of “a misunderstanding in this regard as our objective and plan were not properly communicated, and some practical issues in introducing the programme were politicized.”
There was deafening silence about the gas cylinder fiasco at home, and the controversial contract with New Fortress Energy, the American company. The President reiterated his goal to achieve Sri Lanka’s carbon neural target by 2050, but there was no mention of any measures for climate adaptation – for dealing with the now familiar recurrent cycles of floods and droughts. T
The speech was also silent about the government’s foreign policy or, more accurately, about the government’s approach to Sri Lanka’s relations with other countries. Sri Lanka has no conflict with any country, but the countries Sri Lanka has to deal with most are in conflict among themselves. More than ever, there is no room for native cunning to play one country against another. What is needed is a balanced approach based on principled self-interest, and there is no indication of it in the policy speech.
Overall, the policy speech of the President is more a puzzle than a road map. The underlying purpose of the government has come to be more about self-preservation than about any national interest. Self-preservation is necessary in politics as in life, but it cannot be the be all and end all of government. As the President enters his third year in office, Sri Lanka is caught in an economic crisis and faces a likely food crisis unlike any time in its modern past, and unlike any other country in Asia. If the policy speech last week is all that the government is capable of mustering as a response to the current crises, then there is little hope for the country from this government and little hope for the self-preservation of the government from the wrath of the people.
The current situation raises the stakes for the President’s contenders, Sajith Premadasa (who wants the government to leave) and Anura Kumara Dissanayake (who is ready to lead). For their benefit, the President’s policy speech leaves plenty of markers to stake their own ground. Markers on the economy, food crisis, the constitution, foreign relations, energy contracts, climate adaptability and so on. Specifically on the constitution, what The Island’s editorial said last Wednesday (January 19), after the President’s speech, is prudent thought as we wait for the report of the Experts Committee: “Perhaps, if the 20th Amendment is abolished and the 19th Amendment reintroduced with some changes, we may be able to make do with the existing Constitution.”
(Next Week: The new JVP
Manifestos)
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
