Connect with us

Features

Hambantota oil refinery – From fairy tale to reality?

Published

on

President Dissanayake meeting his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping recently in Beijing

by Gomi Senadhira

“It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled”– Mark Twain

The signing of US $3.7 billion deal to construct a “state-of-the-art oil refinery” oil refinery, with a capacity of 200,000 barrels, in Hambantota with Chinese state-run oil giant Sinopec during President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD)’s state visit to China, is indeed an important achievement. This is significant because successive governments had tried but failed to attract such a large investment into petroleum refining in Sri Lanka. However, it is appropriate to ask will it become a reality or is it another false promise, a fairy tale? After all, we have been fooled before with “fairy tales” about an oil refinery in Hambantota. Hence, we need to be cautious. Particularly because the most recent attempt to build an oil refinery began as a badly-choreographed farce and ended as a tragedy.

To understand why I am saying so, let’s start with the most recent attempt to build an oil refinery in Hambantota.

Largest Investment under the SLSFTA

In July 2018 the former Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama announced, during the Parliamentary Debate on the Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA) that “…. 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 principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land and environmental approvals to commence the project.”

US $3.85 billion investment by Singapore’s Silver Park International

Eight months after the statement by Minister Samarawickrama in the parliament, on 19th March 2019, Deputy Minister Nalin Bandara and technical advisor to the Ministry, Mangala Yapa, announced at a press conference that the construction of US $3.85 billion oil refinery in the Mirijjawila Export Processing Zone in Hambantota will begin shortly by a Singapore-based Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd with Oman’s Oil and Gas Ministry. The project was a joint venture between Silver Park International, with 70 percent stake in the company, and the Ministry of Oil and Gas of Sultanate of Oman, with 30 percent shares. The investment was billed as Sri Lanka’s largest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), ever. The oil refinery with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was expected to generate additional US $7 billion of exports per annum when it becomes fully operational in 2023, by exporting a minimum of 9 million metric tons of petroleum products per year.

Within twenty-four hours of the announcement by the Sri Lankan government on the joint venture, officials of Oman’s Oil and Gas Ministry denied being part of a $3.85 billion plan to build an oil refinery in Sri Lanka. According to a report filed by Reuters, addressing a news conference in Muscat, Salim al-Aufi, undersecretary of Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas, stated “No one on this side of the panel is aware of this investment in Sri Lanka …. It came as news to me; I don’t know who is signing the cheque for $3.8 billion.” In addition to that, Sri Lankan and Indian media started to question the credentials of the Singaporean investor.

Despite the Omani government’s denial and the media exposure of questionable credentials of the Singaporean Investor, Sri Lanka’s Board of Investments (BOI) decided to go ahead with the “project for a joint venture of Singapore company and Oman.” And on March 24, 2019, the foundation stone for the petroleum refinery was ceremoniously laid by the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Mirijjawila Export Processing Zone with the attendance of Omani Minister of Oil and Gas Mohammed bin Hamad Al Rumhy, a number of ministers including Sajith Premadasa and several local parliamentarians.

US $20 billion investment by Singaporean company Sugih Energy International

After that, in October 2019, Sri Lankan newspapers as well as international news websites reported, quoting minister Malik Samarawickrama and Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera that “The Sri Lankan government has given its approval to the Singaporean company Sugih Energy International (SEI) to build a $20 billion refinery at the port (of Hambantota). The project’s value exceeds the total of all foreign direct investment in Sri Lanka over the past forty year.” Mr. Samarawickrama also stated “”The company will invest in two phases. In the first phase, they have committed an investment of $14.8 billion for the refinery, and further $4 to $5 billion for petrochemical and other projects.”

Fairy Tales to Sell the FTA

Unfortunately, or fortunately, none of these multibillion-dollar investments from Singapore due to the FTA ever saw the light of day. These and almost all other investments from Singapore “thanks to this FTA,” turned out to be “fairy tales” narrated by the government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to sell the Sri Lanka-Singapore FTA, to the parliament and the people of Sri Lanka. Though the “Silver Park” refinery was to become fully operational by 2023, it didn’t even progress beyond the foundation stone by then. The project by “Sugih Energy International Pte Ltd” couldn’t even reach that milestone. In August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved two proposals presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe in his capacity as the Minister of Investment Promotion to cancel the agreements with these two “Singapore based investors,” Silver Park International and “Sugih Energy International Pte Ltd”, due to their failure in implementing the projects!

BOI’s Failure to exercise Due diligence on these “largest Foreign Direct Investments”

It is difficult to understand as to why the BOI failed so miserably, to exercise DUE DILIGENCE on these “largest Foreign Direct Investments” in Sri Lanka. Due diligence on an investor by BOI is essential to understand the potential risks of the investment and to make informed decisions about whether to allow an investment in or not. More importantly, it is necessary to comply with Anti-Money Laundering regulations and to prevent financial crime. At the very least, the BOI should have ascertained if the investor is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and what the sources of the investor’s funds were? If the BOI had undertaken even a cursory appraisal of these two companies, like a simple google search, they would have discovered enough red flags on these two investors.

However, it is necessary to state that it is difficult to find much information on Sugih Energy International through a simple google search. Only news reports on this company are on its “US $20 billion investment in an Oil refinery in Hambantota.” Then there is a reference to a company, based on data from Panama Papers, named Sugih Energy International registered in the British Virgin Islands (which is well-known for its offshore companies) with links to Singapore, in the “Offshore Leaks Database,”. There is also a reference to a Sugih Energy International in the Singapore Business Directory. However, this company had changed its name to AETURNUM ENERGY INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. On 10 August 2024. On the same day it had changed its Entity Status from “Live Company” to “In Liquidation – Compulsory Winding Up (Insolvency).”

In contrast, it is possible to get a substantial amount of information on Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd through a simple google search. For example; the registered address of Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd, which is 18, Roberts Lane, #03-01 Singapore, shows the building in Singapore’s Little India where this company is located. #03-01 could be a room number within that building. More interestingly, it reveals the names of nearly a hundred other companies which have 18, Roberts Lane, #03-01 Singapore (218297), as their registered address. This includes an entity specialising in setting up shell companies. Can a shell company located at a shared address, invest US$3.85 billion in Sri Lanka? A cursory appraisal would have also revealed that most of the directors of Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd were Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and information on the investigations carried out by India’s Enforcement Directorate on these individuals.

Investigation by India’ s Enforcement Directorate (ED)

Though Sri Lankan authorities failed to carry out due diligence, after an explosive report by ‘The Hindu’ newspaper on ‘single largest foreign investment’ in Sri Lanka by a Singapore based investment company with links to an Indian politician’s family, the authorities across the Palk Strait started to investigate the Indian directors of Silver Park International (Pte) Ltd, namely, Mr S.Jagathrakshakan, a DMK Member of Indian Parliament and former union minister of state for information and Broadcasting, and his family members for their involvement money laundering activities. This was reported widely in the Indian media. And according to these reports in August 2024, Mr. Jagathrakshakan and his family members were fined ₹908 crore ( Sri Lankan Rupees 31 billion) for violation of India’s Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the charges were related to “….an investment of ₹42 crore in a shell company, Silver Park International Pte Ltd, incorporated in Singapore in 2017, and an investment of ₹9 crore (Sri Lankan Rupees 308million) in a Sri Lankan company.”

US$ 4.5 billion Oil Refinery by Sinopec

Though the government scrapped these controversial agreements with Silver Park International and “Sugih Energy International Pte Ltd” in August 2023, these agreements with controversial shell companies seriously damaged Sri Lanka’s image as an investment destination. Law-abiding countries do not permit investments, particularly such large investments, without doing a reasonable appraisal of the investors and the sources of the investor’s funds.

After scrapping the agreements with the controversial shell companies in November 2023, the Cabinet of Ministers approved awarding a contract to China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (SINOPEC) to build a petroleum refinery in Hambantota. It was also announced that the refinery is expected to attract an investment of at least $4.5 billion. However, since then no tangible progress has been reported on this project.

US$ 3.7 billion oil refinery by Sinopec

Now, we have the MOU signed between Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Power and Energy and China’s Sinopec Corporation to build US$ 3.7 billion oil refinery, capable of producing 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Though this was signed during President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s four-day state visit to China, given the history of this project it is still appropriate to ask will it become a reality this time around or will it be another false promise, a fairy tale?

Conclusion

Given the high-profile manner in which this MOU was signed we can be optimistic about the success of the project. After all, Sinopec is one of the biggest petroleum companies in the world and with a revenue of $429.7billion in 2023, is the fifth on Fortune Global 500 list. We cannot even think about comparing it with shell companies like Silver Park International or Sugih Energy International.

Finally, however, there is one unanswered question about the amount of the investment. The cost of this project appears to have substantially reduced since it was first mooted in November 2023; from US$4.5 billion to US$3.7 billion. Will the Ministry of Power and Energy explain the reasons for this change?

(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at )



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Rohingya question and states’ international obligations

Published

on

A boat load of Rohingyas rescued off MullaitIvu

The presence of Rohingya refugees in Sri Lanka has prompted sections in the South of the country to raise some concerns in connection with it but The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s (THRCSL) recent report on the issue, if received and read in a spirit of reconciliation and humanity, should put their minds at ease.

To be sure, there is considerable substance in the objections and worries of the relevant Southern quarters but the majority of the refugees in question need to be seen as victims of complex political circumstances in their countries of origin over which they do not have any control.

Those Rohingyas who are now literally adrift in the seas of South Asia and beyond, are strictly speaking stateless. Most of them are escaping endemic political turmoil and runaway lawlessness in the Rakhine state of Mynamar and the spillover of such tensions into the Myanmar-Bangladesh border and beyond.

There has been playing out in the Rakhine region over the decades a Rohingya armed struggle for autonomy but the majority of the Rohingyas are not in any way supportive of this armed struggle which is an expression of the Rohingyas’ awareness of their separate identity as a community, although they possess a wider Muslim identity as well.

But there has been an influx of Rohingya refugees to several neighbouring countries from this conflict, including very significantly Bangladesh, and this has been triggering concerns among the wider publics in those states which are compelled to manage the Rohingya refugee presence amid economic pressures of their own.

The problems arising from the Rohingya refugee presence have been compounded by the rise of Islamic militancy in South Asia and the tendency among some of these militant groups to exploit this presence for the propagation of their causes.

However, this does not take away from the fact that the majority of Rohingyas are helpless victims of circumstance. They are caught up in the metaphorical ‘exchange of fire’ between mutually suspicious states that are compelled to contend with issues growing out of the rise of Islamic militancy. But for the majority of Rohingyas such endemic conflicts among states translate into displacement, statelessness and growing powerlessness.

For an enlightened understanding of what states need to do in connection with the refugee crisis and connected questions it would be necessary to read the THRCSL report above mentioned. States that are members of the UN family are obliged to ratify and implement a number of conventions related to refugees and the THRCSL mentions some of these. They are: The 1951 Convention on Refugees; 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons; 1961 Convention on the Reduction of the Stateless and the Rights of Refugees and Stateless Persons within Sri Lanka.

If Sri Lanka and other countries facing a refugee influx have not adopted these laws they would need to do so without further delay if they are opting to remain within the UN fold. In this connection, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be seen to be of fundamental importance. The Declaration is the fountainhead, so to speak, of international humanitarian law and UN members states have no choice but to adhere to it.

Contentious issues are likely to grow out of the implementation part of the mentioned conventions but it is best that signatory states take up these matters with the relevant key agencies of the UN rather than grouch over matters that surface from their inalienable obligations towards the stateless and homeless.

It was encouraging to note a Southern group in Sri Lanka mentioning that the Lankan government should draw the attention of the UNHRC to the fact that the state is not a signatory to some of the mentioned refugee conventions. This is the way to go. A dialogue process with the UNHRC, which does not happen to be very popular in Sri Lanka, on such issues would perhaps throw up fresh insights on Sri Lanka’s obligations on refugee issues that may then convince the state to sign and ratify the conventions concerned.

There needs to be a flourishing of such positive approaches to meeting Sri Lanka’s obligations as a UN member state. The present most unhappy existence of being a UN member state and not implementing attendant obligations needs to end if Sri Lanka is not to be accused of ‘double speak’ and ‘double think’.

Meanwhile, identity politics and connected problems are bound to remain in South Asia and bedevil all efforts by states of the region to see eye-to-eye on issues such as the stateless. The yawning ‘democratic deficit’ in South Asia continues to be a formidable challenge.

But all efforts should be made to reduce this deficit through collaborative efforts among the concerned states. This is so because increasing democratization of states remains the most effective means of making identity politics irrelevant and the latter is a primary cause for the break-up of states, which process throws-up troubling consequences, such as statelessness and refugees.

Fresh initiatives need to be undertaken by the ‘South Asian Eight’ to end the continuing ‘Cold War’-type situation between India and Pakistan, since they hold the key to re-activating SAARC and making it workable once again. It ought to be plain to see that it is only the SAARC spirit that could help in ushering a degree of solidarity in South Asia which could go some distance in resolving issues growing out of nation-breaking.

Once again, South-South cooperation should be seen as a compelling necessity. If vital sections of the South come to this realization and recognize the need for such intra-regional cooperation, the coming back to power of Donald Trump could be considered as having yielded some good, though in a highly negative way. Because Trump has made it all too plain that he would not be considering it obligatory on the part of the US to help ease the lot of the South any more.

The South would have no choice but to fall back on strategies of self-reliance. No doubt, this situation would accrue to the benefit of the world’s powerless. Self-reliance is the best option and the only key to unravelling external shackles that bind the South to the North.

Meanwhile, those sections of Southern Sri Lanka that are tending to cheer Trump on need to put the brakes on any such idle distractions. The message that Trump has for the world is one of division and strife. By rolling back almost all the progressive ventures that have come out of Washington over the years, Trump is plunging the world into further ‘disorder’. The international community needs to brace for stepped-up nation-breaking.

Continue Reading

Features

Effective and non-effective methods for mitigating human-elephant conflict

Published

on

Villagers living in fear of wild elephants. (File photo)

by Tharindu Muthukumarana
tharinduele@gmail.com

(Author of the award-winning book “The Life of Last Proboscideans: Elephants”)

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.

-Albert Einstein

When we examine the records of funds spent in the years beforehand to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC), it is evident that the expenditure has been growing. For example, in 2010, USD $505,001 was spent, but in 2018, USD $1,068,021 was spent. So, this shows that expenditure had been over double within a period of less than one decade. But in the same way, the HEC had always been rising throughout the years. So, what went wrong? The answer is that the funds were expended mostly on ineffective mitigating strategies rather than effective mitigating approaches. Henceforth, let’s look at a glimpse of what are the non-effective methods and effective methods.

Non-effective methods Translocation

Elephant translocation involves capturing elephants from one place and moving them to a safer environment. Sri Lanka had done this for many decades. One of the earliest translocations occurred in 1979, when 10 elephants were relocated from Deduru Oya to Wilpattu National Park (NP). So, it was a new experience for the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), and they even had to get a foreign veterinary surgeon named Dr. Ian Hoffmeyr from Etosha NP in Namibia to sedate the elephants.

Unfortunately, radio tracking collars were not put on those elephants to monitor updates of those elephants. So, ultimately what happened was that those translocated elephants’ status never got documented. However, in recent translocations, the GPS tracking collars were fixed on them and have given accurate updates on their whereabouts. According to those data, 3 conclusions are probable: (i) The translocated elephant got killed in the new home. (ii) Left the new home and returned to the initial home. (iii) created conflict with neighbouring villagers in the new home.

As for example, in 2007, a tusker named Ravana that was crop raiding in Anuradhapura got translocated to Udawalawe NP. He then got into conflict with neighbouring villages of Handapanagala, Aluthwewa, and Buttala. Due to this, Ravana got shot in the leg, and as a result, Ravana got re-translocated to Lunugamvehera NP. Again, Ravana raided crops on leased land in the park, and a few months later, Ravana got shot in the jaw and had an agonising death after suffering for a few days.

Another tragic event happened when a young bull elephant named Homey that frequently foraged at a garbage dump in Hambantota got translocated to Yala NP Block II, which took a journey of 75 km. Within a few days, Homey was back at the garbage dump. Astonishingly, when data from the collar was downloaded, it was shown that the route Homey took to return contrasted with the route Homey was taken. For the second time, Homey was translocated to Udawalawe NP, but as time passed by, he created conflict with neighbouring villages. Subsequently, Homey left the park and again returned to the garbage dump. For the third time, Homey got translocated to Maduruoya NP, almost 300 km away from Hambantota. At times, Homey tried to come back to the garbage dump but was unsuccessful due to compact human settlements. So, he continued to stay at Maduruoya but started to create conflict with neighbouring villages. This resulted in him getting shot frequently. One day he got shot in the head and died in a paddy field.

Elephant Drives

Elephant drives involve chasing elephants from one area to another area, and for this, firecrackers or thunder flashes would be used. This procedure can take days to get completed. These drives had happened as early as the 1970s, and the latest to be 2024. From a scientific perspective, the decades of elephant drives that have been done are one of the key reasons for Sri Lanka having the highest level of HEC in the world. Records have clearly shown that after an elephant drive, some or all driven elephants returned. Also, in every location where elephant drives took place, HEC still persists. In many cases, the problem-causing males don’t get driven because those males usually avoid it. Instead, non-problem-causing female elephants get driven. In such incidents, after those driven elephants got enclosed in a restricted home range, those elephants did face starvation and malnourishment that eventually made them die. For this, there are examples coming from Lunugamvehera NP and Yala NP.

Removing the problem elephants

Removing problem elephants could be done in two ways: one is domestication and the other is culling. Such acts can enhance the risk for elephants’ extinction. Problem elephants are usually male elephants, and elephants that raid crops are risk takers. Emerging research shows that risk-taking behaviour contributes highly to their reproductive success. So, if such elephants are removed from the gene pool, it weakens the elephant population.

In modern days, there is a popular misconception that the elephant population has risen, and it is immoderate. In fact, scientifically, there is no way to explain whether the elephant population has risen or plummeted. Because the first legitimate elephant census was done in 2011. Before 2011, elephant population numbers were given as guesses or estimations. After 2011, last year an elephant census was done, but still the results haven’t been published. There are many who think that the elephant population has increased because, around the country, there are places where locals are newly experiencing HEC. This happened because of habitat loss and the blocking of elephant corridors that occurred due to poor development planning done by various governments. So, as a result of it, new places experience HEC.

Still, the Sri Lankan elephant is classified as “Endangered” by the IUCN Red List due to its high risk of extinction and declining population. Also, we must remember that though culling or capturing of elephants is not done, yet annually, in the last few years, over 350 elephants have died due to HEC. This is only the documented data, and the undocumented figure can give a higher value. A mother elephant usually gives birth to a single calf with a two-year gestation period. They have 4-5 years of interval until the next calf is born. Females become less fertile after 40 years. In Sri Lanka only 6,000 elephants are left. So, such a high mortality rate due to HEC is critical.

Biofencing and Geological Barriers

A victim of the human-elephant conflict

Palmyra Palm fencing: This involves planting palmyra trees (Borassus) as a fence to restrict elephants’ movements. Though it has some positive effects, practically there are problems to call it a solution. This project is expected to take a longer time to achieve its anticipated outcomes and could take even a decade. Even so, the germination rate is lower, and by any chance, if at least one tree fails to grow, the fence becomes ineffective.

Thorny plant fencing: Plants such as agave, cacti, and bougainvillaea had been used to deter elephants, but those had been unsuccessful because of elephants’ thick skin. Besides, elephants even feed on thorny plants such as Acacia eburnean that have sharp thorns that can grow up to 1 inch.

Beehive fencing: The fence is erected at chest height with beehives fixed to it and spaced every ten meters. This method had high success in deterring crop-raiding elephants in Africa. In addition, the produce from hives provided economic benefits to farmers. This project was introduced by Save the Elephants Organisation (SEO). From 2014-2019 SEO collaborated with the Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society (SLWCS) to do a pilot project in Wasgamuwa. Unfortunately, results showed it was ineffective due to the reason that African honey bees (Apes mellifera scutellata) and Asian honey bees (Apes cerana indica) behaviour contrasts. Asian bees cannot scare away elephants, and those bees are not active at nighttime.

Trenches: Soil erosion had made trenches ineffective, and also the construction and maintenance cost is very expensive. According to past experiences, it had impeded wildlife movement, and a lot of other smaller animals had died after falling to them. Also, there is a potential of hydrological impacts that would have a negative effect on villages.

Effective methods

Before touching this topic, it is important to mention that the strategies put forward here are science-based projects, and these projects had been put into experiment as pilot projects with successful results. The villagers state that after the implementation of the project, HEC had been solved or mitigated. These projects had been done by the Centre for Conservation and Research and SLWCS.

According to research, it has been proved that the electric fence is the most effective to deter elephants. But it depends where the electric fence is erected. If it is erected in the boundary of a protected area, it can be ineffective, but instead, if it is erected at the border between elephant habitat and human-use areas, it can be successful. This is what is called community-based electric fencing and proved to be successful in mitigating HEC.

Another method is the paddy-field electric fences. These fences are installed seasonally. During cultivation the fences are installed, and during harvest the fence is removed and stored in their houses until the following crop season. So, during the fallow periods, elephants would forage the leftover harvest and other vegetation. By 2020, approximately 50 village electric fences and 25 paddy-field electric fences were active in the Kurunegala, Hambantota, Trincomalee, and Anuradhapura districts for up to 12 years. Feedback from the villagers is positive.

It needs to be mentioned that in 2020 a National Action Plan for the Mitigation of HEC was made by a committee of wildlife experts. Strategies included in the National Action Plan were chosen based on their demonstrated effectiveness, capacity to be executed on a suitable geographic and temporal scale, and cost-effectiveness. Stakeholder discussions were performed with the public and relevant agencies, and their feedback was integrated into the Action Plan as needed. So, if that action plan gets implemented, HEC could be mitigated!

Continue Reading

Features

Congratulations…and celebrations

Published

on

Twenty-one years in the news, in Toronto, Canada, and that certainly calls for big time celebrations!

Dirk Tissera, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Sri Lanka Anchorman, is working on making it a big scene.

He says the 21st Anniversary celebrations will take the form of a gala dinner dance, scheduled for Friday, 30th May, 2025, in Toronto, Canada, adding that there would be plenty of surprises!

In fact, The Sri Lankan Anchorman’s 20th Anniversary, ‘A Night To Remember,’ held on 31 May, 2024, at the J&J Convention Centre, in Toronto, turned out to a resounding success.

Dirk mentioned that last year’s event was sold out long before the scheduled date.

“We generally work on our anniversary celebrations months in advance to ensure that the audience got their monies worth, and there was plenty of variety in the music we provided last year, led by veteran singer, the legendary Fahmy Nazick, along with the band Déjà Vu, guest singer Cherry Deluna, and DJ Chami.

What is special about The Sri Lanka Anchorman, a tabloid newspaper, is its wide and varied content which Sri Lankan-Canadians eagerly look forward to reading.

In fact, Dirk Tissera received a top Toronto press award from the National Ethnic Press & Media Council of Canada (NEPMCC) for excellence in editorial content and visual presentation.

An old boy of St. Mary’s College, Dehiwela, he had his early grooming, in journalism, right here, in Colombo, and then moved to Canada, and is now based in Toronto.

Dirk Tissera is efficiently supported by his wife Michelle in the publication of The Sri Lanka Anchorman.

Continue Reading

Trending