Connect with us

Features

POLIPTO: AUTOPSY OF AN INCREDIBLE CLAIM

Published

on

Dr U. Pethiyagoda.

Friends have wondered about my uncharacteristic interest in the claim made as far back as February 10/ 2009 (yes, eleven and more long years ago), that waste plastics, principally low gauge shopping bags (sili sili bags) could be economically converted to a diesel-type product. It is useful to record portions of what now seem like a tissue of untruths.

The spectacular claims (on record) included:-

(1) This was a World first, involving a unique “catalyst” discovered locally.

(2) The discoverer was not a formal chemist but a self-inspired retired Police Officer.

(3) The process was chemico-industrially endorsed by the academics of Moratuwa University.

(4) The Ministry of Environment and the Central Environmental Authority, assumed sponsorship.

(5) A commercial entity “Polipto” was established with 60% capital from the State, 30 % from CEA and 10% from Moratuwa University.

(6) Some Rs 6 million was proposed as initial expenses, later supplemented by Rs 25 million more from the Treasury

Meanwhile, the process was claimed to be energy-productive, the yield was 800 ml diesel-like fuel per 1.0 kg of polythene. The fuel was of combustible quality, such that it was claimed that the “Inventor” ran his (unmodified) car on the raw fuel with no ill effects! Shades “Dhammika Peni?” The secret “catalyst” is safely stored in the Vice-Chancellor’s custody at Moratuwa University. (It is regrettably not on record that it has been recently tested for efficacy). One prays that it is still active – otherwise all else will be lost. Meanwhile, a Production Unit has been set up and said to be in operation at Yatiyantota. The Inventor was hired as a well-paid Consultant. It is rumoured (never revealed for some obscure reason) to have cost (some) Rs 70 million.

It is the performance of this Unit that has found recent mention in Parliament. Interestingly, as far back as April 2010, just prior to some Election, Mr Champika Ranawaka (Minister of Environment at that time?) was actually pictured in the newspapers, feeding “Polipto” Diesel into Three-wheelers (free) from a commercial petrol pump! Could he too have been as deceived then, as all of us certainly were?

When this claim for indigenous Science first reached the Press, I had to be cautiously exhilarated. Cautiously, because I was aware that intense research interest has been drawn to similar procedures elsewhere because of their obvious and spectacular value. Our process was special because it promised a positive energy (and therefore commercial) value – which no other process had. On the basis of my rudimentary chemistry, the claim seemed to be in conflict with the very fundamental Law of the Conservation of Energy, that I had learned to appreciate. Here is an energy expending process converting hydrocarbon (crude oil?) to plastic and this being reversed to hydrocarbon with a net gain of Energy. Can’t be, it seemed to my simple mind! No colleague has yet been able to relieve my mind of this doubt. The age of Alchemy, which hoped to transform base elements to Gold is long gone.

“Polymerization” is one of the most versatile, useful and spectacular chemical phenomena in nature. Plastics (Polymers) provide great innovativeness and complexity of chemical designing talent. The variety that Industrial Chemical ingenuity has brought into our life through polymers, is staggering. Correspondingly, handling of a variety of compositions, are structures and configurations have to be complex. Hence there is a need for great and appropriate humility when claims for chemical reversal are made. To understand one’s limitations is not an inferiority complex. To believe that such a tangled chemical web can be unraveled by something akin to a “kema” has to look like wishful hope!

The local claims were wildly extravagant. They envisaged a diesel-like distillate which could be directly combusted in existing motor engines and yielding a national saving of two thousand million rupees (Rs 2,000,000,000/=) each year. It would have been kind to dismiss this as the occasional Hogwash/Bullshit. But, let it be remembered that this was implicitly endorsed by the University of Moratuwa and the Central Environmental Authority. Will they even now have the dignity and stature to admit to a serious error of judgment? Or, would they prefer it to be more honestly recorded as deceit or fraud?

That Industrial Chemists, equipped with respectable University qualifications, could be so naïve is astonishing. The reputation of an esteemed University has been sullied. Enormous expenditure (as yet obstinately undisclosed) has been incurred, an industrial (pilot) plant of unrevealed utility has been established at Yatiyantota – ancillary commitments are unknown.

Meanwhile, an interesting question has been asked by Mr. Udaya Gammanpila (UG) regarding “Polipto” and answered by Mr Chandima Weerakkody (CW), Minister of Petroleum in Parliament on May 18, 2016 (Hansard, p154 – 156) . For his response, the Minister has been poorly briefed – with an answer designed to confuse, conceal and obscure. UG, at the time of the happenings (which he now innocently questions!), was both Chairman of CEA (sponsors) and “Polipto” (executors). The grand full page pretext of (very appropriately April 1) 2010 showing Minister Ranawake pumping “Polipto” diesel into three- wheelers was most probably orchestrated by UG or his acolytes themselves! Only the public was deceived. Curiously, the questioner MP was Chairman of CEA at the time. His interest this matter is natural and commendable.

The pretext now of the product being “furnace fuel” is fraudulent. This conflicts with the earlier claim was that the distillate had run the inventor’s car successfully without need for any modification. This scoffs at the need for petroleum companies to engage in expensive, sophisticated research to design additives to enhance the performance of traditionally produced auto- fuel. In fact it insults them! So, “Polipto diesel” has now become furnace fuel – could it eventually go full cycle and end up as molten plastic? No surprise if it does!

To focus on just one point of CW’s answer in Parliament:- the plant is said to produce 800 litres daily, which will increase to 2,000 litres in a few weeks. With all this, it is only now that negotiations are being held on sale arrangements with the Ceylon Electricity Board! Will the private sector ever venture into a production process like that?

An earlier assertion was that 1 kg of shopping bags yields 800 ml of fuel (itself a dubious claim). If so, 2,500kg (2.5 tons) of “bags equivalent” is needed daily to yield 1,000 Litres. Can one visualize this bulk of bags and imagine its daily collection from the vicinity of Yatiyantota? Indeed, how does this quantity match up with the total annual production of polythene bags in the whole country? There is no evidence of systematic collection anywhere!

What of the daily collection costs? These and other realities cannot be airily dismissed. Energy costs at plant? Labour? Containers? Transport? Other consumables? And finally, product cost per litre? Remember that we were earlier promised “Polipto Petrol” at Rs75 to 80 per litre!

I have tried very hard to extract relevant cost data. I have encountered only stubborn silence, obstruction and where possible insult! It is only right that I now name names, distasteful though I find it.

Both Champika Ranawake and Tissa Vitarana have been given ample opportunity to provide details but have haughtily disdained. Wimaladharma Abeywickrema and his side-kick Roshan Gunawardene have dodged, insulted and been untruthful. Udaya Gammanpila has been duplicitious and Charitha Herath have all ignored legitimate requests for cost data. It is a pity that such an important scientific claim has only led to concealment. However, the greatest guilt in my book, has to pass to the University of Moratuwa staff who have sold their scientific integrity, and forsaken the reputation of their Institution – for what I do not know. They at least have exploited the non-sophistication of the purported inventor, Mr.Withanage.

If the rest of the scientific world had taken our claim seriously, there would be plentiful egg on several faces.

Even now, if my doubts and reservations are proven to be wrong I shall be grateful to be shown so. But the strongest proof would be the demonstration that waste polythene can be economically converted to a fuel combustible in an internal combustion engine. Then, all concerned will have my humble, sincere, abject and unqualified apology. Alternatively, let us be told candidly, that we were taken for a ride that stopped short of its destination. And, if possible – “WE ARE SORRY AND PROMISE NOT TO DO THIS AGAIN”. What, one wonders would be the fate of “Polipto”? If humble enough to accept a suggestion, by all means eliminate discarded polythene from the environment, melt and remold it into utility items where aesthetic excellence is not over-important. There will be a market.

Since I composed this essay, I chanced on a TV documentary which featured an enterprise for recycling empty water bottles (PET) into household brush-ware (brooms, brushes etc). This was commendable, organized use of a waste product – the way to go.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Twenty-five years of private sector-led renewable energy development

Published

on

by Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya

A policy change in 1995 to allow private investments in electricity generation into the grid, a standard agreement and a standard price for electricity produced, enabled such investments to pick-up faster than in other countries. The first mini-hydro power project with entirely private sector funding and private ownership commenced operations in May 1996.

 

The agreement and the price

Dubbed the “most investor friendly agreement in the world”, Sri Lanka’s renewable energy developers were offered, since 1996, a non-negotiable 15-year agreement (20-years for projects signed after 2008). The agreement says, literally, “I will buy all your electricity produced for the next 15 years, any day any time; I will not penalize you for delays in your project or for not producing electricity at all or producing less electricity than you promised; I will not ask you to start or stop your power plant”. There is no other agreement in the business world 25 years ago or now, where such agreements are offered to a seller.

Then the price. The agreement carries a price, which too is not negotiable. It says: “I will pay you a price that reflects the fuel saved in major power plants; in case fuel prices go down, I will not drop the price below 90% of the price when you signed; if the fuel prices go up, I will keep on increasing the prices without any limit”.

I shall buy all your all your product at the following price for 20 years. If you do not produce too, even when I need it badly, I will only greet you with a smile !

Government procurements have to be on competitive basis. This policy of competition was further reinforced by the Electricity Act 2009, required to be implemented by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL). The legal validity of such renewable energy agreements and price offers, that make a mockery of rules of “competition”, has been debated in many quarters over the past 25 years.

 

Has it been good ?

Well, yes and no, depending on whom you speak to and your convictions. To the credit of the program, Sri Lanka’s renewable energy development accelerated after 1996. These are smaller power plants using hydropower, wind, wood and more recently, waste. If the government attempted to develop them through a state entity, excessive overheads and inefficiency would most likely creep-in. There would have been a politically appointed Chairman and a fleet of vehicles going up and down, to run a tiny minihydro.

On the other hand, had the state rigidly controlled what is developed and where, renewable energy projects developed would have been more efficient, well-engineered and certainly more environment friendly. Stories are many, where a private mini-hydro project agreed with the Central Environmental Authority to release water for downstream users, but later blocked it 100%. As the saying goes, “Sri Lanka’s streams and rivers are now flowing in tubes”, but we are proud about a vibrant renewable energy industry !

Renewable energy from such smaller private investments reached 1% of total in year 2000 and 4% by 2006. Buoyed by another policy change in 2007 that offered a contract for 20 years and an even more attractive prices, renewable energy from small power plants raced toward a 10% policy target for 2015. It reached the target indeed, with 11% of electricity produced in 2015 from the combined production in 147 minihydros, 15 wind and 3 each of grown biomass, wood waste and solar parks. Unlike many countries who make headlines by stating their renewable energy contribution in megawatt, Sri Lanka’s targets and achievement are stated in kilowatthour, honestly reflecting the true benefits to save fuel and to reduce emissions.

Continuing its race for development, by 2020 (provisional figures) electricity produced from smaller private renewable energy power plants reached 12%. Adding major hydros, the energy share from all renewable energy was 37% by 2020, a share unmatched by all countries and expatriate Sri Lankans that preach Sri Lanka on how to develop renewable energy.

 

Has the price been good to the investor?

The policy of paying renewable energy projects signed over 1996-2016 was to pay the value of fuel saved in the grid, calculated and published in advance every year. Agreements signed after 2007 enjoy an even more attractive pricing formula: a technology-specific, cost-reflective price. That means minihydros are paid a price to make that a profitable investment; wind power is paid to make that technology, a profitable investment.

Once signed, price paid does not change. If costs go up or down after signing, or bank interest rates go up or down, the price remains the same. Fortunately for all who signed in 2008-2009 or later, equipment costs and bank interest rates both have been on a downward trend. Projects that borrowed at 18% in 2018 possibly borrowed at 8% this year, but still enjoy the price paid calculated at 18% interest. By way of equipment costs, solar power has seen the deepest reduction in costs. More on that later.

 

What was the benefit to the public?

Why did the government offer such attractive rates and terms to private investors? Sri Lanka did not throw Rs 10 at renewable energy investors and say “do it if you can”. The key principle in the pricing policy was: price paid makes investments profitable (not just profitable but excessively profitable). The agreement still remains the “most investor friendly agreement” in the world.

In other words, the public of this country, through their electricity bills and through taxes, have paid for the investments, bank interest, and profits (above market rates), to make privately-owned renewable energy an excessively profitable venture. Other benefits of renewable energy need not be repeated here; they are all well known. So what is the benefit to the public who fully paid (and continue to pay) for these investments, of which the ownership is private?

It should be the longer-term benefit of cheaper renewable energy. That’s why the 2008 announcement on the revised policy said as follows: “Renewable energy, which is a natural resource, belongs to the State. Developers are provided with a high tariff to cover their expenses and to earn reasonable profits for an adequately long period (in this case the first fifteen years). Thereafter, the benefit of the resource should flow to the electricity customers, while continuing to provide an operating fee to the small power producers and full recovery of maintenance costs”.

The closest example is the CEB-owned fleet of hydropower plants, which are bigger. The familiar ones are Laxapana, Kotmale and Victoria, among a total of 15 power plants. The public of the country paid for those too, starting from 1950. How? Through electricity bills (because loans and government investments were apportioned between CEB and Mahaweli Authority), taxes and benefits foregone. The major hydros today produce at a cost of Rs 3.35 per unit of electricity. True, that except for Upper Kotmale, all are 20 years or more of age. The fleet of minihydros, too, as they mature into their contracts, after 15 years of good profits to investors, should deliver benefits to electricity customers. That’s why the 2008 announcement said: Therefore, once the developers’ costs and profits are paid, it is inevitable that in the long-term, renewable energy should flow into the national grid at prices significantly lower than the cost of thermal energy.

However, information published indicates that the principles on which small power producers were enabled in 1996 and then enhanced in 2008, are indeed being followed. CEB produces electricity from mature hydros at Rs 3.35 per unit (PUCSL assessment 2019). The price for mature hydropower in the private sector was Rs 5.38 per unit (CEB publication 2019), precisely following the principle of fairness: good profits to investor for 15 years, benefits to electricity customer in the longer term.

As more and more minihydros mature, later wind, biomass and solar projects mature, we should be seeing finally, that ALL renewables produce electricity at prices very significantly lower than all the alternatives. Renewables replace thermal power and we should be paid the same price, will not be an argument, now or then, or in the future. “My power plant is not so good, it does not have water, is not an argument”, because no one defined where to build the minihydro; the investor selected it.

The argument that private renewables can produce below the price of oil, gas or coal does not hold, then, now or in the future. Renewables were allowed because fossil fuels were expensive and bad. The price of fossil fuels comprise royalties, production and delivery costs. If one needs a comparison, royalties for renewables have to be paid to the “republic” (the treasury) and production costs paid by electricity customers. Since royalties are not charged for renewables, both CEB and private, then renewable energy prices should be compared only with production costs. The investment has already been fully paid by the republic.

I conclude with a quotation from the 2008 announcement: “Small power producers opting not to migrate to the new agreement by 30th April 2008, will be offered the tier 3 tariff announced for the relevant technology in the year in which the existing agreement expires, after its full tenure of 15 years is completed”. That means, retiring minihydros should be offered prices in the range of Rs 6 per unit.

It is yet to be seen whether the PUCSL and consumer rights groups are willing to fully and comprehensively understand the issue, step-in, and ensure that “renewable energy belongs to the republic”, as stated in the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority Act 2007.

The country’s streams are now flowing in tubes, but do benefits flow to the public who have fully paid the investors with profits?

Continue Reading

Features

Danger of disregarding Geopolitical Realities

Published

on

Negotiating Agreements for Foreign Investments:

By Dr. S.W. Premaratne
Attorney-at-Law

Foreign Policy decision-maker, of a state, have to take into consideration the prevailing geopolitical environment of the international system, and of the region concerned, at a given time, when there is a foreign policy aspect involved in the decision that has to be taken regarding any issue Omission, or failure to give consideration to this aspect of the issue, can lead to disastrous consequences. Several examples from the recent political history of Sri Lanka can be given to illustrate this point.

Sri Lanka’s conduct of foreign policy, in the 1980s, is a clear example of the serious consequences of ignoring India’s concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s pro-West tilt in its foreign policy. Sri Lanka’s declared policy was non-alignment in maintaining relations with other states, specially the Big Powers in the West and the East. However, the J.R. Jayewardene government, that came to power, in 1977, sought to develop a closer relationship with the Western countries, led by the USA. The nature of the interactions between the diplomats of the USA and Sri Lanka, at the time, had given the impression to India that Sri Lanka was seeking the assistance of the USA for suppressing the Tamil militant movement in Sri Lank, fighting for the rights of the Tamil community. There were also reasons for India to suspect that there was an understanding between the Sri Lankan Government and the USA to allow the Trincomalee harbour to be used by the USA. It was this perception of India that Sri Lanka was following an anti-India foreign policy, endangering the security of India that motivated India to intervene militarily in the year 1987 to thwart the progress of the Vadamarachchi operation, aimed at militarily defeating the Tamil militant movement.

After aborting the progress of the Vadamarachchi operatio, the Indian government proceeded to compel the Sri Lankan Government to sign an Agreement – the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of July 1987 – to ensure that Sri Lanka respected India’s security concerns and other interests when seeking assistance from outside Powers for Sri Lanka’s economic development or national security.

 

India’s concerns regarding China’s excessive involvement in Sri Lanka’s development projects

Sri Lanka’s political leaders and diplomats, whenever they get an opportunity, express their affection for their Big Brother, India, and express the need for further strengthening the friendship for the mutual benefit of both countries. India’s perception, however, is that, especially after the change of government in 2005, there is an evolving special relationship between Sri Lanka and China posing a serious threat to the national security of India.

Sri Lanka felt intensely isolated from the international community after adopting the Resolution A/HRC/46/L. Rev. 1 against Sri Lanka, at the UNHRC, in Geneva, in March, 2021, especially because India also decided to support the core-group indirectly by abstaining from voting.

The only consolation for Sri Lanka now is China’s expression of willingness to further strengthen its strategic relationship with Sri Lanka by extending further development assistance to Sri Lanka, within the framework of the Belt end Road Initiative. Subsequent to a telephone conversation between the two leaders, the President of China and the President of Sri Lanka, in a statement issued by the Chinese Embassy in Colombo, on March 30, 2021, it was stated that “China attaches great importance to the development of bilateral ties and stands ready to work with Sri Lanka to determine the strategic direction and achieve steady growth of the relationship. China stands ready to steadily push forward major projects, like the Colombo Port City and the Hambantota Port, and promote high quality Belt and Road Co-operation, providing robust impetus for Sri Lanka’s post pandemic economic recovery and sustainable development”. China projecting Sri Lanka as an intimate partner of the Belt and Road strategy indicates that Sri Lanka is distancing itself from the path of non-alignment and adopting an anti-Western and anti-India approach.

In the matter of obtaining foreign investments for development projects, Sri Lanka has failed to foresee the foreign policy implications of overreliance on China. The two massive development projects, initiated during the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, which came to power in 2005, were the Hambantota sea port and the Port City Project in Colombo. The amount of money invested for these two projects, by China, was so massive that Sri Lanka happened to sign an agreement for permitting the management and control of the Hambantota Port by the state-controlled company of China, under a 99-year lease agreement. The Management and control of the Colombo Port City area also has been granted to the Chinese construction company, under a 99-year lease agreement. Not only India, but also the USA and other Western countries have expressed serious concern regarding the involvement of China in strategically significant massive development projects in Sri Lanka. India’s perception now is that Sri Lanka is an aircraft carrier of China, stationed in the Indian Ocean, close to India. Hambantota Port is viewed as another pearl in the string of pearls maintained for containing India by China.

India is also concerned over the lack of interest on the part of the Sri Lankan Government to go ahead with the development projects regarding which agreement had been reached with India, during the Sirisena-Wickremasinghe coalition government. In May, 2019, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), Japan and India proposing the development of the East Container Terminal jointly, Sri Lanka and Ports Authority retaining 51 percent shares. However, the present Government deviated from that understanding and decided to nominate one Indian investor, Adani Group, disregarding Japan. But, the attempt of the Sri Lankan Government to involve the Indian Company in this project by offering 49 percent of the shares of the ECT was thwarted by the trade union action of the port workers, supported by an influential section of the Buddhist priests and also a section of the ruling alliance. The Sri Lankan government had no alternative but to respond to the demand of the trade unions by getting the Cabinet approval for developing the ECT only by the Colombo Port Authority, without involving India or Japan.

India has also expressed concern over the attitude of the Sri Lankan Government concerning the development and management of the Trincomalee oil tank farm. The lower farm has been managed jointly by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) via Lanka IOC Private Limited. The 2003 tripartite agreement signed by the Sri Lankan Government, LIOC and the CPC covers the entire tank farm. India is now concerned about the excessive delay in granting the Sri Lankan Government’s approval for commencing the development of the Upper Tank Farm, comprising 84 tanks.

Another joint venture, regarding which Sri Lanka sought the involvement of India’s Petronet LNG Ltd. Company, and also a Japanese investor, was the proposed liquefied natural gas LNG terminal that was to be set up near Colombo. Although Indian and Japanese Investors had indicated their willingness to join this project, as partners, the Sri Lankan Government has not yet given its final approval for commencing the construction work.

India is also very much concerned over the lack of progress in the reconciliation process initiated after the end of the war. India’s concern in this regard was expressed very effectively and in very clear language in a statement made by the Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar in the course of a media conference during his two-day visit to Sri Lanka in January, this year. In his statement the Indian Foreign Minister said: “As we promote peace and wellbeing in the region, India has been strongly committed to the unity stability and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Our support for the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka is long standing as indeed for an inclusive political outlook that encourages ethnic harmony. It is in Sri Lanka’s own interest that the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity, within a united Sri Lanka, are fulfilled. That applies equally to the commitments made by the Sri Lankan Government on meaningful devolution, including the 13th Amendment to the Constitution”.

Sri Lanka should not consider that India’s interest and involvement in the post-war reconciliation process as a case of a foreign country intervening in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka illegally. India is guided by a mindset that there is a moral responsibility on her part to intervene and bring about a final settlement to the conflict in Sri Lanka.

 

Colombo Port City Economic Commission

Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill which was challenged in the Supreme Court, purported to establish an Economic Commission for the administration of the Port City, built by a construction company of the Chinese Government, adjacent to the Colombo Port. This Bill seeks to grant extensive powers to an institution called the Colombo Port Economic Commission, whose members will be appointed by the President of Sri Lanka. According to the provisions in the Bill, the supervisory power of the Parliament of Sri Lanka has been excluded, both regarding the manner of exercising the powers granted by the proposed legislation to the Commission, and also regarding the selection of persons to be appointed as members of the Commission.

Moreover, regarding the activities that take place within the Colombo Port City area, some institutions of the Government of Sri Lanka are excluded from exercising their authority. Dr. Wijedasa Rajapaksa, in his written submissions submitted to the Supreme Court, in connection with the petition filed challenging the Bill, makes specific reference to the Customs Ordinance. He gives the warning that there may be importation of prohibited substances such as drugs, weapons, etc. He points out that in the event of any violation of International Treaties and Conventions, within the Port City area, it is not the Commission but the Sri Lankan Government that is responsible.

 

Conclusion

In view of the intense power struggle between China on the one hand and India and other partners of the Quad, led by the USA on the other hand, for dominance in the Indian Ocean area, the Parliament of Sri Lanka passing legislation for permitting such a high degree of autonomy to an administrative authority that can be controlled by the Chinese government will be considered by India as a serious threat to its security. This pro-China foreign policy orientation will also be an obstacle for Sri Lanka to promote friendly relations with democratic countries in the West determined to thwart Chinese domination in the Indian Ocean region.

 

 

Continue Reading

Features

The Philippines and SL combine

Published

on

Singer Suzi Croner (Fluckiger), who was a big hit in this part of the world, singing with the group Friends, continues to make her presence felt on TNGlive – the platform, on social media, that promotes talent from all corners of the globe.

She made her third appearance, last Saturday, May 1st, but this time she had for company Sean, from the Philippines, who, incidentally, was in the finals of The Voice of Switzerland 2020.

Their repertoire, for TNGlive, on the evening of May 1st, including hit songs, like ‘Something Stupid,’ ‘Let Your Love Flow,’ (Sean), ‘If You Can’t Give Me Love,’ ‘Your Man,’ (Sean), ‘Crazy,’ ‘Great Pretender,’ (Sean), ‘Amazing,’ and ‘Stand By Me.’

It was a very entertaining programme, and Sean certainly did prove why he needed to be a finalist at the prestigious The Voice of Switzerland 2020.

You can take in the TNGlive scene, on a regular basis, by joining the Public Group TNGlive, on social media (Facebook).

Continue Reading

Trending