Connect with us

Editorial

Port City and wisdom of past leaders

Published

on

Wednesday 2nd June, 2021

The Colombo Port City Economic Commission (CPCEC) members have been appointed. They are from diverse backgrounds and considered capable, but to expect them to be free to act according to their conscience is to be overoptimistic. Freedom is a luxury that even judiciaries lack in this part of the world. Most committees and commissions have become mere rubber stamps here.

Resistance continues to mount against the Port City project, with the US leading the charge. Now, there are no legal barriers for China, but problems are far from over for Sri Lanka, which will have to face another turn of the human rights screw in Geneva or other such hostile actions on various fronts. The opponents of China’s increasing presence here in the form of investment projects should realise that they are also responsible for this situation. They have, in fact, pushed Sri Lanka into what they have chosen to call the Chinese debt trap.

Sri Lanka would not have been dependent on China so much, if the western powers had responded to its distress calls, over the years. Their attempts to use the armed conflict here to further their geo-political interests on the pretext of helping resolve it through negotiations made Sri Lanka still more dependent on China. Had they helped defeat the LTTE and used their taxpayers’ money to assist the state of Sri Lanka instead of lavishing it on their wine-and-cheese brigade in the NGO sector, the situation here would have been different. It was also their callous disregard for Sri Lanka’s appeals for assistance that paved the way for the first historic trade pact between Sri Lanka and China.

In the early 1950s, Sri Lanka’s efforts to secure a loan of USD 50 million from the US besides favourable prices for its rubber exports and rice imports, during a severe shortage of rice and an economic crisis came a cropper. The Dudley Senanayake government was left with no alternative but to turn to China for help. In 1952, the then Minister of Commerce, R. G. Senanayake, successfully negotiated the now famous Rubber-Rice pact with China amidst stiff resistance not only from the US and its allies, but also from some government members such as Finance Minister J. R. Jayewardene. The current hostile campaign spearheaded by the US against the Colombo Port City and other Chinese investment projects in Sri Lanka reminds us of the situation here about seven decades ago. The US and other western powers should take notice of what R. G. Senanayake said in Parliament (as quoted by the late Dr. J. B. Kelegama in his keynote address at a ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the Rubber-Rice pact): “We waited for foreign aid, foreign assistance. As you know Sir, over and over again, we made appeals for Point Four aid, we waited four long years. We have got in the form of assistance only a cook for the Kundasale Girls’ School. Therefore, in these circumstances, it was necessary that we should go where it was possible to get our requirements.”

The 1952 trade pact was a win-win situation for both nations—China got rubber and Sri Lanka rice. Some economists are of the view that the agreement was more favourable to Sri Lanka in that China supplied rice at lower prices and purchased rubber at higher prices. Dr. Kelegama has referred to this agreement as the first instance of South-South economic cooperation.

China has always stood by Sri Lanka, but as for the pacts signed between the two nations in recent years, it is doubtful whether the spirit of cooperation has remained the same. Dr. Kelegama has pointed out that (R. G.) Senanayake praised China in a Cabinet paper thus: “We noted on the Chinese side the absence of the spirit of bargaining and haggling on comparatively small points. On the other hand, they gave us the impression of being large-minded and forthright in their dealings”. This, we are afraid, cannot be said of China anent the deals it has struck with Sri Lanka in recent years; these agreements are loaded in favour of China. The original draft of the CPCEC Bill contained about 25 sections that were inconsistent with the Constitution; the government must have prepared the controversial document at the instance of China, or with a view to humouring it. Thankfully, a judicial intervention helped get rid of those sections, which have however left a bad taste in many a mouth and become grist for the anti-China campaigners backed by the US.

If the present-day Chinese and Sri Lankan leaders are desirous of preventing prejudice against Chinese investment here being whipped up to the point of public opinion turning against them, they had better emulate their far-sighted, illustrious predecessors who were wise and considerate enough to ensure that their actions were mutually beneficial to both nations.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

From Nazi Germany to Zimbabwe and beyond

Published

on

Friday 4th September, 2026

Doomed are the nations that look on while rulers seek to perpetuate their grip on power through undemocratic means. John Stuart Mill famously observed in 1867: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

Adolf Hitler established an authoritarian rule in Germany by throttling democracy, which enabled him to capture power, and the entire world suffered as a result. His rise to power followed the Nazi Party’s victory at the July 1932 election, albeit without an absolute majority. After becoming the Chancellor, Hitler did not overthrow the Constitution. Instead, he systematically destroyed it from within by exploiting its emergency provisions, suspending its safeguards, manipulating the legislature and the judiciary and obtaining legal authority through legal amendments, etc., to introduce laws in defiance of it.

Today’s comment however is not about the Third Reich or what Hitler did to the Weimar Constitution. Instead, it is about Zimbabwe, a multi-party democracy that descended into dictatorship, and how that country’s Constitution was manipulated to undermine judicial independence.

In 2021, President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government hurriedly secured the passage of a constitutional amendment Bill to raise the retirement age of judges, provoking a debate over whether it was proper to amend the Constitution to increase judicial tenure just in time to keep an incumbent Chief Justice in office. That amendment was obviously not part of a wider judicial reform initiative; it immediately opened the way for the then Chief Justice Luke Malaba to remain in office for another five years.

President Mnangagwa and his government craftily camouflaged their real intention, which was to retain Malaba, who was loyal to them; they undertook to raise the mandatory retirement age of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Judges of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court from 70 to 75. Malaba’s 70th birthday was only eight days away when the controversial constitutional amendment was passed. The government claimed that Parliament had lawfully changed the retirement age of judges, thereby authorising the continuation of the incumbent senior judges. But that regime could not dupe its critics and the international community, who pointed out that the Constitution did not allow any amendment to be introduced to the term-limit provision, benefiting the serving judges. They also argued that the amendment had been crafted and timed specifically to benefit Chief Justice Malaba.

Legal challenges and arguments were mainly focused on whether constitutional safeguards intended to prevent politicians from manipulating judicial tenure could be circumvented by a mere constitutional amendment without a referendum. Two applications challenging the position of the Mnangagwa government were filed before the High Court, and on the day Malaba turned 70, a three-judge High Court bench ruled that he had ceased to be the Chief Justice as well as a judge because increasing the retirement age effectively extended judicial tenure and therefore could not be applied to the serving judges without approval at a national referendum. The High Court ruled that it would amount to a violation of constitutional protections to allow an incumbent judge to benefit from the retirement age revision. The Mnangagwa regime tore into the High Court, condemning the bold judgement and appealed against it.

The appeal was lodged with Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court, whose judges themselves had been cited in the original litigation as they were among the beneficiaries of the constitutional amendment at issue. They had no qualms about acting in contravention of the much-cherished legal maxim, nemo judex in causa sua, which holds that no person should adjudicate a matter in which he or she has a personal interest. The Constitutional Court overturned the High Court judgement, and Malaba remained in office.

Interestingly, when the revision of the judges’ retirement age was first mooted, Malaba was in the centre of a controversy over his handling of the Opposition’s legal challenge to the 2018 presidential election results. In the same year, the Constitutional Court, with Malaba presiding, dismissed the Opposition’s challenge to Mnangagwa’s election and confirmed Mnangagwa as President. Ironically, three years later, Malaba’s tenure was extended by a constitutional amendment moved under Mnangagwa’s presidency. A quid pro quo?

Malaba’s continuation in office was widely seen as an indication of the judiciary having become an appendage of the Executive. After his controversial extension of tenure, Malaba acted in a manner that was widely seen as partial to the Executive, and the constitutional amendment that enabled him to remain in office came to be dubbed the “Malaba Clause”. He retired a few months ago.

The Malaba affair may not have caused Zimbabwe to face a new round of sanctions, but it resulted in much international opprobrium, with the UN expressing serious concerns about the controversial constitutional amendment that undermined judicial independence.

One can only hope that no other country will suffer the same fate as Zimbabwe, where the separation of powers has been eroded and constitutional and judicial processes are manipulated for political ends.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Strange arithmetic goes unchallenged

Published

on

Thursday 3rd September, 2026

The price of a kilo of wheat flour has recently been increased by Rs. 17, and the All Ceylon Bakery Owners’ Association has lost no time in jacking up the price of a 450g loaf of bread by Rs. 10. Loaves of bread weighing 450g are as rare as hen’s teeth in this country. But supposing the average weight of a loaf of bread is 450g, as claimed by bakers, and an equal amount of wheat flour is used to produce it, the actual cost increase resulting from the wheat flour price hike would be Rs. 7.65 per loaf, and not Rs. 10. However, it is public knowledge that producing a 450g loaf does not require an equivalent amount of wheat flour, since water and other ingredients also go into making bread. If this fact is taken into account, the cost increase attributable to the flour price hike should be even lower. Thus, the recent flour price hike has been a boon for bakers.

The Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) is apparently unconcerned about how bakers do their cost calculations and determine bread prices. It also takes no action against those who sell bread below the stipulated weight. Consumers have to grin and bear it.

The government should direct the CAA to make a decisive intervention to prevent the exploitation of the public struggling to keep their heads above water, with the cost of living soaring. That is the least it can do to mitigate the impact of the double whammy of increasing cost of living and decreasing real incomes.

The government must not lose sight of the fact that Sri Lanka ranks 120th out of 130 countries in the latest Visual Capitalist global minimum wage comparison, based on data from the International Labour Organisation. The report puts Sri Lanka’s monthly minimum wage, measured in purchasing-power terms, at the equivalent of USD 200, placing it among the lowest in the world. Sri Lanka has also ranked last among the South Asian countries covered by the index. Pakistan has ranked 68th with USD 570, followed by Nepal at 78th with USD 490, Bangladesh at 89th with USD 379 and India at 111th with USD 233.

Bakers are not alone in exploiting the public. Eatery owners also fleece consumers mercilessly. They have also made the most of the recent wheat flour price hike, increasing the prices of a range of products, including hoppers, kottu roti and string hoppers, by disproportionate amounts. If the petrol price goes up by Rs. 30 per litre, trishaw operators jack up fare by Rs. 10 per km as if a tuk-tuk did only 3 km to a litre of petrol.

The government is no better. It continues to impose the so-called loss-recovery levy of Rs. 50 on a litre of fuel, claiming that the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation’s legacy debt has to be recovered. But the Petroleum Dealers’ Association is of the view that the CPC’s losses have been fully recovered. Its spokesman has told the media that there is no justification whatsoever for the continuation of the levy, and urged the government to remove it immediately and provide some relief to consumers. The government has not countered that claim.

Strangely, the Opposition remains silent on the exploitation of consumers. It has not demanded an explanation from the government regarding the petroleum dealers’ claim that the CPC’s losses have been fully recovered and the loss-recovery levy should be done away with. It has also refrained from challenging the padded cost calculations used by bakers, eatery owners, taxi operators and others to justify higher prices and fares. It lacks the courage to criticise private bus operators who have become a law unto themselves, even opposing the metro bus service, which has stood commuters in good stead.

Every nation is said to get the government it deserves. Apparently, the same goes for the Opposition in this country. Both the self-proclaimed Marxist government and its ‘social democratic’ rivals would do well to learn from India, where ‘Cockroaches’ have shaken the Modi administration and the Congress-led Opposition.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Dope in Big Boxes

Published

on

Wednesday 2nd September, 2026

Five suspects have been arrested over the recent detection of more than 471 kg of ‘ICE’ (crystal methamphetamine) concealed in a freight container. Three of the suspects are Pakistani nationals, and the others are Sri Lankans. The container carrying drugs came from Pakistan for onward shipment to Cameroon.

Given the sheer cargo volumes handled by ports around the world, there is reason to believe that a large number of shipping containers carrying narcotics go undetected. Freight containers have become a major conduit for the global trafficking of narcotics because millions of them move through ports with enormous volumes of legitimate cargo, and therefore drugs hidden in them often go undetected.

It may be recalled that last year, a World Customs Organization analysis of more than 2,600 drug seizures revealed that shipping containers accounted for 85% of detections and 80% of the narcotics seized by volume. Criminal networks exploit legitimate consignments, container structures and vulnerabilities in the maritime supply chain, sometimes with the help of insiders and powerful politicians in some countries. Cocaine reportedly dominates drug trafficking in containers though heroin, etc., are also smuggled by sea.

During the past one and a half decades or so, several major narcotics detections have involved freight containers in Sri Lanka. In 2010, a consignment of 35 kg of heroin was detected at the Port of Colombo in a container from Pakistan; in 2013, Customs seized 131 kg of heroin concealed in a 40-foot container from Karachi. In 2014, another haul of 93 kg of heroin was found in a container shipped from Pakistan. In 2017, a huge consignment of 218 kg of cocaine was detected in a shipping container carrying sugar. In 2023, Customs seized 16 kg of heroin concealed in a refrigerated container that had arrived from Karachi. These narcotics detections indicate that Sri Lanka has become a transit point for drugs trafficked among Asia, Europe and other destinations. Sri Lanka Customs itself has noted that narcotics are smuggled into the country not only for domestic consumption but also in transit to other countries linking Europe and Asia.

Narcotics as well as other illegal materials have been found even in shipping containers released by the Customs after inspections. The aforementioned stock of cocaine weighing 218 kilos was detected in a cargo container carrying imported sugar, delivered to the Ratmalana Economic Centre. Besides, in 2019, as many as 263 shipping containers were found to carry hospital waste from the UK. It was revealed that a considerable number of such containers had previously entered the country. This is why containers must not be released through the green channel.

Prudence demands that the Customs thoroughly inspect all containers for which politicians seek priority clearance. The haul of 131 kilos of heroin detected in 2013 had been smuggled in a shipping container that the Office of the then Prime Minister D. M. Jayaratne requested the Customs to green-channel on a priority basis.

In January 2025, the incumbent government made use of a port delay to have 323 red-flagged containers released without mandatory Customs checks. The possibility of racketeers making the most of that situation to secure the release of containers carrying contraband through the green channel cannot be ruled out.

The then Additional Director General of Customs Seevali Arukgoda, addressing the media, took great pains to convince the public that there had been no illegal cargo in the 323 containers. He said the Customs had perused all documents pertaining to them, and they had carried goods such as cement, textiles, motor spares, solar panels and pesticides. Smugglers do not mention illegal goods in the documents submitted to the Customs, do they? Most of all, how can the Customs say for sure that there were no illegal goods concealed in those containers that were not inspected at all? It was obvious that Arukgoda was defending the government. He was appointed Director General of Customs, and after his retirement, he was appointed to a senior post in the President’s Office.

The issue of green-channelling so many red-flagged containers will not go away; it is bound to be probed under a future government. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and the CID arrest former ministers and ex-bureaucrats for lesser offences.

Continue Reading

Trending