Connect with us

Midweek Review

Significance of CPC-HIPG MoU

Published

on

Dec 09, 2017: A jubilant PM Wickremesinghe at the formal handing over of HIP to China. The UNP leader holds a cheque written in favour of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), on behalf of Sri Lanka, recently entered into an unprecedented Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Hambantota International Port Group (HIPG) to expand its storage and bulk distribution facilities.

Why did CPC need a MoU with HIPG to go ahead with the project?

The signing of the MoU took place on June 8 at the Energy Ministry with Johnson Liu, CEO of HIPG, and Sumith Wijesinghe, Chairman, CPC, representing the two parties. Energy Minister Udaya Gammanpila was present at the signing ceremony. The MoU dealt with the agreement signed between the CPC and the strategic public-private partnership, involving Sri Lanka and China Merchants Port Holdings (CMPort).

The CPC issued just a picture of the event on the day after the signing of the MoU. According to a statement, comprising nine lines, among those present at the signing, in addition to Minister Gammanpila, were Energy Secretary K.D.R. Olga, Additional Secretary, Chaminda Hettiarachchi, and Managing Director of CPC, Buddhika Madihewa.

Tyron Devotta, on behalf of Public Relations firm, Media 360, handling HIPG, issued a comprehensive statement, on June 14, as regards the MoU finalized on June 8. Veteran journalist and columnist, Devotta, quoted, CEO Johnson Liu as having told the June 8 gathering at the Energy Ministry: “The vision of HIPG is to develop the Hambantota International Port (HIP) to become an energy hub for South Asia. Whilst HIPG has put the infrastructure in place to realize that goal, we are also aware that we cannot achieve it without the participation of all the players in the equation. To this end, we recognize the importance of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation as a vital cog in the machinery. The Hambantota Port is encouraged by this move, by the corporation, and as much as it will support the smooth and efficient supply of fuel to the customer, it will also strengthen the position of this Sri Lankan port on the global maritime map.”

The overall project is also subject to the approval of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) in view of its stake in the Hambantota Port project.

The CPC intends to establish a separate state-of-the-art storage terminal and other required facilities on a 50 acre Mahaweli Authority land, for both domestic and export purposes, connected to the HIP, via a pipeline.

Why did the media receive a separate statement that dealt with the issue at hand, lucidly? Devotta explained why Sri Lanka required far larger storage facilities to ensure energy security. Let me quote

Media 360 release verbatim: “The existing storage facility of CPC/CPSTL is sufficient to store refined petroleum product requirements of the entire country for a period of only one month, a capacity below the requirements of ensuring the energy security of the country. CPC currently imports refined petroleum products to cater to, approximately, 70% of the country’s demand, via the Colombo port, and suburbs. The CPC has identified the need to increase its fuel storage capacity to cater to at least three months’ of the country’s demand.”

 

Energy sector neglected

Successive governments neglected the energy sector, though all recognized the pivotal importance of ensuring energy security. Even after the successful conclusion of the war, in May 2009, the political leadership lacked the vision to take tangible measures to expand storage and bulk distribution facilities, as well as to set up a new refinery.

Over 12 years after the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), measures are being taken to develop HIP as a strategic energy centre but, unfortunately, the port is no longer in Sri Lanka’s hands due to the short-sighted policies of the previous yahapalana regime. The statement issued by Media 360 signified the change in the Hambantota scenario brought on during the previous Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. The bottom line is that Sri Lanka energy sector projects et al are subject to HIPG approval. That is the reality.

Having invested USD 974 mn in the HIP, as mentioned in the HIPG website, CMPort owns a strong 85 percent of the shares in it, whereas the SLPA’s stake is 15 per cent. CMPort received HIP’s commanding control in 2017 on a 99-year lease granted by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to develop, manage and operate the port area. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government signed the Hambantota port deal in late July 2017.

The then Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, a confidant of President Maithripala Sirisena, signed the agreement, on behalf of Sri Lanka, after Arjuna Ranatunga gave up the portfolios in opposition to the transaction. Ranatunga, who unsuccessfully contested the last general election on the UNP ticket, told the writer recently he couldn’t have accepted the agreement as it was not fair by Sri Lanka. Samarasinghe now represents the SLPP parliamentary group having entered Parliament from the Kalutara District. At that time, Samarasinghe signed the agreement, he was a National List MP courtesy President Sirisena. The President, in his capacity as the SLFP leader, accommodated Samarasinghe on the National List after he failed to retain his seat.

Ranatunga explained how interested parties brazenly manipulated the whole process to the advantage of those seeking control of the HIP. The recently finalized CPC-HIPG MoU underscored that 99-year lease to HIP actually meant the strategic asset cannot be regained in the gainful life time of any Lankan living now. That is the undeniable unpalatable truth. A government that had secured a five-year mandate at the 2015 general election ended up losing an incomparable strategic asset.

Lawmaker Vasudeva Nanayakkara, during the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration, made an abortive bid to halt the handing over of the Hambantota port by way of court action. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed Nanayakkara’s action. Today, Nanayakkara and the SLFP that facilitated the Hambantota transaction are represented in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s cabinet.

In the wake of the 2015 change of government, the UNP-led administration adopted an extremely hostile stand Vis-a-Vis China. Having accepted US leadership as well as US-India-Japan-Australia security-political and economic partnership, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government engaged in a dangerous game much to the discomfort of the public. But, China managed to outmaneuver forces ranged against it and manipulated rapid developments in post-election period. The finalization of agreement in late July 2017 on HIP is nothing but a strategic achievement for Chinese diplomacy. The then Joint Opposition (JO) now recognized as the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) had no option but to keep quiet for obvious reasons. It would be pertinent to mention that following the 2015 defeat, Mahinda Rajapaksa, accompanied by former External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, visited Beijing amidst severe criticism of China-Sri Lanka relationship under the previous Rajapaksa government.

CPC-HIPG MoU

The signing of the MoU between the CPC and HIPG didn’t attract the media attention it deserved. The MoU came into being between Minister Gammanpila’s declaration on June 6 on the proposed new refinery at Sapugaskanda to be built at a cost of USD 3 bn (Rs 6,000 bn) on BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer) basis and his announcement of upward revision of fuel prices on Jun 11. The fuel price hike triggered a political turmoil, with SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam, MP, of course, with SLPP founder Basil Rajapaksa’s blessings, demanded Minister Gammanpila’s resignation.

Former Attorney General’s Department employee, Attorney-at-Law Kariyawasam received the backing of the vast majority of the SLPP parliamentary group as he took on a small group of government lawmakers, who declared their support for Gammanpila. The battle caused a dicey situation with some speculating a division among the Rajapaksas as regards not only political strategy but future direction of the party as well. The country is in such economic dire straits with the lockdown alone costing billions to the exchequer daily, the ruling coalition cannot, under any circumstances, pave the way for internal squabbles to cause further deterioration. SLPP General Secretary Kariyawasam found fault with the Energy Minister for the substantial price hike. But, can the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader be held responsible for waste, corruption, irregularities and negligence over a period of time that resulted in the CPC being in debt to the tune of Rs 652 bn to the Bank of Ceylon and the People’s Bank. Both Minister Gammanpila and the Presidential Media Division (PMD) warned that CPC’s loans amounting to Rs 652 bn and the Ceylon Electricity Board’s Rs 85 bn debt could undermine the banking sector and reminded the crisis the country was in.

Unchecked corruption has weakened the national economy to such a degree over the years, the incumbent government is now facing a massive cash flow crisis as it has literally nothing to fall back on.

Unfortunately, corruption continues, unabatedly. Examination of proceedings of the parliamentary watchdog committee reveal corruption is on the march with the support of those constitutionally empowered to address the issue. Debilitated by corruption, successive governments have pursued a despicable strategy in selling national assets. Trade Minister Bandula Gunawardena shamelessly justified the strategy in Parliament on June 8. What Minister Gunawardena basically said was to sell off whatever assets to bridge the budget deficit. Gunawardena owed the electorate an explanation as to how the country would cope once all assets are disposed of, regardless of the consequences.

The previous yahapalana administration reached consensus with Indian investments on four major projects, namely Mattala airport, East Container Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo port, remaining oil tanks at the Trincomalee oil tank farm, and an LNG power plant in Sampur. The collapse of the UNP-SLFP partnership disrupted Indo-Lanka projects. But, the SLPP, having had discussions with India early this year, decided to go ahead with the ECT project, though strong opposition within compelled the government to drop the idea. The SLPP has accused the Weerawansa-Gammanpila-Vasudeva led alliance of sabotaging the ECT project.

 

Cocktail of political and financial turmoil

Growing Chinese influence by way of investments et al here should be examined in the context of India-US relationship and the ‘Quad Alliance’, comprising US-India-Japan-Australia ganging up to confront real or imagined threats from fast growing China.

The question is whether India is looking for an unnecessary internecine conflict with China thereby unwittingly doing the bidding of the West. All indications are this is Asia’s century with China being the new world number one and India a close second. As we have said before, if these two clash, the traditional West would only be watching with glee the killing of two birds with one stone.

It would be suicidal for Sri Lanka to get entangled or even to wish for any kind of conflict between India and China, both being nuclear armed powers.

Delhi should also keep in mind that it was not China that lit separatist fires right across India into the late 80s and many of those Indian separatist groups had their rear bases in the traditional West.

These big talkers who now lectures at every opportunity about rules based order, followed no rules when they plundered much of the world often committing genocide to grab other people’s lands and unashamedly enslaved millions of black people in particular.

So why is India, having been a victim of such grave humiliation and plunder, now wants to kiss and forgive the same oppressors?

Imagine if there was no China, the West would have ganged up to prevent India from becoming a superpower

It is granted we shouldn’t ignore India’s current and future security concerns. But as long as the Chinese are for mutual economic benefit why can’t India even enter into lucrative trilateral partnerships here.

However given the built up paranoia in New Delhi, India is unlikely to give up its hold on key sectors. The Indian High Commission reacted decisively and swiftly when Energy Minister Gammanpila declared in Colombo on Feb 17, 2021 that the Trincomalee oil tank farm would come under Sri Lanka’s purview. The declaration was made in the presence of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa at an event to pay compensation for people affected by development projects undertaken by his Ministry. Minister Gammanpila said that he had been able to conclude talks the previous Sunday with the Indian High Commissioner Gopal Bagley (Gammanpila didn’t mention the HC’s name) regarding the taking over of the Trincomalee oil tank farm. He claimed that the High Commissioner accepted his government proposals in that regard though they weren’t compatible with India’s agreement with the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration.

Gammanpila expressed confidence in working with the Lanka IOC to develop Trincomalee facilities.

Responding to a media query on joint development of the Upper Oil Tank Farms in Trincomalee (Gammanpila didn’t make any reference to Upper Oil Tank Farms in Trincomalee), the Spokesperson of the Indian High Commission said: “India and Sri Lanka have identified energy partnership as one of the priority dimensions of their cooperation. India is committed to working together with Sri Lanka for the Island’s energy security. In this context, consultation and discussions have been undertaken to promote mutually beneficial cooperation for development and operation of the Upper Oil Tank Farms in Trincomalee. We look forward to continuing our productive engagement with Sri Lanka in this regard”.

Indian HC Bagley visited Lanka IOC’s Trincomalee oil terminal on March 14, 2021. Bagley, in his first visit there, also inspected a grease plant under construction. Once it started production, it would be able to meet Sri Lanka’s entire demand for grease. Perhaps what is significant is Bagley’s inspection of both Upper and Lower Tank farms in Trincomalee. A statement issued by Lanka IOC said that during the visit to the Upper Tank Farm, the High Commissioner was briefed in detail about the current status and the possibilities regarding its usage and development. The visit was made during HC Bagley’s tour of the Northern and Eastern Provinces

In the wake of the 2019 change of government, the incumbent government sounded the possibility of reviewing the agreement on the HIP. China swiftly ruled out that possibility. Sri Lanka (both the government and the Opposition responsible for the present financial crisis, seems to be wholly inadequate to meet the challenges. Decline in the financial and political situation has been further escalated by the raging global pandemic

Covid-19 has paved the way for predatory moves by interested parties.

The US declaration that Sri Lanka wouldn’t be considered for MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact and apparent collapse of SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), also with the US, do not mean end of those endeavours. Sri Lanka entered into ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing Agreement) in August 2017 with the US though MCC and SOFA failed, perhaps a temporary setback for Washington.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Seeing Red on Bread

Published

on

By Lynn Ockersz

The ‘People’s Rep‘, suave and poker faced,

Said to citizens bent under multiple weights:

‘You‘ll have to do with two meals and not three,

Since times are lean, and we are all seeing red‘;

But such alerts, citizens know, are all over history writ,

With France and Russia of long ago standing out,

As cases where Bread stormed centre stage,

And brought to society topsy-turvy change,

Marking an end to privileges earned in unjust ways,

While sending out the message to those in charge,

That the patience of the hungry wears thin fast.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

War crimes:

Published

on

UN going the whole hog

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The newly formed Civil Society Platform (CSP) on Monday (13) dealt with entire range of accountability issues and the re-imposition of a state of emergency on the pretext of addressing food distribution. The media received the comprehensive statement endorsed by 30 organisations, and 36 individuals, soon after the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) declared its intention to go ahead with fresh investigation, as mandated at the 46th session.

The hard-hitting CSP statement should be examined against the backdrop of a dialogue between a new collective of civil society activists, grouped as Sri Lankan Collective for Consensus (SLCC). The civil society appears to be divided over their strategy in respect of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government. However, UN Rights Chief, Michelle Bachelet, one-time Chilean President, in her hard-hitting statement, at the onset of the 48th session, made reference to the meeting President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on August 3. That is a quite a development. But, nothing has changed in Geneva and the war-winning country is on the UN agenda.

A recent statement, issued by the Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC), Dr. Jehan Perera, on behalf of SLCC, dealt with several contentious issues.

The statement issued, subsequent to a meeting the group had with newly appointed Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, raised the following issues: the declaration of State of Emergency, Cabinet of Ministers giving the go ahead for the Legal Draftsman to prepare ‘NGO legislation,’ continuing harassment of NGOs, abolition/amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (reference was made to those who had served the LTTE and the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage suspects), implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, and holding of long-delayed Provincial Council polls, land issues in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, language issue, hate speech and misuse of the ICCPR Act, step-motherly treatment of Tamil-speaking people, by denying them participation at national events, and targeting of the Muslim community.

The above litany, however, sounds only too familiar and the chorus is the same. They have packaged themselves under the new name SLCC, but being backed by the West, have been pushing the same agenda for decades. The CSP is no different. No one ever bothered to ask for an explanation from the TNA for recognising the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, in 2001, thereby paving the way for the Eelam War IV a couple of years later. Similarly, no one ever inquired into the clandestine relationship between UN Colombo and the LTTE. Geneva is also silent about the origins of Sri Lanka terrorism (Indian intervention).

As happened in Afghanistan, with the now infamous independent media of the West, which unquestioningly only pushed the narrative of the military industrial complex of mainly the US and the UK, for decades, have now suddenly metamorphosed into finally questioning what went wrong, only after all their lies about Afghanistan and elsewhere began to crumble overnight. Interestingly, they are pointing fingers at everyone else, except at themselves, for not having done the job as an objective media. Theirs has been, for quite some time, an embedded media that cheered on the military industrial complex and the Wall Street. May be there, too, it was all due to filthy lucre.

Prof. Peiris, who had served as the Foreign Minister during the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term (2010-2015), received the same ministry on Aug 16. The academic, who once headed the government delegation for Oslo-arranged talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), has assured the SLCC of the government’s readiness to work with the civil society.

The SLCC statement, headlined ‘Promise of a fresh approach for resolving national issues’, at the onset, insisted that the discussions the group so far had with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, Youth and Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa, Regional Cooperation State Minister Tharaka Balasuriya and Foreign Secretary Admiral Jayanath Colombage failed to yield the desired results. So they still want the pound of flesh paid for by the West and nothing less?

Prof. Peiris seems confident that the government’s interaction with the civil society can be utilised in their dialogue with the international community, whereas the SLCC assured the new administration of its support to address concerns among the international community. However, their support would depend on the government’s readiness to address the issues raised by them.

In addition to Dr. Perera, who had represented Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in March 2018, on the invitation of the late Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, several other prominent civil society activists joined the discussion with the government. It would be pertinent to mention that the SLCC has quite justly accepted that it did not represent, what it called, the larger civil society and recognised themselves as a group of individuals, drawn from multiple sectors of society, religion, academia and non-governmental organisations, dedicated to a country established on the high sounding ‘ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice’, but found nowhere in the world, especially not among the self-appointed good guys of the West. Just look at how they still treat their Blacks, especially by their famed law enforcers.

The SLCC comprises (1)Ven. Kalupahana Piyaratana Thera – Inter religious Alliance National Unity, Chairman, Human Development Edification Centre working for peace Reconciliation and Ecology for more than 25 years. Peace activist for more than two decades (2) Bishop Asiri Perera – Retired Bishop/President of Methodist Church (3) Rev. Fr. C.G. Jeyakumar – Parish Priest Ilavalai and Lecturer at the Jaffna Major Seminary, Human Rights Activist (4) Dr. Joe William – Founder member and Chairman of National Peace Council, Director, Centre for Communication Training and Convenor, Alliance for Justice (5) Prof. T. Jayasingam – Director NPC, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University and former member, Public Service Commission of the Eastern Provincial Council (6) Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva – Professor Emeritus Dept of Sociology, University of Peradeniya (7) Dr. Dayani Panagoda – Social Activist, former director of Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process and Lecturer, former member of the Official Languages Commission (8) Ms. Visaka Dharmadasa – Peace Activist, Chair of Association of War Affected Women (9) Dr. Jehan Perera – Executive Director of NPC (10) Dr. P. Saravanamuttu – Founder and Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives (11) Hilmy Ahamed – Vice President, Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, Civil activist with 35 years of communicating on issues of Peace and Justice, Chairman of Young Asia Television (12) Sanjeewa Wimalagunarathna – Former Director of Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (13) Rohana Hettiarachchi – Executive Director PAFFREL (14) Javid Yusuf – Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Principal, Zahira College and Founder member and Governing Council member, National Peace Council NPC (15) Varnakulasingham Kamaladas – President, STA Solidarity Foundation, Vice President Batticaloa-Ampara Hindu Temples Federation, former President of Inland Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (INAYAM) Batticaloa, and (16) Ms. Sarah Arumugam – Human Rights Lawyer.

SLCC responds

Dr. Perera emphasized that they were prepared to work with any party to achieve genuine post-war national reconciliation.

The livewire behind the NPC Dr. Perera responded swiftly to several questions posed to him regarding the latest civil society initiative.

(1) The Island: Did the SLCC reach consensus with what it called ‘wider Sri Lanka civil society’ regarding the dialogue you are having with the SLPP administration?

SLCC:

No, we did not. SLCC is a loose collection of individuals drawn from civil society organisations that have reconciliation and peace building aims in their work. We have no one leader or office-bearers. Each of us is part of other networks where we have discussed the stands we take. But we do not speak as their representatives. Our common position is commitment to a united Sri Lanka that is founded on ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice.

(2) The Island: When did you set up the SLCC?

SLCC:

We could say it was on June 23, 2021. That was the day we decided on our name. This followed two earlier consultations, organised by the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW), which were held in Kandy, to have an in depth discussion on the lessons learnt through our reconciliation process. We felt there was a need for a group, such as ours.

(3) The Island: Did you have discussions with the TNA (Tamil National Alliance) or other Tamil parties, represented in Parliament, regarding the current initiative?

SLCC:

We have not met with the TNA as yet, though we plan to meet them, and other parties, too. Earlier on we met with Charitha Herath of the SLPP, leader of the DPF Mano Ganesan, General Secretary of the SJB, Ranjith Madduma Bandara. More recently we met with Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa. We had arranged for a meeting with the Chairman of the National Movement for Social Justice, Karu Jayasuriya, but this was postponed and we hope to have it soon.

(4) The Island: Who decides the agenda?

SLCC:

Agendas of the meetings are decided by consensus, prior to the meeting, based on the need and the responsibilities of those whom we meet. Usually, following a self-introduction, we present the issues highlighted in the memorandums we have submitted.

(5) The Island: You represent the NPC, Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu represents the CPA and all others in the SLCC are members of various civil society groups. Do the SLCC members represent those organisations in the ongoing dialogue?

SLCC:

Those in the SLCC are mostly heads of organisations, who will naturally be in line with the positions of their organisations in any discussions on principle or decisions arrived at. But they are here as members in their personal capacities.

(6) The Island: Did the SLCC ever discuss these issues with the late Mangala Samaraweera?

SLCC:

No, we did not.

(7) The Island:

On the basis of BHC cables (Jan-May 2009), Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, challenged the massacre claim of 40,000 on the Vanni east front as mentioned in the Darusman report. In June 2011, US Embassy staffer, Lt Col Smith, at the 2011 Defence Seminar, in Colombo, denied war crimes accusations (weeks after the release of Darusman report).

(8) The Island: Did government representatives or the SLCC referred to/discussed/raised the need to examine the BHC cables during discussions?

SLCC:

We limited our discussion to issues that we presented in our memorandums to them with a view to be forward looking. This included the Office of Missing Persons and its work. We did not discuss the death toll, at the end of the war, or issues of war crimes.

Contentious issues

Some of them had been involved in previous peace initiatives, including the Oslo project, finalised in Feb 2002. The SLCC has essentially pursued issues that had been taken up by a section of the international community (those who voted for Geneva resolutions or conveniently abstained) both during the conflict and after. Let me reproduce the SLCC’s stand on three key issues verbatim as mentioned in a memorandum handed over to Prof. Peiris.

Prevention of Terrorism Act:

Until the promised amendment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to cease using this law to detain people and to expedite the release of those taken into custody, under its draconian provisions, either on bail or totally where there is no legally valid evidence to justify their continued detention, especially when they have not even been charged. This applies to both long term LTTE prisoners and more recent Muslim prisoners with only a peripheral relation to the Easter Sunday bombings.

Provincial Councils:

Improve the implementation of the 13th Amendment and expedite the holding of provincial council elections so that the ethnic minorities may enjoy a measure of self-governance in the areas where they predominate.

Targeting of Minorities:

The issue of Muslims being targeted continues to fester in proposed legislation regarding personal law, the continuing refusal to permit burial of Covid victims, except in a single designated location and the imprisonment, without trial, of a large number of Muslim persons, following the Easter bombings. All communities need to feel that they have been fairly consulted and treated without discrimination for national reconciliation to become a reality.

The 13th Amendment is quite a contentious issue, especially against the backdrop of India stepping up pressure over its implementation. The government is in a quandary as regards the much delayed Provincial Council polls. Today, the government, the Opposition, the civil society and the international community had conveniently forgotten the origins of the Sri Lankan imbroglio. Clandestine Indian intervention long before the July 1983 riots, most probably precipitated by the then 20th Century Fox JRJ openly flirting with the idea of giving the Trincomalee deep harbour to the US. The subsequent building up of terrorist power, leading to the forcible deployment of the Indian Army in Northern and Eastern regions, in July 87, paved the way for the 13th Amendment. Sri Lanka almost disintegrated.

Unfortunately, successive governments quite clearly failed to examine the current situation in a proper perspective. There had never been a genuine attempt to set the record straight. The incumbent government, too, pathetically failed to address accountability issues properly. Dr. Perera’s response to The Island query, based on Lord Naseby’s challenge and Lt. Colonel Smith’s denial of war crimes accusations six years before, revealed the failure on the government’s part to recognise the threat facing the country’s unitary status. Prof. Peiris and the SLCC owed the public an explanation how they discussed matters, including Office of Missing Persons, or OMP, leaving the primary accusation that the military killed 40,000 Tamil civilians on the Vanni east front. That is the charge Sri Lanka continues to face in Geneva, though Prof. Peiris’s predecessor, Dinesh Gunawardena, declared, in the Feb-March 2020, sessions, the government’s decision to quit the 2015 resolution. In fact, Sri Lanka is now facing a new investigation and actions so far taken by the incumbent government seems insufficient. As long as HRC turns a Nelsonia eye to all the grave crimes the West has committed and continuing to commit, from Palestine to Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc., how can we expect any fairplay from it. Maybe Minister Gunawardena played the only card there, we could have played, considering the ground realities.

The rationale in seeking the support of the civil society should be studied, taking into consideration the government’s failure to revisit accountability issues. Instead, having repeatedly promised the electorate in the run-up to the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary polls, a robust defence at Geneva, the government appeared to have accepted the agenda, pursued by Ranil Wickremesinghe and the late Mangala Samaraweera.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government established the OMP, in August 2016, less than a year after the signing of the Geneva resolution. The OMP came into being under controversial circumstances with the then Joint Opposition (now SLPP) accusing the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government of jeopardising national security. Today, the incumbent government has accepted responsibility for taking forward the much maligned and controversial Geneva process, much to the disappointment of those who genuinely believed an attempt would be made to reverse the project.

Key architects of the yahapalana project are in the current Parliament. Ranil Wickremesinghe is the solitary UNP MP. The former PM entered Parliament on the National List whereas Maithripala Sirisena returned from his home base Polonnaruwa after having contested the last general election on the SLPP ticket. Sirisena’s SLFP is the second largest constituent with 14 lawmakers, including one National List MP. As regards the accountability issue, the government seems to be moving in a direction contrary to the much publicised promises made.

In the absence of cohesive Sri Lanka response to Geneva threat, interested parties, such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, have been freely bashing Sri Lanka. Massive foreign funding to the civil society lobby here and various other outfits are meant to ensure they follow the dictates of their sponsors. Often repeated claims that they refrained from taking government funding should be examined taking into consideration how these groups pursued Western interests and those of various other parties.

Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009)

, released in 2011, two years after the eradication of the LTTE, provided an insight into foreign funding for a particular purpose. The Norwegian study dealt with funding provided to various peace merchants assigned the task of propagating the inevitability of a negotiated settlement in the absence of military muscle to bring the war to a successful conclusion. For Norwegians funding for such initiatives had never been a problem. Sri Lanka is a case in point. They lavishly spent on the dicey Sri Lanka project on the basis that the LTTE cannot be defeated militarily, the then government has no option but to accept a deal even at the expense of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The Norwegian report revealed the funding of Sri Lankan outfits to the tune of USD 28 (NOK 210 mn) mn during the conflict. The recipients included Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe’s Foundation for Coexistence (largest single beneficiary with USD 6 mn during 2004-2008 period), the then Minister Milinda Moragoda’s MMIPE for humanitarian demining, Sarvodaya, Sewalanka (its former head Harsha Kumara Navaratne, an original extremely talented breakaway from Sarvodaya and now a member of the Human Rights Commission will soon relinquish office to take over Lanka mission in Canada as HC), Sareeram Sri Lanka National Foundation, Hambantota District Chamber of Commerce, One-Text Initiative, the National Anti-War Front also led by Dr. Kumar Rupasinghe, the National Peace Council, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Forum of Federations and the People’s Peace Front.

The Norwegians also provided funding to the TRO (Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) an LTTE front organisation. The Norwegians went to the extent of providing funding to the then LTTE Peace Secretariat though it knew the group was rapidly preparing to resume hostilities. When Norwegian funding of LTTE front organisations drew strong condemnation, they funded the setting up of a Buddhist academy in Kandy in addition to reconstruction of Buddhist temples on the southern coast destroyed by Dec 2004 tsunami.

However, Prof. Peiris in a note recently submitted to diplomatic missions, based in Colombo, ahead of the 48 Geneva sessions, emphasised that the March 2021 resolution adopted by a divided vote hadn’t been accepted by Sri Lanka, rejected establishment of an external evidence gathering mechanism targeting Sri Lanka and questioned the rationale in spending meager financial resources on such a politically motivated Geneva initiative. The FM’s note dealt with progress made as regards port-war reconciliation with the focus on OMP operations, Office of Reparations, Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, Sustainable Development Goals, National Human Rights Commission, Presidential Commission of Inquiry, Accountability, PTA, Pardon to ex-LTTE cadres, Resettlement of IDPs, Releasing of Lands, engagement with the civil society (Prof. Peiris referred to the discussion President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on Aug 3, 2021) and International Human Rights and other Treaty Obligations and Engagement with the UN Special Procedures Mandate Holders.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Puravara Visvavidyala (Pura Sarasavi)

Published

on

By Usvatte-aratchi

‘Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.’ John Maynard Keynes

In the beginning, all universities were City Universities (puravara visvavidyala): Bologna, Montpellier, Paris, Oxford, Heidelberg, Upsala and Utrecht and that for two reasons: first, in medieval Europe, where universities began as universitas generale, the city was the only polity available. Countries as political entities and national governments, were at least 600 years into the future. Universities needed law and order to work, in quiet. And these cities were ports on the Mediterranean: Venice, Genova and in other places, on river banks: Bologna (connected to the Po with canals), Utrecht on the Rhine, Paris on the Seine, Oxford on the Thames (Isis), Harvard (and, much later) MIT on either bank of the Charles river. There was good reason for that. In medieval Europe and in 17th century Massachusetts, travel by water was the fastest. Students and teachers walked to schools, rode on horseback or rowed a boat. Scientists from Cambridge, after rowing on the Cam and the Muse, rode a horse to Gresham College to attend the Royal Society meetings. Trains, motor cars, steamships and airplanes were at least 700 years away in the future. Let us remember that did not prevent scholars from coming from afar either to learn or to teach. In each universitas generale, there had to be students from beyond its neighbourhood and the student body was divided into ‘nations’. In 13th century Oxford there were two: Australes (Southerners) and Borrealase ( Northeners). (Recall that well into the 17th century, education in Europe was in Latin). As for teachers, there were

Constantinus Africanus from Tunis who wrote on medicine, Avicenna from present Iran who taught medicine and peripatetic Bartholomeus Anglicus, who taught philosophy in many places, including Paris. Books written by Constantinus and Avicenna were taught in universities well into the 16th century. Universities were city organisations but they were places where students and teachers from all sorts of places learnt and taught. We will jump to modern city universities in a minute.

Before that, a quibble about the name: why puravara ? There are also maravara (thugs). Why not pura sarasavi? Pura has a good genealogy:

vana vana pathi turehi

pura pura pathin medurehi (gira sandesa)

(in forests, on king-of-the-forest treetops and in cities (pura), in city chief’s mansions).

Word of Kumaratunga Munidasa’s coinage

Sarasavi was a term coined by Kumaratunga Munidasa to signify a university and has much merit to commend it over visva vidyalaya. In non-European societies, universities are often identified by other names. In China, it is daxue (e.g.Bejing daxue); in Thailand it is maha vithyalai (Tammasat Maha vithyalai). Vishvavidyalaya has its origin here and in India. It arose, perhaps, from a misreading that university has something to do with the universe (vishvaya) of knowledge. It is understandable as the word traces its origins to the same Latin usage meaning ‘combined into one (uni+versus)’. However, the popes who issued Bulls to charter early 13th and 14th used ‘universitas vestra’ to address a group, which form was not limited to universitas generale. He would address a guild of goldsmiths with the same term. And a universitas generale was a group, sometimes, of students (Bologna) and sometimes, of masters (Paris). The usage survived and morphed into university in English and say universite in French and universidad in Spanish. The term has no connotation that the universe of knowledge is taught in a university. It was not true in medieval times (Bologna taught law, Salerno medicine and Paris theology and arts); it is not true now (Remember the adage that Harvard men do not know to count and of MIT men how to read.) In Hindu culture sarasvati or sarasavi has association with knowledge and has been so used widely in Sinhala writings. I cited earlier Sinhala use of pura to mean a city. Pura sarasavi reads dandy, doesn’t it?

President drawing inspiration

The President perhaps draws his inspiration for city universities from his knowledge of his adopted nation, the United States of America. In the US, education is a matter for States and not the Federation. There are state universities, the President’s own state has the magnificent California State University System extending from Berkeley, San Diego to Santa Cruz. I am more familiar with the east coast and New York state, in particular. The New York State University (SUNY) system extends from Buffalo in the north to Stony Brook in Long Island. In addition to SUNY, there are City universities, the best known being the New York City University (CUNY) with two celebrated colleges: Hunters in mid-Manhattan and Queens in Fresh Meadows. The City University is owned and operated by the City of New York, with taxpayers’ money and students’ fees. In addition to these city universities, there are Community Colleges, owned and operated by counties. The entire primary and secondary school system is owned and operated by locally elected Schools Boards with revenue from property taxes.

Pinnawala, where a City University is to be located, is no city but an elephantine village. It does not have the resources of many kinds to run a university. Pinnawala cannot raise tax revenue sufficient for the purpose. As it stands, there are no residential facilities for students and staff in the neighbourhood. In the 13th century, a university that was started by students in Florence (Firenze) was abandoned because house rent was too high for students to afford. In a report on the University of Calcutta in 1918 (Sarkar?), it was observed, that students were in poor health partly because of wholly inadequate housing they lived in. There will have to be large scale construction to provide lecture rooms, well equipped labs and engineering labs quite apart from residential facilities for students and staff; perhaps like in Peradeniya. Finding that many competent teachers will be most challenging. These facilities will have to be repeated in all 10 districts for the time being, no small enterprise in matters personnel and financial.

At the inauguration ceremony of the Pinnawala project, both the President and the Minister emphasised that city universities will be there to supply graduates who can walk into workplaces. Did they ever ask themselves or their advisers, ‘Where are the workplaces that these young men and women would walk into?’. Anyone who expects that puravara visvavidyala themselves will generate job opportunities for their graduates, is presenting a new paradigm of development. We need to sit down and think hard. It is one of the common and convenient myths that this country has not developed for lack of trained personnel. In 1964, while a student, I read a paper before a group of eminent economists overseas and pointed out that Ceylon then had higher levels of education than most developing countries but was poorer in economic performance, contrary to the then growing tendency among economists to find a close relationship between investment in education and economic growth. I was almost politely shouted down. However, unhappily for us, subsequent developments have borne me out. I also wrote a paper in Education in Ceylon, A Centenary Volume, published in 1969 by The Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, in which I generalised on this phenomenon. The slogan about ‘the gap between skills and job opportunities’ (coined perhaps by Ronald Dore of Sussex) came from the ILO employment missions that were launched in 1971 or so.

Those missions went to Ceylon, the Philippines, Iran, Kenya, Colombia, Venezuela and a few others. Those mission reports had no impact on the development of those economies. We decided to carry the burden for the missions. However, graduates from Moratuva find employment, mostly overseas, before their final GPA is known. A professor in architecture in Moratuva told me, a few years ago, that of the 11 students in his final years class, 10 had left for employment overseas, within a few months of graduation. A young man who stayed with us and graduated in physics 2019 in Colombo was offered employment in Siemens in Germany before he graduated. Graduates in Commerce from Jayawardenapura find employment overseas, often easily.

Seeking more jobs in Saudi Arabia

Our Foreign Minister ‘urged Saudi Arabia to provide more jobs to Sri Lankans to work in skilled and professions there’ (The Island 14th August). Surely, this country has an exportable surplus of skilled personnel (including terrorists) and professionals. These young men and women go overseas for employment at reasonable wages mainly because there are none such here. A young university graduate who becomes a teacher is paid some Rs. 33,000 and an allowance of Rs.!0,000, I learn from an old friend. They love their country but working in a congenial environment and the prospect of a good living much more. Our graduates walk into professions overseas. Those with lower levels of education walk into homes abroad to clean them, sometimes to offices for clerical jobs. But for this latter exodus, our unemployment rates today would exceed 10 percent of the labour force.

If students did not go to university, they would have gone to either West Asia for employment or added to the locally unemployed school dropouts. I will turn the premise of the President and his Minister on its head and say, ‘Our graduates are unemployed because there are no jobs into which that they can walk into’. If enterprises do not grow, I am afraid graduates from Puravara Visvavidyala will walk not into jobs but on to street protests.

Look around!

Look around you. Taiwan has a population that is 0.2 of the total world population. Taiwan produces 80 percent of the world output of semiconductors. Is every Taiwanese employed in semiconductor production a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics? When South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore started to industrialise and then to take on electronic industries, did they have massive increases in university output in engineering and in electronics? Why does Singapore import so much labour and we export so much? Did China undertake massive programmes in science and engineering education to become the factory to the world? It is in the current Five Year Plan ending 2025 that China ‘will vigorously cultivate talents with technical skills’ (The Economist). For that matter, go back in history, and Britain, when it was the factory of the world, did not have more than 2% of its population (1902) as university graduates, almost all of them in arts. That was true of the US when it overtook Britain as the world’s richest country about 1900, although there had been a professor of science at Harvard College from 1756. About arts graduates’ inability to fit into jobs, remember that the British empire was built and run when the two pre-eminent universities in Britain did not have a faculty of engineering.

What changed in Korea, Taiwan, China, Malaysia and Singapore was that enterprises grew to employ young people. Changes in policy that Deng Xiao Ping brought about in China in 1978 saw a magnificent growth of enterprises, both state owned and privately owned. We saw the birth of a new economic formation: state capitalism. In India, massive and widespread unemployment of university graduates was whittled away after 1992, with Manmohan Singh reforms that ended the permit raj and new enterprises grew ending the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. IITs, now powerhouses sending out manpower competent in engineering to the world, were first established in 1951 (Kharagpur), 1958 (Bombay), 1961 (Delhi) and others later. Yet it was after 1995 or so that the Indian economy began to grow fast and cut down graduate unemployment in India.

Central to all these changes was the growth of enterprises, no matter who owned them. Historically, the sequence in development has been for enterprises to emerge before skilled workers find employment. So far it has not been a chicken and egg question. There were no changes in educational policy before those enterprises flourished. Trained workers followed.

Every established truth deserves fresh examination, when new evidence emerges. And new evidence will meet the eye of those that seek.

Continue Reading

Trending