Connect with us

Features

Three Circles of Scrutiny and Win-Win Solutions

Published

on

Dr Sarala Fernando

President Rajapaksa on his recent village walkabout to Meemure questioned why there was so much criticism on social media about environmental destruction, stating that he loved the environment and referred to specific projects of urban beautification undertaken during his previous tenure as head of the UDA. This view would probably have been received sympathetically in Meemure and the large gathering present amazed and happy that the highest in the land would have come down to visit their village .

The problem is that there are other larger unseen circles watching on, thanks to mass media, live tv coverage and internet commentaries, one representing the rest of the nation and the second, the international community, which may not be seeing things in this same light. In the national circle, questions are being asked on the wisdom of such large public gatherings , given that the rest of the nation is being asked to stay home, wear masks and social distance as the Covid crisis seems to be getting worse with new infections rising. As the economy contracts, unemployment grows and cost of living escalates, the national circle is skeptical, asking from where the funds are coming to build new roads, bridges, school buildings and drinking water systems etc promised to villages like Meemure and Deraniyagala. Normally such activities are provided for in the budget estimates and carried out depending on financial provision being made by the Treasury; but now it seems the whole administrative process is by-passed and bureaucrats denigrated who follow establishment guidelines. Does this indicate a collapse of the financial and administrative systems, which would be worrisome and demoralizing at a time of national crisis and fears of a national financial collapse sounded by the international community which has supported Sri Lanka over the years with investment, trade, development and humanitarian assistance even during the years of conflict?

During the village walkabout, the President interacts with the villagers and supports their preferred solutions. Yet at the national level, people are asking whether it is not the farmer but the forests and the animals that need protection? In one instance a farmer complained of the hundreds of deer attacking his crops but clearly this situation suggests the farmer is encroaching on a forest reserve. His solution, to put a wire fence right across the area is uneconomical compared to the value of the farmer’s produce. Moreover, grassroots activists are asking whether this type of sympathetic hearing to transgressing farmers will only encourage a sort of “open season” on protected animals and destruction of residual forests and habitats. Yet at the international level, and throughout this nation, every Lankan child is aware of the message of Mahinda Arahat to the King on Mihintale, reiterated every Poson Poya, urging the King to desist from hunting deer and reminding him that he is only the “guardian” of the natural heritage for future generations.

As a result of ignoring these deep rooted beliefs and traditions , a national movement is gathering around the country led by young people including monks and even indigenous (adhivasi) people campaigning across the country to protest the devastation of hitherto protected reserves, from the Knuckles to the flood plains of Polonnaruwa to Sigiriya to Sinharaja and Rambukkan Oya to Muthurajawela and Talangama wetlands. The Medirigiriya Divisional Secretary has been caught on camera with a group of people removing boundary stones in Somawathiya apparently with the backing of local politicians. At the national level, so many legal cases are being filed by environmental and citizen groups . Opposition is also building up against foreign investment projects in areas such as intensive agriculture and those building hotels favouring “adventure tourism” in ecologically sensitive areas. Even the proposed solar/wind power project with Chinese collaboration on three islands in the North have met with protests from inhabitants, fearful of getting caught up in a larger Cold War involving neighbouring India.

Yet this situation is reversible if only attention is paid to win-win solutions involving all three circles of public opinion, not only the village and local political pressures, but also the nation and the international community. Take the case of the rare Sri Lanka legume tree discovered near Daraluwa right in the path of an expressway construction. The species of Crudia zeylanica or Sri Lankan legume was discovered and named a new species in 1868 while the IUCN Red List of 2006 categorized the species as extinct; so did the National Red List of 2012, prepared by our Ministry of Environment. If the Government had spoken with one voice, heeded the many appeals around the country and diverted the expressway to protect the tree, it would have taken the wind out of the sails of the opposition now being carried far and wide on social media. Sri Lanka has an ancient heritage linked with Buddhism which calls for the protection of such rare trees as witnessed by the Sri Ma Bo at Anuradhapura, among the most precious icons of the Buddhist world.

Current policies of fast tracking local development projects ignoring environmentally sensitive areas are bound to fail because, at this time, the national and international levels are calling attention to global warming and climate change where Sri Lanka has been identified as one of the most vulnerable to extreme weather events. Compare the conflict in the three levels, local, national and international in this country, with Bhutan and Maldives in our region which are showing the way forward by protecting the pristine environment and controlling tourism, drawing both national and international acclaim. In India, the campaign to protect endangered tigers led by PM Modi has drawn global support, with unprecedented powers given to local rangers even to close roads to vehicular traffic.

 

Understandably, our President wants to move fast on solutions at the local level; take for example the rebuilding of Dighavapi, a noble task which would be applauded at all three levels of public opinion if its leadership had been entrusted to the Archaeological Department and the Central Cultural Fund (CCF) which has hitherto successfully managed the Sri Lanka UNESCO Heritage sites. The CCF pays attention to the local village masons and brick makers, drawing in the local communities to value the restoration as a national pride, sustainable approaches very much in consonance with global practices. The present “military” roll-out of this wonderful project is evoking skepticism in both the wider national and international circles. To find win-win solutions, the domestic anxiety must be balanced by sensitivity to the concerns of the wider national level and the international level. In doing so win- win solutions can emerge such as on the vexed issue of Muslim burials.

The conflict in the three circles of public opinion is most visible in the huge ongoing debate on the Sri Lanka issue and how it should be handled at the Human Rights Council. At the working level, so many have written in, academics and political leaders, citizens and corporate leaders; recently even the wife of a former Ambassador has written a book to defend her husband’s performance in Geneva.

Yet it must be said that many idealistic notions and theories of support to Sri Lanka from a “Global South” or a unified “Non Aligned Movement” or an ” Asian Consensus” are not realistic. Thalif Deen’s recent memoirs of the UN reveals the complexity, with specific examples of how cheque book diplomacy affects voting practices of small states. In political fora like the HRC, past colonial powers take the lead in exercising their influence over the former colonies; francophone Africa, for example, remains reliable partners of France and their representatives are often elected on UN bodies. Even within the Asian Group, there are two powerful members who sit as observers in the Western Group.

In the past, for many years, the Sri Lanka issue was dealt with out of public sight led by a professional Foreign Secretary and professional Ambassadors acting together under an agreed plan of action. This strategy enabled Sri Lanka to be an active elected member of the Human Rights Council and its predecessor the Commission on Human Rights until 2007 from which vantage position quid pro quos were exchanged and pressures could be diverted away from the Sri Lanka issue. In 2006 when the UK first broached the notion of a resolution against Sri Lanka , as Permanent Representative in Geneva, my instructions from Colombo were to make sure there was not even a reference in the official records. I remember briefing all the regional groups and the OIC on Sri Lanka’s fight against terrorism. At the Western group I remember ending my statement with the words: “if any draft on Sri Lanka was tabled, my instructions are to call for a vote and vote against”. No draft was officially tabled and all the lobbying done from the capital and Geneva out of the public gaze and without any humiliating public press appeals.

Since that time with the change of strategy from quiet diplomacy to one of offensive polemics to satisfy domestic pressures, Sri Lanka has lost the support of the international level and unable to win election to the Human Rights Council. Today, Sri Lanka is represented in both New York and Geneva by first time political Ambassadors who despite fine speaking competency, have little experience of how the UN works. The art of diplomacy is to create win-win outcomes through careful speech, making useful contacts, exchanging quid pro quos, listening to others for possible compromises. At the international level, there is still much goodwill for Sri Lanka for its longstanding record of democracy, economic and social achievements, its old civilization and multiracial roots. However, at this critical juncture, torn by the local pressures, ignoring the national circle, whither Sri Lanka which UN Secretary General Koffi Annan once applauded as a “constructive and engaged Member State”?

(Sarala Fernando, retired from the Foreign Ministry as Additional Secretary and her last Ambassadorial appointment was as Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. Her Ph.D was on India-Sri Lanka relations and she writes now on foreign policy, diplomacy and protection of heritage).



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