SC told Singapore FTA inimical to SL interests

By S.S. Selvanayagam

President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardane impugned before the Supreme Court that the purported Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Sri Lanka had entered into with Singapore was inimical to the interests of Sri Lanka.

He highlighted the disparities stating that it was totally incompatible with Sri Lankan interests and granted totally unfair and uneven asymmetric advantages and benefits to Singapore’s interests at the cost of Sri Lanka’s interests.

The Fundamental Rights petition filed by the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA) and its office bearers along with two other petitions was taken up before the Bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, Lalith Dehideniya and Murdu N.B. Fernando.

Court fixed the applications to be supported on 5 October.

Petitioners cited Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama, Director General of Customs, Members of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Attorney General and others as Respondents.



Petitioners challenge the action and/or the decision of the Minister to enter into the purported FTA between Sri Lanka and Singapore, executed on 23 January.

Petitioners state no approval of the Cabinet of Ministers has been obtained prior to the said purported Agreement being entered into by the said Minister.

They claim in any event, any purported approval, if any, granted by the Cabinet of Ministers, is illegal and bad in law.

They contend that for the purpose of entering into any agreement between the Sri Lankan Government and any other foreign state, its nationals or of corporations, companies and other associations incorporated or constituted under its law for the investments in Sri Lanka, the approval of Parliament is necessary, by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members of Parliament (including those not present) voting in its favour.

They bemoan that no sufficient legislation or regulatory framework has been introduced in Sri Lanka to ensure equal status competition and to eliminate disparities and inequalities in trading and supplying services in Singapore.

They identify that a Clause of the said Free Trade Agreement (SlSFTA), the term “national” is defined to mean ‘citizens of Singapore’ and ‘permanent residents of Singapore’, however, in the context of Sri Lanka, same term means ‘citizen of Sri Lanka’ only.

The term “the national person of a party” is defined as a ‘natural person who is a national of a party’. Such an apparent and patent disparity may facilitate a person of a ‘third party’ country, who is qualified to apply and obtain the status of a permanent resident of Singapore, to have the benefit of  accessing the domestic market, through this purported SLSFTA, they bewail.

They pinpoint that in 2016, Sri Lanka recorded a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of $ 3,759.20 whereas GDP of Singapore is $ 52,600.60.

They assert that hence in an objective perspective, a citizen of Singapore, would not in all probability, be induced into or be attracted to invest his time and resources in Sri Lanka, in view of such a vast disparity of GDP and bipolarity of the economic affluence of the two countries.

They express apprehension that the said Clause has been included to provide a gateway or an opportunity for totally unknown third party nationals to have access to the Sri Lankan market, merely on the basis of satisfying the requirement of permanent residency of Singapore.

They also pinpoint another serious disparity with regard to the definition of the term “Territory”.

Certain purported Clauses of SLSFTA relating to ‘reduction and/or elimination of customs duties’ places Sri Lanka under the obligation to reduce or eliminate the existing Customs duties and taxes with additional obligation to further eliminate them in the future, they caution.

They bring to note that most of the goods referred to in the Tariff schedule of Singapore are already exempted from Customs duties irrespective of the purported SLSFTA.

They state the exploitation by foreign nationals, without an effective regulatory framework in Sri Lanka to safeguard the interests of domestic service sectors, may lead to detrimental competition, placing Sri Lankan citizens in a highly-disadvantageous position, depriving competition on a level playing field and/or on an equal status.

They highlight the legislation and regulatory framework in Singapore has already established effective protective measures and mechanism to safeguard the interest and welfare of their domestic service providers.

They allege there is a notorious lack and absence of parity which taints the entire transaction process, which seriously impacts Sri Lankan citizens.

Sanjeeva Jayawardane PC with Lakmini Warsuvitana appeared for the petitioner. Ali Sabry PC appeared for the BASL. Shavindra Fernando PC appeared in a connected application.