A response to Dr. Ravi Ratnayake on ‘ETCA and the FTA agenda’

By Archt. Nalaka 

C. Jayaweera 

I believe you being the Editor of a responsible newspaper should give a fair opportunity to express the views of the other side of the coin in terms of the article by Dr. Ravi Ratnayake titled ‘ETCA and the FTA agenda: Sri Lanka is a late comer vis-à-vis fast-growing South East countries’ published on 9 August (http://www.ft.lk/article/633991/ETCA-and-the-FTA-agenda--Sri-Lanka-is-a-late-comer-vis-%C3%A0-vis-fast-growing-South-East-countries).

Let me start with the credentials of Dr. Ravi Ratnayake. While admitting his position as stated in the article, he has failed to declare his conflict of interests that he is the Secretary General of Bridging the Gap Foundation, an unregistered NGO. Further he has failed to state that his citizenship of New Zealand as indicated in his LinkedIn profile as many readers might confuse him as a true Sri Lankan. 

His citizenship really matters as Sri Lanka faces direct threats from New Zealand in terms of developing the local milk industry while he being the key person of drafting the National Trade Policy creates a definite conflict of interest. Please note his National Trade Policy has been challenged by me continuously and it lacks credibility as a national policy as he has used his own publications as bibliography or ‘monkey praising his own tail,’ justifying his inability to seek public opinion to make a national policy.     

Liberalisation and signing of agreements do not take place without any in depth analysis. The outdated economic theory of “economists are the key experts in the economic agreement” decision making has been expressed by the writer, where and when the world has moved with multi-disciplinary approach with proper legal systems. 

The identification and analysis of economic models in isolation was over with the GATT and GATS and the writer has shown his inability and inexperience right through the article as he has failed to identify the key legal loopholes in the Sri Lankan legal systems.  It is crucial as he, being part of the Government delegation, should be in receipt of the 44-page document presented to the Government of Sri Lanka by the OPA and UPM where I was the key technical writer. Further he is well aware that a committee is in the process of redrafting some of the said legal enactments. Thereby his credibility is at stake.

The diagram that indicates the countries and how many agreements have been signed does not represent anything in terms of signing agreements as such do not exactly reflect or express or expose the legal frameworks of the countries. Thereby the writer is intentionally and purposefully misleading the readers with unrelated information by submitting facts out of scope.  

The admission by the writer to the effect that Sri Lankan professional circles have expressed serious concerns is agreeable as he being a New Zealander and looking for greener pastures for last few decades has come down to Sri Lanka only a few years ago after terrorism was over; along with the new Government of 2015. Thereby his technical knowhow of the Sri Lankan legal system and regulative systems is absolutely nothing and thereby he reserve the right to comment in such manner but such writing does not justify his position as “ignorance is not an excuse”. So his argument to the effect objections by the local professional groups is defective and it only expresses his ignorance.

The writer is fabricating the facts out of scope right throughout the article. The ISLFTA and ETCA are too different agreements and ETCA adds services or movement of natural persons and companies apart from investments and economic cooperation. Thereby FTA data cannot be used to justify ETCA. Further the Indian legal system completely prohibits foreigners practicing the professions in India while Sri Lanka does not have such legal systems. 

The concept of national registration is well within India and Sri Lanka has failed to develop the legal systems to have national registration. Thereby it is a one-way operation and based on the same the objections are towards such legal systems. But the writer being a person who has got “wisdom after retirement” to serve the mother nation is definitely ignorant of the differences of the two legal systems. His ignorance also cannot be accepted as I have presented all documents while he was a member of the committee and thereby his reason to submit false arguments is not known.Further, the writer attempts to mislead and misinform the readers with nice words which are only words with meanings in literature but absolutely do not exist in reality. Thereby he has expressed his inability to grasp the essence of any agreement in legal terms but hides behind words. The economic theories or political statements are mere theories and statements but the world moves on legal frameworks. 

Professionals like doctors, engineers, architects, and surveyors will hold responsibly, accountability and liability towards professional work and I demand the writer to declare his responsibility, accountability and liability in terms of professional work as an economist. It is essential as his article contains many fabricated statements that do not hold any technical substance.   

Thereby Dr. Ravi Ratnayake is demanded to come for public debate on any of the issues raised here inclusive of ETCA, National Trade Policy and his conflict of interest.

(The writer has been working on CEPA, ECTA and other related issues from 2003 onwards.)