Port City salaries, Chinese land leases and missing investor details face scrutiny after Shanakiyan Rasamanickam raises concerns in Parliament.
Port City salaries and disputed land arrangements came under parliamentary scrutiny after MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam questioned the project’s spending, revenue and transparency.
Rasamanickam alleged that certain Colombo Port City Economic Commission officials receive monthly salaries between Rs. 1 million and Rs. 1.2 million. Meanwhile, he said heads of important state institutions and ministries receive only around Rs. 60,000.
The MP raised the issues while questioning the current progress and financial management of the Colombo Port City project.
He also demanded that Parliament receive full details about investors holding sub-leases inside the development.
Port City Salaries Questioned in Parliament
Rasamanickam argued that the public service continues to face severe financial pressure. However, he claimed that large administrative expenses within Port City have produced no clear benefit for Sri Lanka.
He contrasted the reported payments with the salaries received by officials responsible for major government institutions.
The source account later states that senior Port City Economic Commission officials receive up to Rs. 1,200,000. However, the opening allegation placed the figure between Rs. 1 million and Rs. 1.2 million.
Rasamanickam asked how much revenue the Port City Commission and the Board of Investment have generated during the past five years.
He said Parliament must compare those earnings with the project’s administrative costs.
The MP argued that the authorities should provide a full financial account rather than relying on broad investment promises.
Chinese Company and Sub-Leases Under Scrutiny
Port City contains 178 hectares of saleable land.
Of that total, authorities allocated 116 hectares to CHEC Port City Colombo Private Limited under a 99-year lease.
Rasamanickam questioned how the company has subsequently dealt with the land and which third parties have received sub-leases.
He called for an immediate report listing each investor, the investor’s country of origin and the duration of every lease.
The project initially promised US$15 billion in investment and 80,000 local jobs.
However, the MP said large numbers of Sri Lankan young people continue to leave the country because they cannot find employment.
He argued that those conditions require Parliament to determine whether the original investment and employment targets remain realistic.
Without detailed information, he said, the public cannot assess whether the project is delivering the benefits promised at its launch.
Former ‘Chinese Colony’ Critics Now Silent
Rasamanickam recalled that several current government figures strongly opposed the Port City Act while they were in opposition.
At the time, critics described the development as a “Chinese colony.”
He specifically referred to Wasantha Samarasinghe, who had taken legal action before the Supreme Court over the project.
Rasamanickam questioned why those who once challenged the development now remain silent about its operations.
He argued that the change in position raises questions about political consistency and government oversight.
The MP also referred to the legal principle that authorities should return acquired land to the state when it is not used for its intended purpose.
He claimed that ordinary citizens had received no meaningful benefit from the Port City premises.
In a pointed political remark, Rasamanickam alleged that the only visible activity there was MP Namal Rajapaksa visiting in the mornings to exercise and ride buggies.
The allegation formed part of his wider criticism that the project remains disconnected from the public.
Shanakiyan Demands COPE or Finance Committee Review
Rasamanickam asked Parliament to summon the Colombo Port City Economic Commission before the Committee on Public Enterprises or the Public Finance Committee.
He said either committee should examine the project’s finances, salary structure, progress and sub-lease arrangements.
Such scrutiny, he argued, would help establish whether the administration has misused funds or failed to meet its original objectives.
A government minister responding in the House acknowledged that the subject was timely.
However, the minister said officials had not prepared the necessary answers for the current sitting.
The minister promised that the government would present accurate and detailed information during an upcoming parliamentary session.
Until then, questions over Port City salaries, investor identities, Chinese land leases and promised economic benefits remain unresolved.
