Midweek Review

Artificial Intelligence: Are we getting into it with our eyes open?

Published

10 months ago

2024/04/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Prof. Janendra De Costa

Senior Professor and Chair of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya

Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be the ‘in-thing’ these days, especially for the President of Sri Lanka, who keeps mentioning it in his speeches as a key ingredient for Sri Lanka to achieve prosperity, both economic and otherwise. Taking the President’s cue, the Minister of Education and Higher Education recently went on record saying that AI will be taught in schools from the lower secondary grades upwards in the near future. The potential of AI for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of activities in a wide range of areas that contribute to overall national development, prosperity and well-being is undisputed. However, to treat AI as a ‘silver bullet’ which would cure Sri Lanka from all the complex issues that it is mired in and propel its economy towards development and prosperity is a fallacy that we would do well to avoid. I do not have any claim to be an expert in AI and I welcome its introduction to our curricula, at secondary and tertiary levels, just as I would welcome any other modern advance in Science and Technology (S & T). Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is to focus the readers’ attention on concerns raised by experts on the potential limitations and pitfalls of adoption of AI without being fully aware of its inherent limitations and potential threats. This would be especially relevant for Sri Lanka, which has a history of adopting (and failing) new technologies rather ‘blindly’ and without developing a strong foundation to sustain them. In writing this cautionary note, I have drawn heavily from a recent editorial of the prestigious science journal Nature and some recently published papers, views and opinions in highly recognized S & T research journals, which indicate that this is a global issue, likely to influence both the developed and the developing world.

What is artificial intelligence?

In its simplest sense, artificial intelligence employs a computer, or a robot fed with a series of instructions, to carry out tasks that are normally performed by humans. These tasks can range from simple ones such as writing a letter to complex functions such as designing proteins, pharmaceutical drugs or whole experiments and running laboratories. The capability of AI tools and methodologies to process a quantity of information, which is substantially larger than what an individual human brain (or mind) is capable of processing and finding the best solution in a given situation (called ‘optimization’ in AI terminology) is claimed as a major advantage of AI. The AI tools run on algorithms (series of specific instructions) which are designed to make decisions and carry out functions as done by humans, but with substantially greater effectiveness and efficiency because of their capacity to overcome limitations of an individual human brain (e.g. analyzing the outcomes from a wider range of possible scenarios). To enable them to do this, the AI tools and their algorithms are ‘trained’ on a sufficiently large set of data (often called ‘big data’), supposedly representing all possible scenarios. For example, by being trained on the past data on auction sales of tea in global markets, AI could be used to predict the future market trends for Ceylon Tea. This is an example of what is called ‘Predictive AI’. While a competent economist or a statistician could do the same task using a reasonably large data set, the argument for using an AI instrument would be that it is able to process a much larger and a more varied and complex data set and come up with more precise predictions for a wider range of future scenarios. Recently, a final year undergraduate of my faculty, under the supervision of one of my colleagues, developed an AI tool to grade big onions into categories with greater precision and efficiency than is currently done by traders. In developing the AI tool, it was trained on a wide range of images of onions linked to their physical characteristics such as size, shape and surface properties. Perhaps the best illustration of the power of AI is the computer trained on a multitude of chess moves beating the World Champion in chess.

Potential for AI applications in Sri Lanka

As identified by the President, there is potential for application of AI to improve the efficiency of many activities in a range of sectors in Sri Lanka. Decision-making has been a particularly weak link in the administrative structure of Sri Lanka at all levels, from the President, Cabinet and Ministerial down to the lowest levels of governance in almost all institutions across all sectors. Key decisions on policy and action are often taken without proper consideration and analysis of relevant facts and figures, with personal bias coming into decision-making most of the time. Even when the so-called experts are employed as advisors, their capacity to analyse all relevant information and provide unbiased advice and guidance in decision-making has been questionable at best, and woefully inadequate at worst. The decision to convert Sri Lankan agriculture to 100% organic overnight is a clear recent case in point, which illustrates the inherent weaknesses in the decision-making process at the highest level of governance in Sri Lanka. Apart from its capacity to process a large amount of varied information, a perceived advantage of AI is its impartiality and hence the avoidance of personal bias, which is inherent in human decision-making. In a future ideal Sri Lanka where AI tools in all important sectors abound, perhaps the people in key governance positions (if they ever become sufficiently mature and S & T savvy) could rely on AI to provide sound, evidence-based, unbiased advice during decision-making on key policies and actions.

Similarly, one can ask whether AI can provide solutions to some of the critical issues and improve efficiency in key areas related to economic development. Collection of taxes and government revenue, identification of effective measures of poverty alleviation, land use planning, agriculture and natural resource management, medical supplies and health care, policy and planning on education reforms and management of educational resources, innovations in developing globally competitive products, goods and services and research in all key sectors related to national development are just a collection of areas (by no means exhaustive) which appear to be having limited efficiency when handled by humans so that appropriate AI tools and technologies could make a significant positive impact on the national economy. Furthermore, ideally, the AI tools should be able to make more accurate predictions than those that are currently available about short-term weather, long-term future climate and the occurrence of extreme climatic events such as floods, landslides, droughts and heatwaves. National issues of equal significance such as prediction of outbreaks of climate-related diseases such as dengue could benefit from the greater predictive power offered by the AI tools.

Potential pitfalls and inherent limitations of AI

International research literature abounds with recent advances in the development and application of AI in a wide range of disciplines and activities, almost all demonstrating greater competence and efficiency than the existing technologies and practices. However, there are also a lesser number of papers which focus on the inherent limitations of AI and potential risks of its increased adoption. A few of the key issues are outlined below.

Fundamentally, an AI tool is dependent on the algorithm and the set of source data on which the algorithm is ‘trained’. Absence of adequate amounts source data which is sufficiently comprehensive is likely to be a major drawback when developing AI tools to improve the efficiency of any given sector in Sri Lanka. Here, the natural tendency and the pathway of least resistance, especially for Sri Lankan officials and experts, would be to use AI tools developed in and trained on source data from other countries. While it could be argued that such AI tools are ‘trained’ on source data which are sufficiently extensive, there will always be the question whether the source data adequately captured the whole gamut of conditions, that may be specific, and in some cases unique, to Sri Lanka. Consequently, an AI tool trained on inadequate or poorly representative source data, when used without adequate knowledge and understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes on which the AI tool is developed, could provide solutions that may not be the best (or optimum) despite conveying the illusory promise of being the best. As a solution to the inadequacy of source data on which to train AI tools, AI, itself, can expand its source database by identifying underlying patterns and the distribution of the existing data and subsequently generate new data. This is part of ‘Generative AI’, which has developed to such an extent that AI can generate ‘respondents’ for (socioeconomic) surveys who would respond to questionnaires in the same way that human respondents would respond. Nevertheless, the fundamental limitation of inadequate source data is likely to remain in many key sectors in Sri Lanka because successive Sri Lankan governments have never invested enough on gathering sufficient and comprehensive information and quantitative data on which to base its policy formulation and decision-making.

A key advantage of the use of AI in decision-making is its perceived absence of personal bias. However, it has been observed that this perceived absence of bias is not always true when AI is applied. When developing the AI algorithms and training them on source data, the developer makes a number of decisions and choices, which inevitably introduces personal bias into the AI tool. When such AI tools are used by end-users who are not familiar with the process through which the model was developed (which is highly likely to be the case in Sri Lanka), the bias inherent in the model leads to outcomes and decisions which favour some views, groups and outcomes while marginalising the alternative, sometimes more valid and inclusive, views and outcomes.

The greater computational power of an AI model trained on ‘big-data’ and providing an output which is more comprehensive than a human-generated output could create an illusion that that AI provides a solution with a superior understanding of the whole scope of the problem. However, the decisions and choices made during the process of algorithm development imposes a limit to the scope of understanding of the AI tool and the solutions provided by it.

Generative AI tools using Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPTs have already become a common tool among Sri Lankan university students who use it for writing tasks ranging from an email to a report that is submitted for evaluation. This has created a dilemma in the academia on how to evaluate the true competence and the learning outcomes of a student. The capacity of students to synthesise by integrating information from different sources, a key competence that we as academics try to inculcate in our students, is taken away when he/she takes the easy route of using a generative AI tool such as ChatGPT. In an on-going curriculum revision in my faculty, there are colleagues who argue that subject content that can be learnt via generative chatbots such as ChatGPT need not be included in the curriculum. This is a clear example of the illusion of complete understanding that is created by AI tools, which engenders complete trust and reliance on them. The LLMs are trained on increasingly large sets of words and expressions and are increasing their capacity to capture human capabilities. However, even though the creators of AI tools may argue to the contrary, it is doubtful whether generative AI tools, however advanced, could replicate the creativity of the human mind. On the other hand, students hooked on to generative AI tools could create a future generation and a nation with diminished creativity, which would be counterproductive to the very objective of introducing AI to bring about national development and prosperity. There is evidence that students in Sri Lankan universities, both state and non-state, are already hooked on these generative AI tools for producing their take-home assignments and reports. It can be argued that such AI tools ‘levels the playing field’ for those students who are dis-advantaged when they enter a higher education institution due to lower competence in the English language. However, an equally valid counter argument would be that the availability of AI tools is likely to hinder the development of the skill of English usage.

On the global stage, risks posed by some of the latest developments in AI have been recognized and articulated. For example, the potential threats to biosecurity posed by AI-designed proteins and drugs by causing more potent diseases have been recognized. There is the possibility of algorithms that are developed initially for a legitimate purpose being adapted (‘repurposed’) for an alternative not-so-legitimate purpose. The newly developed text-to-video AI tool can create fake videos, which can be used for many harmful purposes. For example, such fake videos of key public figures could shift public opinion in crucial events such as elections. A recent research study has shown that chatbots based on Large Language Models (LLMs) show clear inherent racial bias because of the way the algorithm has been trained to recognize words, phrases and dialects used by specific ethnic or demographic groups and link them to a range of characteristics of those groups, as perceived by the developers of the AI tool.

An important social issue that is inherent when AI gains recognition and trust as a superior partner in generating solutions is the creation of a favoured group of professionals and scientists, especially when it comes to allocation of limiting state resources such as funding for Research and Development (R & D). Creation of such favoured ‘monocultures’ of professionals was evident in Sri Lanka during periods when specific disciplines were earmarked by those who were in power and had the authority to decide on who gets the resources on a priority basis. Clear cases in point were the scientists engaged in nanotechnology, and to a lesser extent biotechnology in the 2000s and the so-called experts in organic agriculture in the recent past. Creation of such favoured monocultures have adverse long-term consequences on national development as it leads, inevitably, to marginalisation and detriment of R & D in other disciplines and demotivation of their practitioners. Looking at what happened in the past, there is a clear and present danger of this history repeating itself in the next few years when AI is viewed as the ticket to economic development and prosperity. The multi-faceted and holistic nature of the development of any nation, irrespective of its present economic status, requires a reasonably adequate allocation of its limited resources across all disciplines of S & T even when a greater proportion of the resources are allocated to a few favoured disciplines which are perceived as having a greater potential to contribute to national development. (To be continued)

Additional Reading

1. Why scientists trust AI too much – and what to do about it. (Editorial). Nature, 627: 243. 14 March 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2.

2. Alvarado, R. (2023). What kind of trust does AI deserve, if any?. AI and Ethics, 3(4): 1169-1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00224-x.

3. Carroll, J. M. (2022). Why should humans trust AI?. Interactions, 29(4), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3538392.

4. Krenn, M. et al. (2022). On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence. Nature Reviews Physics, 4(12): 761-769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3.

5. Messeri, L. & Crockett, M.J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627: 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0.

6. von Eschenbach, W.J. (2021). Transparency and the Black Box problem: Why we do not trust AI. Philosophy & Technology, 34: 1607–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0.

7. Wang, H. et al. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620: 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2.

The writer is a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka and has been an academic and a research scientist in Agriculture and Natural Sciences for over three decades while being based in Sri Lanka.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:AI Artificial Intelligence

Up Next

A Special Forces officer’s narrative

Don't Miss

Violence Disarmed

Sahan Weerasooriya

Click to comment

Midweek Review

A second killing in a courtroom, a question of national security and overall deterioration of law enforcement

Published

1 day ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sanjeewa Kumara Samararathne alias Ganemulle Sanjeewa

Against the backdrop of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijeyapala’s declaration in Parliament of a nexus between the underworld and some sections of the administration, particularly the police, Pubudu Jagoda of the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) demanded to know as to why Ganemulle Sanjeewa

IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya

had been produced in court on February 19 without a court order. The FSP spokesman emphasized that the crux of the matter is why he had been brought to court in the absence of a court directive and despite there having been specific intelligence that an attempt was to be made on the suspect’s life on that day as disclosed by Acting IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya at a hastily called media briefing at the Information Department over the last weekend.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Two shootings at Kadewatte junction, Middeniya, on Tuesday night (18), and at the Colombo Hulftsdorp Court complex, the following day, quite conveniently deprived Parliament of an opportunity to conduct a proper debate on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s first Budget delivered on February 17th. The reportage of the Budget debate proved that it was a non-event as it was overshadowed by the audacious killing of Ganemulle Sanjeewa as he stood in the dock of the Hulftsdorp Magistrate Court number 05.

The Middeniya shooting claimed the lives of three persons – Aruna Vidanagamage aka Meegas-are Kajja, 39, and his six-year-old-daughter and nine-year-old son. Vidanagamage captured public attention recently when the gangster, in a no holds barred interview with Chamuditha Samarawickrema in ‘Truth with Chamuditha,’ accused the Rajapaksa family and some of its henchmen of criminal activity. Vidanagamage alleged that a person (who was named), close to the Rajapaksas, had given a contract to kill him though he didn’t believe the family was aware of the move.

A policeman, attached to the Tangalle Police, is among the three persons who have been so far taken into custody in connection with the Middeniya triple killings. However, the police constable hadn’t been apprehended for his involvement with the killing but for giving two pairs of handcuffs that were found at the scene of the shooting that had been given to “Kajja” earlier by him. The unauthorized transfer of handcuffs to a criminal by a cop underscored the gravity of the situation. The revelation reflects the overall deterioration of law enforcement. Recently, another cop, attached to the Mount Lavinia Police, gave his service weapon to the drug underworld and escaped to Dubai.

The Hulftsdorp shooting that claimed the life of Sanjeewa Kumara Samararathne, alias Ganemulle Sanjeewa, sent shock waves through the inept law enforcers. The killing inside the No. 05 Magistrate’s Court and the arrest of the gunman under controversial circumstances highlighted the deficiencies in overall law enforcement.

Ganemulle Sanjeewa, who had been arrested on Sept. 13, 2023, at the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA), on his arrival from Nepal, was the second person in custody to die in a hail of bullets inside a courtroom.

The Opposition, in an obvious bid to exploit the developing situation, claimed a breach of national security. The National People’s Power (NPP) was accused of jeopardizing the security of the state. The government dismissed that assertion while claiming the Hulftsdorp shooting as an isolated incident. The actual truth lies somewhere in between with widespread despicable behaviour of law enforcers all over the country, with corrupt cops being brazenly involved in lucrative underworld businesses, especially in facilitating and milking the deadly narcotic trade. Some Opposition lawmakers called for Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijepala’s resignation. The Jathika Jana Balawegya (JJB) would have done the same if some other party wielded political power now.

A member of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) compared the Hulftsdorp security lapse with that of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. SJB lawmaker Rohana Bandara’s appraisal is obviously a case of going overboard. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), too, attacked the Budget calling it an IMF product.

The first courtroom killing took place during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga presidency. Before we discussed that high profile killing of notorious underworld figure Dhammika Amarasinghe on a Friday morning in early January 2004, at the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s court, in the same court complex as last week’s brazen killing of a notorious suspect Sanjeewe, as he stood in the dock, by an Army deserter Chaminda Udaya Kumara, 28. It goes without saying the responsibility on the part of the armed forces to tighten up discipline and recruiting procedures is utmost, especially now long after the earlier debilitating terrorist threat, as there is no longer any necessity to absorb anyone who turns up for recruitment as the forces are no longer desperately short of manpower to fight a debilitating war like earlier against the world’s deadliest terrorist force with a conventional fighting capability.

Assassin Chaminda Udaya Kumara, responsible for the 2004 killing, entered the courtroom as a law student. In the latest such daring killing last week, the gunman disguised himself as an Attorney-at-Law.

Chaminda Udaya Kumara had been apprehended in the record room where he was overpowered by a Lance Corporal of Sri Lanka National Guard (SLNG) and handed over to the police. On both occasions, the assassin hadn’t been subjected to checks. It would be pertinent to mention that Dhammika Amarasinghe’s assassin had made an attempt to escape by taking a person hostage and opened fire causing injuries to two persons before the SLNG soldier swung into action.

Ganemulle Sanjeewa’s killer had joined the Army 12 years after the successful conclusion of the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Therefore, he hadn’t served the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s war-winning Army. Although some speculated that the assassin had joined the Army as a Muslim, inquiries, however, revealed that was not the case. Asked to explain, an authoritative officer pointed out that it wouldn’t be fair to identify the assassin as a commando as he had undergone only the basic course.

According to Army records the assassin joined the Army in 2020 and was legally discharged after he was found guilty of going AWOL (absent without leave) in 2023. Accused of using several identities, the assassin, immediately after his arrest at Palaviya, identified himself as Mohamed Azman Sherifdeen. At the time the Army discharged the assassin, he had been with the 3rd Commando Regiment.

The real identity of the assassin, born in 1997, is Samindu Dilshan Piyumanga Kandanaarachchi, a resident of Dambahena Road, Maharagama.

When did the assassin start using fake identities? How had he obtained a fake BASL ID? Who could have arranged the deadly mission? Let us once again emphasise that shortcomings on the part of the Army could have been ignored if such deceptions took place during the war as the military was desperate to double its strength but over a decade and a half after the war such lapses couldn’t be justified, under any circumstances.

First killing in a courtroom

Contract killer Dhammika Amarasinghe had been under investigation in a headline grabbing case involving the then Telecom and Sri Lanka Cricket (it was called Sri Lanka Cricket Board at that time) chief Thilanga Sumathipala, accused of funding the gangster as a guest of the SLC to watch the 1999 Cricket World Cup in the UK. Investigations revealed that the assassin, who travelled to the UK, allegedly on a fake passport, had received SLC funds to the tune of 1,500 Sterling Pounds.

Amarasinghe was to be produced in court on the following Monday to answer questions regarding the UK sojourn at the SLC’s expense. Sumathipala, who was to appear in court on Thursday, the day before Amarasinghe’s killing, didn’t attend court, claiming sudden illness.

At that time no one alleged it wasbreach of national security though it was a highly politicized case. However, Dhammika Amarasinghe was taken out inside a court when produced before it over two murder cases – one at Borella and the other at Welikada. Before Dhammika Amarasinghe’s killing, his rivals killed 16 of his relatives.

Investigations revealed that the gunman had been in the same court when Dhammika Amarasinghe was produced in court pertaining to Thilanga Sumathipala’s case on the previous day.

The assassin claimed that he took out Dhammika Amarasinghe to avenge the killing of Dhanushka Perera aka Baddegane Sanjeewa of the Presidential Security Division (PSD).

Then President Kumaratunga’s security chiefs accommodated notorious gangster Baddegane Sanjeewa in the PSD and issued him an official weapon. Unfortunately, he hadn’t been the only ruffian taken to the PSD during her tenure as the President. President Ranasinghe Premadasa is believed to have absorbed notorious gangster Soththi Upali to the police reserve as a Sub Inspector.

Investigations revealed that Baddegane Sanjeewa’s assassin travelled with him in the luxury vehicle when he was shot from the back seat. Investigations also revealed that at the time the PSD thug had been shot he was on his mobile with Venessa Selvaratnam who earned significant media coverage over the killing of Papua New Guinean ruggerite Joel Pera inside a casino in a case that also allegedly involved the late Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte’s son Lohan. The killing of the PSD hoodlum took place at a cross street, off Pagoda Road, in Nugegoda.

In spite of accusations that Baddegane Sanjeewa carried out a spate of attacks, including the killing of Sinhala tabloid editor Rohana Kumara, the then SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA) simply ignored complaints. The notorious PSD cop was killed at the height of his political influence. Rohana Kumara, who carried out a relentless campaign through his newspaper, targeting President Kumaratunga’s administration, was shot dead on the evening of Sept. 07, 1999 near his Colombo home.

During Kumaratunga’s tenure, the PSD also attacked popular singing couple Rookantha Goonetilleke and Chandraleka Perera after invading their home in the presence of their children, at Mattegoda, in January 2000. Ten officers were found guilty of the dastardly act and ordered, in 2013, to pay Rs 200,000 compensation each to the two victims and also sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, but they were granted a presidential pardon in 2014.

A budget aligned with IMF

There hadn’t been a previous occasion when a government presented a budget totally in line with dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) though there were numerous agreements/understandings between successive governments and the Washington-based lending bodies.

President Dissanayake, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, revealed in Parliament what his government had agreed with the IMF. There is no doubt Finance Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana and Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe played quite significant roles in keeping the country in line with the IMF’s agenda.

Regardless of a section of the Opposition condemning President Dissanayake for adhering to IMF dictates, it would be pertinent to mention that the Parliament, in July last year, endorsed the Economic Transformation Bill (ETB) without a vote. The Parliament reached consensus on that unprecedented Bill to ensure that the country remained committed to the four-year-long IMF programme, finalized on March 20, 2023 during the previous Wickremesinghe regime.

SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, SLPP National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa, as well as a spokesperson for the New Democratic Front (NDF), was backed by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The five-member NDF parliamentary group, comprising ex-SLPPers and ex-UNP Minister Ravi Karunanayake, should explain why they accepted the ETB without a vote. In terms of the four-year Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement, the IMF approved SDR (Special Drawing Rights) 2.3 bn (about USD 3 bn).

The SJB and SLPP shouldn’t play politics with the issues at hand as both parties are equally responsible for the economic decline caused by long-time mismanagement of the national economy. The SJB conveniently forgets that it had been part of the UNP, during Yahapalanaya, and cannot, under any circumstances, absolve itself of the responsibility for the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb. 2015 and March 2016, and issuance of USD 10,000 mn in new ISBs (International Sovereign Bonds) between 2015 and 2019 by that treacherous administration, comprising the UNP and the SLFP. New ISBs debilitated the economy. That is the ugly truth. And as to what they did with that money and the USD 1.2 billion they got by leasing out Hambantota International Port to the Chinese on a 99-year-lease, is anybody’s guess. Surely the country’s assets did not increase during the tenure of that government by any stretch of our imagination to show for such influx of US dollars.

At the time Mahinda Rajapaksa had been voted out in January 2015, the outstanding ISB debt was only USD 5,000 mn. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa government (2020-2022) had paid off USD 2,500 million in outstanding ISBs, which meant that only USD 2,500 million in ISBs remained at the time Yahapalanaya took over in 2015.

But when the US-backed Aragalaya overwhelmed the Rajapaksas, they invited the man who oversaw Yahapalanaya, economic strategy Ranil Wickremesinghe, to save their skin. No less a person that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is on record as having said that taking ISB’s amounting to USD 10,000 mn broke the back of the Sri Lanka’s economy. Then why on earth the person who caused that destruction was invited to accept the premiership in May 2022 and then elected President in July through a vote in Parliament. All in fear of deranged or highly drugged mobs unleashed during Aragalaya as was the case later in Bangladesh. But the Aragalaya marauding mobs, who were threatening to die for a system change, just vanished into thin air once Ranil Wickremesinghe was installed in the seat of power. How convenient?

The SLPP shouldn’t find fault with President Dissanayake for adhering to a Bill that received the blessings of all political parties, as well as breakaway factions, represented in Parliament. There cannot be a better example than the dissident SLPP group, led by Prof. G. L. Peiris and Dullas Alahapperuma, as they, too, endorsed the ETB by conveniently backing the decision to go ahead without a vote.

The SLPP that won 145 seats at the 2020 August general election had been reduced to just three lawmakers, including one National List slot, at the last general election. Unfortunately, the party hadn’t yet understood why the electorate dealt with the party so harshly. It should take remedial measures to rebuild the shattered image and attract the public again.

A far worse security breach

The JVP, now in power, caused, perhaps, far worse security breach than the killing of Ganemulle Sanjeewa, though none of the political parties, seeking to take advantage of the developments, failed to mention the JVP bid to wipe out the top UNP leadership in August 1987.

The writer was at The Island editorial on the morning of August 18, 1987 when a JVPer lobbed two hand grenades at the UNP parliamentary group meeting in Committee Room A at the Parliament building. The near simultaneous blasts targeted about 120 MPs present at the meeting, the first group meeting after the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. President J. R. Jayewardene presided over the meeting. Premier Ranasinghe Premadasa was present. Luckily for the UNP, the blasts caused injuries to several lawmakers but only Matara District MP Keerthi Abeywickrema succumbed to his injuries. The writer, having joined The Island just two months before, covered that funeral in Matara held under heavy security as the then government feared the JVP would launch an indiscriminate attack. It was the second killing of an MP by the JVP, following the deployment of the Indian Army in the northern and eastern provinces in terms of the so-called peace accord that was forced on Sri Lanka to halt ‘Operation Liberation’ carried out in the Vadamarachchy region of the Jaffna peninsula.

Later, the police identified the attacker as R.M. Ajith Kumara, an employee at the Parliament after he was arrested at Akaranduwa, Naula, on April 08, 1988, during a raid on an illicit liquor den. The chance and subsequent interrogation of the suspect revealed him as the man who planned the mass murder of lawmakers.

Ajith Kumara and four others were charged with carrying out the August 18, 1987, grenade attacks on the UNP parliamentary group. However, the Colombo High Court at Bar, on Oct. 12, 1990, delivered a unanimous verdict acquitting Ajith Kumara. Delivering the verdict, High Court Judge Ananda Grero declared that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Declaring his allegiance with the JVP, Ajith Kumara entered politics and was later accommodated in the JVP politburo. Ajith Kumara served as a JVP Pradeshiya Sabha member and years later contested Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council poll as the JVP’s Chief Ministerial candidate. The rest is history.

Midweek Review

Will AKD’s ‘Glasnost and Perestroika’ moment redefine Sri Lanka’s destiny?

Published

1 day ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Gamini Jayaweera

In 1985, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who assumed the presidency of the USSR, sought to reform the Soviet Union’s centrally planned economic system, which had been stagnant for several years. He recognised that the rigid one-party rule political system, including its politicians, was plagued by corruption, the workforce was inefficient, technology was outdated, and citizens struggled to access basic goods and services. Additionally, democratic rights for the people and the media were severely restricted. All of this was occurring under a communist system of government in a vast nation.

Gorbachev’s attempt to reform Russia’s struggling economic, social, and political systems through his Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) initiatives failed. This was largely due to resistance from the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which was dominated by hardline communist ideologists opposed to Western-style economic and political reforms. This resistance, combined with a failed coup, ultimately weakened Gorbachev’s authority, paving the way for Boris Yeltsin, whose neoliberal reforms transformed Russia’s political landscape.

Decades later and thousands of miles away, Sri Lanka faces its own political, economic, and social challenges. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his coalition, the National People’s Power (NPP), rose to power amidst a bankrupt economy, decades of political corruption, a largely inefficient and overstaffed state workforce, use of outdated technology, and mounting debts hindering development. Despite operating within a democratic system, the underlying challenges appear strikingly similar to those faced by Gorbachev, highlighting a parallel between the two countries’ governance mechanisms, but one under communism and the other under the guise of democracy.

AKD is pursuing his economic policy to balance socialist welfare programmes with capitalist economic reforms to revive the economy. Like Gorbachev, AKD’s reforms aim to modernise the Sri Lankan economy without abandoning socialism. The introduction of limited market reforms, decentralising economic control, and encouraging private enterprise may undermine the central authority of the leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) which control the lion share of the NPP coalition, leading to political instability and the rise of nationalist movements within Sri Lanka.

However, the political dynamics, including resistance from extreme left-wing factions and right-wing opponents, could determine the outcome of AKD’s ambitious agenda. While history does not necessarily repeat itself, the spectre of political instability remains a concern.

AKD’s “Glasnost and Perestroika”

Creating “A Rich and Beautiful Country” is the bold and inspiring vision articulated by the newly elected President and the parliamentary members of the National People’s Power (NPP) government, as detailed in their manifesto and policy documents. The President of Sri Lanka, a charismatic and inspiring leader of the NPP, recently delivered a heartfelt and enthusiastic address to parliament and the nation.

In his address, he outlined his ambitious vision and expectations for steering our country onto a path of sustainable prosperity. Delivered without the aid of written notes, his speech was a commendable demonstration of his dedication and sincerity. As Sri Lankans, we take pride in the President’s energy and unwavering commitment to turning his vision into reality.

However, this vision, no matter how inspiring, faces critical challenges. Can the NPP government translate the ambitious goals outlined in their policy documents and the President’s impassioned words into tangible outcomes? Achieving such a transformative vision requires a meticulous and coordinated effort, along with all the necessary components to overcome the significant hurdles ahead.

My focus here, rather than attempting an exhaustive analysis, is to highlight a few pressing concerns that demand immediate attention in order to secure the success and integrity of this transformative journey of achieving “Glasnost and Perestroika.” As a hopeful Sri Lankan committed to systemic change, I wish to underscore these concerns within the NPP administration that could impede our collective vision for progress.

NPP Leadership

Effective leadership is the cornerstone of good governance, guiding nations towards progress and stability. In the context of the NPP government, the transition from trade union advocacy to ministerial leadership presents unique challenges and opportunities.

The President and the Cabinet hold the highest level of leadership in the government, serving as the architects of national direction and policy formulation. They entrust the heads of departments with the responsibility of implementing these policies through their ministerial secretaries. However, effective leadership demands clarity and unity. If Ministers and their Secretaries fail to provide a cohesive and unambiguous direction to the department heads within each ministry, the result will be organisational chaos. This challenge is particularly relevant given the leadership background of several ministers in the NPP government.

Several ministers in the NPP government were formerly trade union leaders before their recent appointments to ministerial positions. While their prior roles involved leading, advocating, and vigorously championing the demands of the workforce, particularly in the public sector, ministerial responsibilities require a fundamentally different approach. Administering and addressing the needs of the workforce as the primary representative of the government, which acts as both the “Owner” and “Financier” of public organisations, demands a much more nuanced and balanced perspective.

An assertive, advocacy-driven leadership style must evolve into a more balanced approach that considers the needs of all stakeholders. Without adopting this more inclusive mindset, ministers risk alienating sations, thereby jeopardising the systemic changes, and both short and long-term progress envisioned by the President. So far, we have witnessed some ministers who were affiliated with trade unions in the past not having transformed their new roles to act impartially to unite the management and the workforce in their ministries.

It is also important to acknowledge that this cabinet includes ministers who embody these balanced leadership qualities. The President, along with other senior and experienced ministers, must take the lead in mentoring and guiding the younger, energetic, but less experienced members of the team. By providing direction and fostering a collaborative environment, they can ensure that public expectations are met, and the government stays on course toward achieving its overarching goals.

Humility and credibility

Since the inception of NPP’s governance, a recurring and concerning pattern has emerged among certain ministers, a belief in their own infallibility and a persistent perception that the opposition is perpetually wrong. This mindset not only risks stifling constructive debate but also undervalues the diverse experiences, skills, and ideas that others bring to the table.

A similar tendency can be observed globally, where some politicians treat their political ideologies as the ultimate truth, often dismissing differing perspectives. This approach fosters polarisation and inhibits meaningful collaboration. Within the NPP leadership, it is essential to recognise that, no matter how diligently they work, the attitudes and behaviours of the leadership team can significantly hinder progress.

True leadership demands humility, an often-overlooked quality that is far from a weakness. Instead, humility forms the cornerstone of effective leadership, helping to build trust, foster collaboration, and ensure sustainable success. By embracing humility, leaders can create an environment where diverse viewpoints are valued, and progress is achieved through collective effort.

Integrity among Ministers is essential for gaining the trust and recognition of the public. During the former Speaker’s qualifications controversy, the Opposition justifiably announced plans to bring a no-confidence motion against him for dishonesty.

A Minister who was previously a Trade Union leader, publicly dismissed the motion without examining the facts or acknowledging the embarrassment caused to the NPP government. Such statements demonstrate blind loyalty to party colleagues, lack of experience, responsibility, caution, and trade union mentality. The President, in contrast, declared that “wrongdoing would not be tolerated regardless of rank or position,” a stance that led to the Speaker’s resignation. This demonstrates decisive leadership and a commitment to accountability, qualities that others in government should emulate.

The inexperienced, young Minister in question would do well to take a page from the President’s book. Credibility and integrity, once lost, are nearly impossible to regain. Leaders must exercise care and responsibility when commenting on matters of public concern.

So far, no action has been taken for the allegations that some Members of Parliament from the NPP and the Opposition have given misinformation about their educational qualifications during the election campaigns. It is crucial for the President or the Leader of the House to address these claims promptly to prevent further distractions and maintain public trust.

Cultural Changes and Motivation

Culture is not a “soft” subject, yet most political leaders and public sector organisational heads treat it as if it were. Culture embodies the behaviours of employees and the infrastructure of the organisation. It is the foundation on which success is built.

Driving cultural change is no easy task. A key strategy is to provide comprehensive training that fosters employee engagement and ownership. Sustainable change hinges on behavioural performance, reinforced by a structured system of incentives, support, and motivation.

It cannot be transformed merely through lofty speeches extolling the “honesty” of the ruling party, especially when directed at workers in the public sector. Similarly, continually decrying the “dishonesty” of previous regimes does little to foster meaningful change. Leaders in the NPP should avoid complacency regarding their reputation for “honesty,” as their tenure in government is relatively brief and largely untested.

Importance of the human touch, education, and motivation in achieving success,

especially when tackling complex challenges is essential. There are no quick fixes when it comes to changing human behaviour. Organisational transformation is a gradual, deliberate process, but one that is essential for cultivating a high-performing, responsive public sector which is a major part in the System Change.

Govt. Tender Process

A recent parliamentary debate exposed concerns over the Mannar Wind Farm Project’s tender process. Despite the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) and Procurement Appeal Board (PAB) recommending the disqualification of two non-compliant companies, the new Energy Minister annulled the initial process, introduced a fresh tender process, and awarded the contract to an originally rejected bidder. The Minister claimed the new contract was cheaper.

This raises serious concerns about political interference in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy sector. As a professional with nearly 40 years of experience in construction spanning Procurement to Final Accounts in the UK and Sri Lanka, I find this deviation from proper tendering procedures deeply concerning.

A professional tender evaluation considers not just cost but also technical capability, organisational strength, commercial factors, health and safety standards, and relevant experience in similar projects. Low initial bids can often lead to escalated costs through variations and claims, ultimately exceeding the most economically advantageous bid.

If the Minister prioritised cost alone, a direct negotiation with a local contractor would have been more transparent, avoiding wasted public funds and unfair costs to other bidders. This incident casts a serious shadow over the NPP’s commitment to integrity and fair play in the tendering process, raising critical questions about accountability in public procurement.

Conclusion

While the NPP government has been in power for nearly six months, it is understandable that the public’s expectations and scrutiny are high. The trust and hope that the Sri Lankan people have placed in the NPP come with heightened vigilance, as even the smallest misstep by the new administration could be seen as jeopardising what many view as the nation’s last chance to set a sustainable course for the future.

The path to reform will undoubtedly be challenging and fraught with obstacles. Yet, it is a journey we must undertake, not only to honour the hopes of the present but to secure a brighter future for generations to come. It will be interesting to witness the successful implementation of Sri Lanka’s version of AKD’s “Glasnost and Perestroika,” especially since the originator of this concept, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, faced significant challenges and ultimately did not achieve his intended outcomes three decades ago.

However, for AKD’s vision to succeed, it is crucial for all citizens to actively support but demand accountability from the President and his Cabinet as they navigate this difficult transformative phase. Their leadership will be vital in uplifting the economic, social, legal, and political systems while enhancing democracy as the foundation for realising Sir Lanka’s own “Glasnost and Perestroika.”