Connect with us

Features

Difficult Dealings with Strong Political Personalities

Published

on

(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Pieris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)

Senior public officials have often to act as buffers between ministers, other important political actors, and other stakeholders in society. On many occasions, one had to absorb a significant degree of shock and act as a facilitator, mediator or referee. A rousing example of this side of one’s responsibilities came by courtesy of Mrs. Vivienne Goonewardene, the LSSP Member of Parliament for Dehiwela-Galkissa and wife of Mr. Leslie Goonewardene, Minister of Communications.

Mrs. Goonewardene was well known for her intrepidity, straight frank discourse and a degree of rebelliousness. She rang me one day. The prime minister had apparently “interfered,” in some matter pertaining to her electorate. I received a characteristic barrage aimed at the prime minister. “Tell that woman, just because she is prime minister, she has no business to interfere in my electorate. Tell her that I am not afraid of her, and I will know what to do if she tries her nonsense with me. Now, I want you to tell her what I told you in exactly the same words,” insisted Mrs. Goonewardene.

I listened to this tirade with a degree of amusement. This was vintage Vivienne. I said “Madam, you meet the Prime Minister in Parliament. Why don’t you tell all this to her yourself’.?” This time it was my turn to get blasted. “That is none of your business. You do what is told. This is a formal request,” she replied. I then told her “Madam, if you want to use your own words, you will have to deliver them yourself. I will however, tell the prime minister that you spoke to me and that your were deeply upset about what you reported she had done in your electorate, and that as an MP you were unwilling to accept it.”

Mrs. Goonewardene was not pleased. She said, “All right, if you don’t have the guts to tell her what I have said, do it your way!” And that is what I did. I did not think it my function as a public servant to promote disharmony and spread ill will. What was relevant was that an MP was upset at a purported action of the prime minister, which it was important to bring to her attention in a suitable manner so that the issue could be addressed. Aggression and abuse would not have been helpful.

Sometimes, it becomes one’s unpleasant duty to clash with ministers, and it occasionally happens. I was Acting Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Mr. WT Jayasinghe and the PM were abroad. There occurred an assault on a doctor in the South, by a police constable. The doctors were naturally up in arms and wanted the constable interdicted immediately. The Inspector General of Police, Mr. Stanley Senanayake came to see me personally, and stated that there was a long standing problem between this doctor and some members of the public; that there were complaints made regarding this doctor’s behaviour in the past; that he had been rude to police officers; and that there was also some personal enmity between this doctor and the police constable.

He reported that the police were seething and did not want the constable interdicted without a full preliminary inquiry, at which they were confident the doctor’s behaviour would come to light. The IGP said that the situation was so bad, that if the constable was interdicted due to the pressure of the doctors, he might have a strike by the police of that range on his hands. I told the IGP, that if there was prima facie evidence, no matter what the reason, the constable struck the doctor, things could not be left as they were, pending a full investigation which was going to take time.

I said that at the least, the constable should be sent on compulsory leave and a full inquiry begun immediately. I also told him that there should not be any postponements and that the inquiry should be continued until it was over. I also said that in view of the high feelings on both sides, a retired judge should conduct the inquiry. The IGP agreed with some reluctance, to these instructions of mine given in my capacity as Acting Secretary, Defence.

The doctors were not happy. They were not prepared to settle for anything short of interdiction. They began to canvass Ministers, and amongst others went to Minister Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike, who, without checking with the IGP or me, and not knowing the background or the serious implications on the police side had agreed that the constable should be interdicted. The minister rang me, and in a rather peremptory tone said, “I want that policeman interdicted.” I said “I am sorry, I won’t be able to do that,” and explained the complications, and how I had already taken steps to remove the constable from the scene, by sending him on compulsory leave, in spite of the opposition of the IGP.

I also informed him that the inquiry was starting immediately. But the minister was not satisfied. He had committed himself to the doctors. He said, “All that is well and good, but unless the police officer is interdicted, you will have a doctors’ strike on your hands, and you will be responsible.” I replied that “If I order interdiction there will be a police strike on my hands, for which too I would be held responsible.” I concluded by saying that as Acting Secretary, Defence & Foreign Affairs, I had also to be concerned with the morale of the police, and that what had been worked out was a fair compromise.

The minister was not pleased. “Then, you do any bloody thing you want,” he said and slammed the phone down. Curiously, virtually these same words were used on me by a few other ministers on some future occasions, and my left ear received significant training in coping with banging telephones. Fortunately, wiser counsel prevailed and a strike either by the doctors or the police was averted. The immediate commencement of the inquiry helped.

When the PM returned to the island, I briefed her on what had happened. She backed me fully, and said that the minister had no business to get involved in an issue, which was not within his area of responsibility. In the future too, she wanted me to use my own independent judgment, on any issue which concerned her responsibilities. This was one of the main reasons why it was easy to work with Mrs. Bandaranaike. She trusted you, and backed fully whatever decision you took. She was interested in hindsight only to the extent that its contemplation could improve the quality of foresight in the future, and not to find fault.

Another strong quality of the Prime Minister was her ability to listen to a strong dissenting view, without losing her temper or later holding it against you. In any case, as far as I was concerned, I had cleared this question the first day she came to office after having been sworn in as Prime Minister, as I had related earlier in these memoirs. We had a relationship built on frank and sincere talk and discussion. I never felt inhibited to speak out when I thought it was necessary. Although I did not get involved in political comment, sometimes the sheer sycophancy one saw around provoked one to say something.

For instance, on one occasion, when the ruling SLFP had lost a by-election fairly badly, there was a political figure trying to put a gloss on it in order to please the PM. I happened to be there, and in my presence he said “But Madam, there is nothing to worry. Over 12,000 progressives voted for us. That is a great victory.” I was so irritated that I shot back, that on this calculus of the “progressive” vote for the government, it would lose every seat at the next general election. The PM, surprised, looked hard at me, and then said, “quite right.” In fact, unfortunately for the government, the next general election, illustrated my point all too comprehensively. I did not realize at the time, that what I uttered was prophetic.

The case of Mr. R. Paskaralingam

An example of the PM, and her attitude towards dissenting views, was the case of Mr. R. Paskaralingam. Mr. Paskaralingam was a colleague, in the Civil Service, senior to me in the service, and at the time Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He was an experienced, unruffled and a sound administrator who bore the brunt of the general administration in a large and difficult Ministry, thus freeing the Secretary, Dr. Udagama, a distinguished educationist, to address the quality, content and scope of education at the various levels.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Paskaralingam, during this period, he had approved an officer of the Ministry going to London on a scholarship, and the officer did not return. The Minister of Public Administration, Mr. Felix Dias Bandaranaike took a dim view of this, and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing extremely critical views of Mr. Paskaralingam’s negligence in permitting this officer to go.

The charge was that he was not diligent enough in checking all aspects before he gave permission.

This was also a time of stringent exchange controls, where a system of exit permits existed without which no one could travel abroad. Particularly in the climate of the time, the charge against a senior public servant of Mr. Paskaralingam’s position was serious.

I held quite a different view and I expressed it to the Prime Minister. I said that all of us in the public service work on a basis of trust as far as our colleagues are concerned. There was no way that you could look into every representation made to you by a fellow public servant. The whole administration would grind to a halt if you spent your time investigating every assertion or statement made to you. It was just not practical and I explained to the Prime Minister that Mr. Paskaralingam, who was a very busy person would have had to take his Assistant Secretary’s word in this instance. I told her that I would have done exactly the same thing.

That passed. But shortly thereafter the issue of acting arrangements in the Ministry of Education came up, since Dr. Udagama was due to go abroad. Mr. Paskaralingam was the next senior officer. The period involved was about 10 days. I therefore prepared as is customary, a letter from the Prime Minister to the President recommending his appointment as Acting Secretary. Secretaries even then were appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. When I took the letter for signature, the Prime Minister said, “No, I can’t have him act. We will get a Secretary from another Ministry to act.”

I asked what the problem was. She said that some members of Parliament had made complaints to her about various transfers and so on made by him. I asked whether any of these complaints were inquired into. She said “No,” but she would have problems with the MPs, if Mr. Paskaralingam acted. I told the Prime Minister that Mr. Paskaralingam was one of the hardest worked officers. He was in office by 7.30 in the morning and on most days left after 7.30 in the night. He carried a tremendous burden of administration and was the second most senior officer in the Ministry. Acting for the Secretary, was not a favour. It was but his due.

I said that a man was entitled to the “fruits” of his labours. I also said that as Prime Minister, she should not come to any conclusions, based on what some MPs may have said, without investigating the matter and establishing its truth or otherwise. But the Prime Minister was still not convinced. She said that she would have problems with the MPs. I then said, “Excuse me,” and started walking out of the room. “Where are you going?” inquired the Prime Minister. I said, I was going to bring the seniority list of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service. “What for?” asked the Prime Minister. I said, “Madam, the government cannot have it both ways. You cannot get work out of people and not give them their due.

If you believe what the MPs have stated without any inquiry, it is obvious that you yourself have lost confidence in the person. Such an official should not be No. 2 in a Ministry as important as the Ministry of Education. Please select someone else from the seniority list and we will move out Mr. Paskaralingam immediately.” “Sit down,” the Prime Minister ordered. Then she reflected. Put this way, the Prime Minister realized that acting on a vague impression created in her mind was not in order. She signed the letter, recommending Mr. Paskaralingam as Acting Secretary, Education. I thanked the Prime Minister and reminded her that she was free to make any investigations about complaints from MPs.

I also told her that this was only one specific case, and that it was important that certain fair norms be established in regard to the interaction between political authorities and the public service, and that these be visible to the public service. This was necessary, in order to obviate frustration and produce an efficient service, which was in the interests of both the government and the country.

Speaking of Dr. Udagama, it is worth relating an amusing incident that occurred around this time. One day, I was at Temple Trees working with the Prime Minister. The time was about 2.45 p.m. On a matter arising from some of the papers I was discussing with her, she wanted to speak with Dr. Udagama. The switchboard operator was instructed to get him on the line. The operator first trying his office and being told that he could be at home, had attempted to reach him there. Soon, a hesitant and somewhat embarrassed operator came up to the Prime Minister and informed her that Dr. Udagama was at home but was having a bath!

“What! having a bath at this time?” blurted out an incredulous Prime Minister. She had a sense of humour, and the next moment observed “what a strange man!” Evidently Dr. Udagama had come home for a late lunch, and decided to take a shower before getting back. I mentioned this episode to him. We had a good laugh. Even today we sometimes laugh about this when we meet. I however had told Dr. Udagama that I have no means of describing the look on the Prime Minister’s face when she was told that her Secretary, Ministry of Education was enjoying a bath at 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a working day.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future

Published

on

Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.

Strengthening economic growth and diversification

Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.

Job creation and social stability

The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.

Competitiveness and export expansion

Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.

Attracting domestic and foreign investment

Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.

Promoting innovation and technological upgrading

Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.

Strengthening supply chains and local linkages

Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.

Environmental sustainability and resilience

Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.

Institutional capacity and governance

Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.

Responding to global technological and trade shifts

The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.

Conclusion

Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.

(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)

BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti

Continue Reading

Features

How to insult friends and intimidate people!

Published

on

Trump in Davos

US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!

From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.

Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.

Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!

However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!

The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!

Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?

With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.

Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.

 Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence

Published

on

One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:

Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and  fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.

Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US  equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations.  The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.

Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).

First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the  economic decline, characterised  by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.

If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.

Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.

Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).

It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.

Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.

Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025). 

Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.

Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending