Features

Mandate of Ministry of Power – Some ambiguities, conflicts and barriers

Published

5 years ago

2020/08/20

By Dr. Janaka Ratnasiri

The Gazette Notification Extraordinary No. 2187/27 of 09.08.2020 stipulates the mandates of ministries, both Cabinet and State, and the institutes coming under their purview. One common requirement of these mandates is that they should align with the President’s policy document “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour (VPS)”. In assigning functions among ministries, one deviation from the past practice hitherto followed is the division of Ministry of Power and Energy into two separate ministries, Ministry of Power and Ministry of Energy. There is some sense in this decision (See also The Island of 14.08.2020). It is hoped this change is for the better and not for the worse, as usually happens.

MANDATE OF MINISTRY OF POWER AND STATE MINISTRY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

The key mandate of the Power Ministry is given as:

Meeting the electricity needs of all urban and rural communities, based on the long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan prepared by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).

Supplying electricity to business enterprises in Sri Lanka enabling them to be competitive in the global market, and ensuring energy security.

Among the special priority areas identified for the Power Ministry are the following:

Expand the capacity of the Puttalam coal power plant, with additional investment.

Balance the generation mix from renewable energy plants, thermal power plants and natural gas power plants while minimizing the cost of generation and eliminating any uncertainties in generation.

Implement the long-term generation expansion plan.

Improve the efficiency of transmission and distribution systems.

Minimize the cost of electricity for manufacturing industries enabling their competitiveness in global markets.

Special priority areas identified for the State Ministry Renewable Energy, are the following:

Convert the Kelanitissa power plant to a natural gas turbine plant, and expand the Kerawalapitiya power plant.

Develop a smart network ensuring generation efficiency and optimizing its use.

Encourage the use of roof-top solar PV panels in households, commercial establishments and factories, enabling supply of electricity at low cost.

Encourage the private sector and entrepreneurs to establish renewable energy projects.

Add to the national grid the Broadlands Hydropower (HP) plant by 2020, Uma Oya HP plant by 2021, Moragolla HP plant by 2023, Thalapitigala and Seethawaka HP plants by 2024.

Add to the national grid the Mannar 100 MW wind power plant by 2021 and add 800 MW of wind and solar systems set up at Mannar, Pooneryn and Moneragala.

PROVISIONS IN “VISTAS OF PROSPERITY AND SPLENDOUR”

The VPS document has no separate section on Power Sector, but has only a section on Renewable Energy (RE), highlighting the President’s desire to give priority for renewable energy. The preamble to this section says “Renewable energy has now become a widely discussed subject and is needed as part of the overall energy mix of a country, which consists of Hydro, Thermal, Coal and alternative renewable energies. It will ensure that the country has access to low cost energy needed for rapid economic acceleration. By 2030, we expect the country’s renewable energy mix to be 40% of the total portfolio. We also anticipate that hydro and renewable energy together would account for 80% of the overall energy mix by 2030”.

The following targets on power sector development are also given in the VPS document.

According to the current plan, we will take actions to add 230MW of power to the national grid by installing the Broadland hydropower station by 2020, Uma Oya by 2021, Moragolla by 2023, Talapitigala and Seethawaka by 2024.

Immediate actions will be taken to convert the Kelanitissa plant to a natural gas turbine plant, where similar two plants will be implemented in Kerawalapitiya and Hambantota before 2023.

As part of the environmental-friendly policy, we will convert the fuel-powered plants located around the Colombo area to natural gas turbine plants within the next year.

With respect to transformation towards Renewable Energy, the VPS document says:

We will add 100 MW of wind energy in Mannar by 2021. Additionally, we expect to add 800 MW of solar energy to the national grid by executing a wind and solar power project with a public-private partnership in potential locations around the country including Mannar, Poonareyn and Monaragala.

Roof top solar systems will be encouraged so that households and small businesses wo

uld have access to low cost energy, which will be done in the course of the next five years.

We will remove all impediments and incentivize the private sector and entrepreneurs interested in setting up renewable energy projects i.e. solar and wind, and to this end, the government will provide assistance.

We will also introduce an efficient energy generation programme using industrial waste in each city.

We will introduce new policies and legislation to ensure the efficient use of energy in construction sector.

AMBIGUITY IN TARGETS GIVEN IN THE VPS DOCUMENT

The preamble to the section on Renewable Energy in the VPS document says “By 2030, we expect the country’s renewable energy mix to be 40% of the total portfolio. We also anticipate that hydro and renewable energy together would account for 80% of the overall energy mix by 2030”. There is much ambiguity in this statement. Firstly, it is not clear what is meant by “total portfolio”. Secondly, it is not clear whether the term “overall energy” means energy consumed in all sectors including power, transport, industries, commercial and households or whether it means energy consumed in the power sector only. On the face of it, overall energy would mean the former.

But the State Minister of Solar Power, Wind and Hydro Power Generation Projects Development was heard over the TV recently saying that his Ministry’s target is to generate electricity up to 80% of the total electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2030, in compliance with the VPS document. Obviously, the author of this document has erred when he said that 80% target is in respect of overall energy, if the State Minister’s word is taken as correct.

In an article published by the author in The Island of 19, 20, and 21 of February, 2020, he described, in detail a scheme to meet 80% of the total energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2030 considering all sectors, including power, industries, transport, commercial and households. The scheme included operating wind power and solar power units as stand-alone systems generating direct current for electrolyzing water and producing hydrogen. There are several options available to use hydrogen to meet the energy needs in power, industries and transport sectors. Another option given in the article is to convert biomass into a liquid fuel for use in transport and households.

Energy generation and consumption data in different sectors in Sri Lanka is given in the Energy Balance Statement (EBS) prepared annually by the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority (SLSEA). The latest EBS is available only in respect of 2017. Table 1 gives data taken from the EBS and it shows that Sri Lanka has already achieved 45% of renewable energy share in the total energy mix in 2017. Hence, to give a target of 40% to be achieved in 2030 has no meaning.

Table 1 Overall Energy consumption given in 2017 EBSFuelQuantityUnitEnergy Content

(PJ)Share %Petroleum oil 5,375kt232.0 43.9Coal 2,156kt 56.9 10.7Sub-Total (Fossil Fuels) 54.6Major hydro 3,075GWh 30.9 5.8Biomass11,810kt192.9 36.5Other Renewables 1,650GWh 16.2 3.1Sub-Total (Renewables) 45.4Total528.9100.0 ELECTRICITY DEMAND BY 2030

The CEB prepares biennially a long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan outlining the least cost options of generation plants that need to be added to the system annually for the next 20 years. The latest plan is in respect of the period 2020 – 2039 which is still in the draft form yet to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission, Sri Lanka (PUCSL) and scrutinized by the public. The Plan includes a Base Case that will meet the needs of average demand as well as other cases to meet the needs of high and low demand. Table 2 gives the capacity of different types of generating units that need to be added during 2020 – 2030 as given under Base Case.

Table 2. Capacity additions proposed in LTGE Plan 2020-39Type of plantCapacity to be added during 2020-2030

MWMajor hydropower plants627Solar PV plants900Wind power plants675Biomass plants55Mini-hydro plants165Diesel plants665Gas turbine plants70Combine cycle gas turbine plants1,500New Coal power plants 1,200

The LTGE Plan has also worked out the average generation from each plant type annually and the values obtained for 2030 are given in Table 3, extracted from the data given in Annex 8.4 of LTGE Plan. It is to be noted that it is not possible to forecast exact values for generation from each category in the future because it depends on many extraneous factors such as rainfall, cloud cover, wind regime, fuel prices and demand which are not known accurately in advance. Annex 8.4 gives both average values as well as high and low extreme values anticipated considering the uncertainties. Table 3 gives only the average values anticipated.

It is seen that according to CEB’s LTGE Plan for 2020-39, generation from renewable sources could reach only 35% by 2030, which is far below the 80% target given in President’s VPS Policy Document, assuming what is intended by “total energy” appearing in this document is total electricity generation. In order to align with the President’s policy, CEB will therefore have to come out with a revised plan for capacity additions reducing the thermal plant capacity and correspondingly increasing the RE systems enabling to raise the RE share in total electricity generation from 35% to 80% by 2030.

Table 3. Forecasted average generation in 2030 Plant categoryCapacity MWGeneration GWhMajor hydropower plants1,607 4,364Other renewable energy plants2,700 6,738Sub-total – RE sources4,30711,102Reciprocating plants 136 413Existing coal power plant 810 4,781Existing combined cycle plants 594 1,825New gas turbine plant 70 113NG combined cycle plants 1,500 5,783New coal power plants1,200 7,721Sub-total – Thermal4,31020,636Total31,738Share of RE generation35.0%

OPTIONS FOR MEETING THE PRESIDENT’S TARGET

The obvious choice for meeting the President’s target is to shift from coal power to solar and wind power. In an article written by the author appearing in the Island of July 31^st and August 1^st, 2020, he showed that by shifting from coal power to solar and wind power, CEB can save over 100 billion rupees annually. This is based on the price of LKR/kWh 10 offered in an on-going wind power project and bids received for solar power projects as divulged by CEB Chairman (Island of 24.07.2020). This is much less than the average cost of generation incurred by CEB which is LKR/kWh 23. In addition to the expenditure saved, adopting solar and wind power gives a bonus of providing pollution free generation.

Several proposals for building large scale solar power plants and wind power plants have been granted Cabinet approval in 2016 and 2017, but there have been no follow up measures taken to pursue them by the CEB. This is despite their economic and environmental advantages. With the announcement of President’s policy on promoting renewable energy, it is hoped that the officials in the Power Ministry and CEB will change their mindset and implement the proposed RE projects without delay. In order to get the private sector involved in this exercise, the present limitation of 10 MW for the development of RE projects by the private sector has to be removed.

The officials of the Power Ministry as well as of the CEB need to be reminded of the statement “We will remove all impediments and incentivize the private sector and entrepreneurs interested in setting up renewable energy projects i.e. solar and wind, and to this end, the government will provide assistance” appearing in the VPS policy document under Renewable Energy section. It is essential that they change their lackadaisical attitude towards renewable energy, if the President’s targets are to be achieved.

The mandate of the State Ministry of Renewable Energy includes building of large scale solar and wind power plants as priority areas. However, their implementation will be possible only with the concurrence of CEB, which was lacking in the past RE projects. There were also media reports of India offering a large solar park under the International Solar Alliance initiated by the Indian Prime Minister together with the French President at the Climate Change Summit Conference held in 2015. Sri Lanka should accept this offer and accelerate building up its solar power capacity.

Another option available is to increase the large hydropower capacity. The general thinking on this is that there are no more suitable sites available to build large hydropower plants in Sri Lanka. However, it is possible to build a large hydro power plant by building a new reservoir on Kotmale Oya below St. Clair’s waterfall and linking it to the existing shaft of the Upper Kotmale Power Plant. This will enable it to operate during the day increasing its plant factor rather than operate only as a peaking plant as done now. Water spilling over the Upper Kotmale Reservoir as well as water flowing down Devon’s water fall can be collected in this new reservoir.

This proposal was made by the Central Engineering Consulting Bureau (CECB) during the planning stage of Upper Kotmale project but not accepted by the Japanese Contractors. It has the potential to add about 160 MW of capacity, generating additional 520 GWh of RE annually. This is a better option than diverting water from Pundalu Oya to the shaft of the Upper Kotmale Project as proposed by CEB in its 2020-39 Plan.

The CEB’s LTGE Plan has given low priority for biomass power plants, adding only 5 MW capacity annually. This can be easily enhanced by setting up dedicated energy plantations and mixed plantations which will generate more renewable energy. It will also provide more opportunities for income generation to rural people and providing fodder to maintain a livestock industry. The colossal sum of money spent annually on importing fuel for thermal power plants presently could be retained in the country by developing biomass power plants.

It has been estimated that 1 ha of dedicated plantation of a crop such as gliricidia will yield 10 t of biomass annually. Assuming combustion of 1 t of biomass with 33% efficiency will generate 1.5 MWh of electricity, 1 ha of plantations has the capacity to generate energy equivalent to 15 MWh. Hence, to replace 1 MW of thermal power plant, about 500 ha energy plantations are required. This could be on new land or on home gardens and abandoned cropland including fallowed paddy land.

In 2019, the Cabinet declared 2022 as the year of Biomass Energy with the objective of promoting energy generation from biomass. Already, SLSEA is pursuing a project funded partly by UNDP and FAO for “Promoting Sustainable Biomass Energy Production and Modern Bio-Energy Technologies” with the specific objective of removing obstacles to the realization of sustainable biomass plantation, increase of market share of biomass energy generation and adoption of biomass- based energy technologies in Sri Lanka. Currently, a survey is planned to identify land available and suitable for energy plantations. Findings of this study will help developing more biomass power capacity at commercial scale by 2030.

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POWER MINISTRY MANDATE AND VPS POLICY DOCUMENT

The Power Ministry mandate has the following provisions pertaining to the LTGE Plan and Puttalam Coal power plant.

Meeting the electricity needs of all urban and rural communities based on the long-term generation expansion (LTGE) plan prepared by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).

Expand the capacity of the Puttalam coal power plant with additional investment.

Implement the long-term generation expansion plan.

As mentioned previously, CEB’s current plan envisages building 1,200 MW of coal power plants by 2030. Though it is consistent with the above mandate of the Power Ministry, its implementation will result in achieving only 35% share for RE plants out of total generation by 2030. This is in violation of the VPS targets. Hence, either the State Ministry should pursue more RE projects disregarding what was specified in the CEB’s LTGE Plan or the CEB revise its Plan to align with the President’s VPS document.

The VPS document has the following statement:

As part of the environmental-friendly policy, we will convert the fuel-powered plants located around the Colombo area to natural gas turbine plants within the next year.

It is gratifying to note that the new Government has decided to adopt an environment-friendly policy. However, it should apply not only to Kelanitissa Complex, but also to Puttalam Power Plant as well where the pollution is much severe than at Kelanitissa, particularly arising out of million tonnes of ash accumulated over the years containing many toxic heavy metals including mercury and arsenic.

Hence, in keeping with this policy, the proposal to add another 300 MW coal power plant to Puttalam Complex should be scrapped and instead the government should build a NG operated power plant of similar capacity which will be cheaper and easier to operate and maintain. Further, it will not emit any polluting gases such as Sulphur Dioxide or any particulates or any ash at all. Even the emission of other gases such as Carbon Dioxide contributing to global warming and Oxides of Nitrogen will be very much less.

Also, the LTGE Plan is highly flawed. It is supposed to determine which power technology will be the cheapest in 20 years hence based on current prices. With the cost of generation depending on plant capital cost and fuel prices both of which could vary widely within a span of 20 years, it is futile to make forecasts now as to which technology is the cheapest in 20 years hence and to adopt it. The technology should be selected after calling for bids for different technologies and selecting the most economic plant that meets detailed performance specifications as well as specifications on emission limits. This should be done at the time of building the plant and not based on flawed forecasts. Hence, stipulating a mandate to follow a flawed plan does not make sense.

BARRIERS AGAINST THE STATE MINISTRY AND VPS MANDATE

The State Ministry mandate has the following requirement:

Convert the Kelanitissa power plant to a natural gas turbine plant, and expand the Kerawalapitiya power plant.

The VPS document has the following requirements:

Immediate actions will be taken to convert the Kelanitissa plant to a natural gas turbine plant, where similar two plants will be implemented in Kerawalapitiya and Hambantota before 2023.

As part of the environmental-friendly policy, we will convert the fuel-powered plants located around the Colombo area to natural gas turbine plants within the next year.

Conversion to natural gas operation is possible with gas turbine power plants, both open cycle gas turbines (OCGT) and combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT). The latter comprises of two generating units, a gas turbine and a steam turbine which operates with hot exhaust gas released by the gas turbine without consuming additional fuel. Hence, a CCGT plant has a high efficiency exceeding 50%.

At Kelanitissa Complex, there are two OCGT plants with capacities 80 MW and 115 MW commissioned in 1981/82 and 1997, respectively, and two CCGT plants with capacities 165 MW and 163 MW commissioned in 2001/03 and 2003, respectively. All these power plants currently operate with auto diesel, except that the CEB owned 165 MW plant operates partly with diesel and partly with naphtha produced as a surplus in the refinery. All these plants can be converted to operate with NG after modifying their fuel injection systems, if it is found economical to do so considering their age. However, the non-availability of NG is a barrier to convert them within the specified time targets given in the mandates.

In order to convert these gas turbine plants to operate on NG, first NG will have to be imported in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for which special unloading jetties on land or floating units need to be built which takes several years. Though negotiations were held with India and Japan for several years after signing memoranda of understanding with them for building a terminal and importing LNG, no progress has been made public on this project. It was also reported in the media that CEB is seeking assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to establish a terminal for importing LNG.

Originally, the Ministry of Petroleum had the mandate for importing LNG, but because of the ministry’s inaction, the CEB obtained Cabinet approval for them to import LNG directly. However, under the new government, all matters relating to petroleum including NG comes under the purview of the Ministry of Energy. It is to be seen how the two ministries will coordinate to supply NG for operating not only these existing gas turbine power plants but also the proposed new gas turbine power plants. Importing of LNG needs to follow international protocols and has to be handled by competent operators after having in place the necessary regulatory framework on safety aspects and issuing licenses for operators.

CONCLUSION

The mandate given to the Ministry of Power recommends the establishment of coal power plants in keeping with the long-term generation expansion plan of CEB. On the other hand, the mandates given to the State Ministry for Renewable Energy recommends conversion of existing thermal power plants to operate on natural gas in keeping with the environment-friendly policy of the government. Therefore, to be consistent in applying this policy, the proposed 300 MW coal power plant to be built at Puttalam should also be converted into a gas power plant.

This could be best done by expediting the building of the 300 MW gas power plant at Kerawalapitiya for which the Cabinet approval has already been granted after a procurement process which got dragged for nearly 4 years. This plant, which could be built much faster than the coal power plant, will be able to meet any power deficit anticipated in a few years’ time. It appears that the Ministry is holding back this project for reasons best known to them and the new Minister should use his good office to expedite the project without listening to officials who were responsible for delaying it. The most practicable way of achieving these targets is to appoint a new set of young honest officers not allergic to renewable energy and gas power to take decisions on these matters.

All News Advertisement

Features

Trump’s Venezuela gamble: Why markets yawned while the world order trembled

Published

23 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

The world’s most powerful military swoops into Venezuela, in the dead of night, captures a sitting President, and spirits him away to face drug trafficking charges in New York. The entire operation, complete with at least 40 casualties, was announced by President Trump as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘brilliant.’ You’d think global financial markets would panic. Oil prices would spike. Stock markets would crash. Instead, something strange happened: almost nothing.

Oil prices barely budged, rising less than 2% before settling back. Stock markets actually rallied. The US dollar remained steady. It was as if the world’s financial markets collectively shrugged at what might be the most brazen American military intervention since the 1989 invasion of Panama.

But beneath this calm surface, something far more significant is unfolding, a fundamental reshaping of global power dynamics that could define the next several decades. The story of Trump’s Venezuela intervention isn’t really about Venezuela at all. It’s about oil, money, China, and the slow-motion collapse of the international order we’ve lived under since World War II. (Figure 1)

The Oil Paradox

Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves, more than Saudi Arabia, more than Russia. We’re talking about 303 billion barrels. This should be one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. Instead, it’s an economic catastrophe. Venezuela’s oil production has collapsed from 3.5 million barrels per day in the late 1990s to less than one million today, barely 1% of global supply (Figure 1). Years of corruption, mismanagement, and US sanctions have turned treasure into rubble. The infrastructure is so degraded that even if you handed the country to ExxonMobil tomorrow, it would take a decade and hundreds of billions of dollars to fix.

This explains why oil markets barely reacted. Traders looked at Venezuela’s production numbers and basically said: “What’s there to disrupt?” Meanwhile, the world is drowning in oil. The global market has a surplus of nearly four million barrels per day. American production alone hit record levels above 13.8 million barrels daily. Venezuela’s contribution simply doesn’t move the needle anymore (Figure 1).

But here’s where it gets interesting. Trump isn’t just removing a dictator. He’s explicitly taking control of Venezuela’s oil. In his own words, the country will “turn over” 30 to 50 million barrels, with proceeds controlled by him personally “to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” American oil companies, he promised, would “spend billions of dollars” to rebuild the infrastructure.

This isn’t subtle. One energy policy expert put it bluntly: “Trump’s focus on Venezuelan oil grants credence to those who argue that US foreign policy has always been about resource extraction.”

The Real Winners: Defence and Energy

While oil markets stayed calm, defence stocks went wild. BAE Systems jumped 4.4%, Germany’s Rheinmetall surged 6.1%. These companies see what others might miss, this isn’t a one-off. If Trump launches military operations to remove leaders he doesn’t like, there will be more.

Energy stocks told a similar story. Chevron, the only U.S. oil major currently authorised to operate in Venezuela, surged 10% in pre-market trading. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and oil services companies posted solid gains. Investors are betting on lucrative reconstruction contracts. Think Iraq after 2003, but potentially bigger.

The catch? History suggests they might be overly optimistic. Iraq’s oil sector was supposed to bounce right back after Saddam Hussein fell. Twenty years later, it still hasn’t reached its potential. Afghanistan received hundreds of billions in reconstruction spending, most of which disappeared. Venezuela shares the same warning signs: destroyed infrastructure, unclear property rights, volatile security, and deep social divisions.

China’s Venezuela Problem

Here’s where the story gets geopolitically explosive. China has loaned Venezuela over $60 billion, since 2007, making Venezuela China’s biggest debtor in Latin America. How was Venezuela supposed to pay this back? With oil. About 80% of Venezuelan oil exports were going to China, often at discounted rates, to service this debt.

Now Trump controls those oil flows. Venezuelan oil will now go “through legitimate and authorised channels consistent with US law.” Translation: China’s oil supply just got cut off, and good luck getting repaid on those $60 billion in loans.

This isn’t just about one country’s debt. It’s a demonstration of American power that China cannot match. Despite decades of economic investment and diplomatic support, China couldn’t prevent the United States from taking over. For other countries considering Chinese loans and partnerships, the lesson is clear: when push comes to shove, Beijing can’t protect you from Washington.

But there’s a darker flip side. Every time the United States weaponizes the dollar system, using control over oil sales, bank transactions, and trade flows as a weapon, it gives countries like China more reason to build alternatives. China has been developing its own international payment system for years. Each American strong-arm tactic makes that project look smarter to countries that fear they might be next.

The Rules Are for Little People

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this episode isn’t economic, it’s legal and political. The United States launched a military operation, captured a President, and announced it would “run” that country indefinitely. There was no United Nations authorisation. No congressional vote. No meaningful consultation with allies.

The UK’s Prime Minister emphasised “international law” while waiting for details. European leaders expressed discomfort. Latin American countries split along ideological lines, with Colombia’s President comparing Trump to Hitler. But nobody actually did anything. Russia and China condemned the action as illegal but couldn’t, or wouldn’t, help. The UN Security Council didn’t even meet, because everyone knows the US would just veto any resolution.

This is what scholars call the erosion of the “rules-based international order.” For decades after World War II, there was at least a pretense that international law mattered, that sovereignty meant something. Powerful nations bent those rules when convenient, but they tried to maintain appearances.

Trump isn’t even pretending. And that creates a problem: if the United States doesn’t follow international law, why should Russia in Ukraine? Why should China regarding Taiwan? Why should anyone?

What About the Venezuelan People?

Lost in all the analysis are the actual people of Venezuela. They’ve suffered immensely. Inflation is 682%, the highest in the world. Nearly eight million Venezuelans have fled. Those who remain often work multiple jobs just to survive, and their cupboards are still bare. The monthly minimum wage is literally 40 cents.

Many Venezuelans welcomed Maduro’s removal. He was a brutal dictator whose catastrophic policies destroyed the country. But they’re deeply uncertain about what comes next. As one Caracas resident put it: “What we don’t know is whether the change is for better or for worse. We’re in a state of uncertainty.”

Trump’s explicit focus on oil control, his decision to work with Maduro’s own Vice President, rather than democratic opposition leaders, and his promise that American companies will “spend billions”, all of this raises uncomfortable questions. Is this about helping Venezuelans, or helping American oil companies?

The Bigger Picture

Financial markets reacted calmly because the immediate economic impacts are limited. Venezuela’s oil production is already tiny. The country’s bonds were already in default. The direct market effects are manageable. But markets might miss the forest for the trees.

This intervention represents something bigger: a fundamental shift in how powerful nations behave. The post-Cold War era, with its optimistic talk of international cooperation and rules-based order, was definitively over. We’re entering a new age of imperial power politics.

In this new world, military force is back on the table. Economic leverage will be used more aggressively. Alliance relationships will become more transactional. Countries will increasingly have to choose sides between competing power blocs, because the middle ground is disappearing.

The United States might win in the short term, seizing control of Venezuela’s oil, demonstrating military reach, showing China the limits of its influence. But the long-term consequences remain uncertain. Every country watching is drawing conclusions about what it means for them. Some will decide they need to align more closely with Washington to stay safe. Others will conclude they need to build alternatives to American-dominated systems to stay independent.

History will judge whether Trump’s Venezuela gambit was brilliant strategy or reckless overreach. What we can say now is that the comfortable assumptions of the past three decades, that might not be right, that international law matters, that economic interdependence prevents conflict, no longer hold.

Financial markets may have yawned at Venezuela. But they might want to wake up. The world just changed, and the bill for that change hasn’t come due yet. When it does, it won’t be measured in oil barrels or bond prices. It will be measured in the kind of world we all have to live in, and whether it’s more stable and prosperous, or more dangerous and divided.

That’s a question worth losing sleep over.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Features

Living among psychopaths

Published

23 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

Bob (not his real name) who worked in a large business organisation was full of new ideas. He went out of his way to help his colleagues in difficulties. His work attracted the attention of his superiors and they gave him a free hand to do his work. After some time, Bob started harassing his female colleagues. He used to knock against them in order to kick up a row. Soon he became a nuisance to the entire staff. When the female colleagues made a complaint to the management a disciplinary inquiry was conducted. Bob put up a weak defence saying that he had no intention to cause any harm to the females on the staff. However, he was found guilty of harassing the female colleagues. Accordingly his services were terminated.

Those who conducted the disciplinary inquiry concluded that Bob was a psychopath. According to psychologists, a psychopath is a person who has a serious and permanent mental illness that makes him behave in a violent or criminal way. Psychologists believe that one per cent of the people are psychopaths who have no conscience. You may have come across such people in films and novels. The film The Silence of the Lambs portrayed a serial killer who enjoyed tormenting his innocent victims. Apart from such fictional characters, there are many psychopaths in big and small organisations and in society as well. In a reported case Dr Ahmad Suradji admitted to killing more than 40 innocent women and girls. There is something fascinating and also chilling about such people.

People without a conscience are not a new breed. Even ancient Greek philosophers spoke of ‘men without moral reason.’ Later medical professionals said people without conscience were suffering from moral insanity. However, all serial killers and rapists are not psychopaths. Sometimes a man would kill another person under grave and sudden provocation. If you see your wife sleeping with another man, you will kill one or both of them. A world-renowned psychopathy authority Dr Robert Hare says, “Psychopaths can be found everywhere in society.” He developed a method to define and diagnose psychopathy. Today it is used as the international gold standard for the assessment of psychopathy.

No conscience

According to modern research, even normal people are likely to commit murder or rape in certain circumstances. However, unlike normal people, psychopaths have no conscience when they commit serious crimes. In fact, they tend to enjoy such brutal activities. There is no general consensus whether there are degrees of psychopathy. According to Harvard University Professor Martha Stout, conscience is like a left arm, either you have one or you don’t. Anyway psychopathy may exist in degrees varying from very mild to severe. If you feel remorse after committing a crime, you are not a psychopath. Generally psychopaths are indifferent to, or even enjoy, the torment they cause to others.

In modern society it is very difficult to identify psychopaths because most of them are good workers. They also show signs of empathy and know how to win friends and influence people. The sheen may rub off at any given moment. They know how to get away with what they do. What they are really doing is sizing up their prey. Sometimes a person may become a psychopath when he does not get parental love. Those who live alone are also likely to end up as psychopaths.

Recent studies show that genetics matters in producing a psychopath. Adele Forth, a psychology professor at Carleton University in Canada, says callousness is at least partly inherited. Some psychopaths torture innocent people for the thrill of doing so. Even cruelty to animals is an act indulged in by psychopaths. You have to be aware of the fact that there are people without conscience in society. Sometimes, with patience, you might be able to change their behaviour. But on most occasions they tend to stay that way forever.

Charming people

We still do not know whether science has developed an antidote to psychopathy. Therefore remember that you might meet a psychopath at some point in your life. For now, beware of charming people who seem to be more interesting than others. Sometimes they look charismatic and sexy. Be wary of people who flatter you excessively. The more you get to know a psychopath, the more you will understand their motives. They are capable of telling you white lies about their age, education, profession or wealth. Psychopaths enjoy dramatic lying for its own sake. If your alarm bells ring, keep away from them.

According to the Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual, the behaviour of a psychopath is termed as antisocial personality disorder. Today it is also known as sociopath. No matter the name, its hallmarks are deceit and a reckless disregard for others. A psychopath’s consistent irresponsibility begets no remorse – only indifference to the emotional pain others may suffer. For a psychopath other people are always ‘things’ to be duped, used and discarded.

Psychopathy, the incapacity to feel empathy or compassion of any sort or the least twinge of conscience, is one of the more perplexing of emotional defects. The heart of the psychopath’s coldness seems to lie in their inability to make anything more than the shallowest of emotional connections.

Absence of empathy is found in husbands who beat up their wives or threaten them with violence. Such men are far more likely to be violent outside the marriage as well. They get into bar fights and battling with co-workers. The danger is that psychopaths lack concern about future punishment for what they do. As they themselves do not feel fear, they have no empathy or compassion for the fear and pain of their victims.

karunaratners@gmail.com

By R.S. Karunaratne

Features

Rebuilding the country requires consultation

Published

2 days ago

2026/01/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

A positive feature of the government that is emerging is its responsiveness to public opinion. The manner in which it has been responding to the furore over the Grade 6 English Reader, in which a weblink to a gay dating site was inserted, has been constructive. Government leaders have taken pains to explain the mishap and reassure everyone concerned that it was not meant to be there and would be removed. They have been meeting religious prelates, educationists and community leaders. In a context where public trust in institutions has been badly eroded over many years, such responsiveness matters. It signals that the government sees itself as accountable to society, including to parents, teachers, and those concerned about the values transmitted through the school system.

This incident also appears to have strengthened unity within the government. The attempt by some opposition politicians and gender misogynists to pin responsibility for this lapse on Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, has prompted other senior members of the government to come to her defence. This is contrary to speculation that the powerful JVP component of the government is unhappy with the prime minister. More importantly, it demonstrates an understanding within the government that individual ministers should not be scapegoated for systemic shortcomings. Effective governance depends on collective responsibility and solidarity within the leadership, especially during moments of public controversy.

The continuing important role of the prime minister in the government is evident in her meetings with international dignitaries and also in addressing the general public. Last week she chaired the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah. The composition of the task force once again reflects the responsiveness of the government to public opinion. Unlike previous mechanisms set up by governments, which were either all male or without ethnic minority representation, this one includes both, and also includes civil society representation. Decision-making bodies in which there is diversity are more likely to command public legitimacy.

Task Force

The Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka overlooks eight committees to manage different aspects of the recovery, each headed by a sector minister. These committees will focus on Needs Assessment, Restoration of Public Infrastructure, Housing, Local Economies and Livelihoods, Social Infrastructure, Finance and Funding, Data and Information Systems, and Public Communication. This structure appears comprehensive and well designed. However, experience from post-disaster reconstruction in countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami suggests that institutional design alone does not guarantee success. What matters equally is how far these committees engage with those on the ground and remain open to feedback that may complicate, slow down, or even challenge initial plans.

An option that the task force might wish to consider is to develop a linkage with civil society groups with expertise in the areas that the task force is expected to work. The CSO Collective for Emergency Relief has set up several committees that could be linked to the committees supervised by the task force. Such linkages would not weaken the government’s authority but strengthen it by grounding policy in lived realities. Recent findings emphasise the idea of “co-production”, where state and society jointly shape solutions in which sustainable outcomes often emerge when communities are treated not as passive beneficiaries but as partners in problem-solving.

Cyclone Ditwah destroyed more than physical infrastructure. It also destroyed communities. Some were swallowed by landslides and floods, while many others will need to be moved from their homes as they live in areas vulnerable to future disasters. The trauma of displacement is not merely material but social and psychological. Moving communities to new locations requires careful planning. It is not simply a matter of providing people with houses. They need to be relocated to locations and in a manner that permits communities to live together and to have livelihoods. This will require consultation with those who are displaced. Post-disaster evaluations have acknowledged that relocation schemes imposed without community consent often fail, leading to abandonment of new settlements or the emergence of new forms of marginalisation. Even today, abandoned tsunami housing is to be seen in various places that were affected by the 2004 tsunami.

Malaiyaha Tamils

The large-scale reconstruction that needs to take place in parts of the country most severely affected by Cyclone Ditwah also brings an opportunity to deal with the special problems of the Malaiyaha Tamil population. These are people of recent Indian origin who were unjustly treated at the time of Independence and denied rights of citizenship such as land ownership and the vote. This has been a festering problem and a blot on the conscience of the country. The need to resettle people living in those parts of the hill country which are vulnerable to landslides is an opportunity to do justice by the Malaiyaha Tamil community. Technocratic solutions such as high-rise apartments or English-style townhouses that have or are being contemplated may be cost-effective, but may also be culturally inappropriate and socially disruptive. The task is not simply to build houses but to rebuild communities.

The resettlement of people who have lost their homes and communities requires consultation with them. In the same manner, the education reform programme, of which the textbook controversy is only a small part, too needs to be discussed with concerned stakeholders including school teachers and university faculty. Opening up for discussion does not mean giving up one’s own position or values. Rather, it means recognising that better solutions emerge when different perspectives are heard and negotiated. Consultation takes time and can be frustrating, particularly in contexts of crisis where pressure for quick results is intense. However, solutions developed with stakeholder participation are more resilient and less costly in the long run.

Rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, addressing historical injustices faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, advancing education reform, changing the electoral system to hold provincial elections without further delay and other challenges facing the government, including national reconciliation, all require dialogue across differences and patience with disagreement. Opening up for discussion is not to give up on one’s own position or values, but to listen, to learn, and to arrive at solutions that have wider acceptance. Consultation needs to be treated as an investment in sustainability and legitimacy and not as an obstacle to rapid decisionmaking. Addressing the problems together, especially engagement with affected parties and those who work with them, offers the best chance of rebuilding not only physical infrastructure but also trust between the government and people in the year ahead.

by Jehan Perera