Alternate Space

‘To prove that degrees, per se, are worthless. Often, they are honorifics of true scientists or learned scholars or inspired teachers. Much more frequently they are false faces for overeducated jackasses.’ – Robert A. Heinlein 

It is the above quote that came to mind when witnessing the barrage of information coming out on the saga of the Sri Lankan parliamentary speaker Asoka Ranwala’s PhD qualification, or the lack of it. Of course, true to form, we have outdone ourselves – yet again. In Sri Lanka’s case, degrees are not only the “false faces for overeducated jackasses”. Our people who often wear degrees like expensive jewellery are the worst of the uneducated louts, to put it mildly.  The fiasco surrounding former speaker Ranwala’s resignation has also brought to the fore one of the most serious ailments our society has been afflicted with for a very long time, i. e. false pretense for social recognition and/or profit, mostly by superimposing degrees or other perceived qualifications on one’s public persona.  This is not new, but the recent saga has invited a significant degree of prominence. This is not only due to Ranwala’s recently acquired status as the Speaker and the country’s third citizen but, more importantly, as a result of the moral high ground on which the NPP campaigned and was elected to Parliament with an unprecedented majority.

Soon after my undergraduate studies in the 1980s, I met a friend in Pettah who had studied history at the University of Colombo during my time, but was practising medicine in Tissamaharama.  Quackery is part of this same scheme and is better known though it is structurally part of the same cluster of scams. These scams involving non-existent degrees or inflated qualifications usually involve lying to the public. Quite simply, it is a matter of public dishonesty. But politicians and dubious characters affiliated with politics have been the worst culprits in this scam. Sajith Premadas’s bachelor’s degree from the London School of Economics has been an unresolved bone of contention for a long time, and has resurfaced again now. Similarly, Namal Rajapaksa’s Attorney-at-Law qualification (not a degree) from the Sri Lanka Law College after sitting for the final exams in restricted conditions by himself (easily doable under the Rajapaksas) is another well-known case, which also has become part of the debate again.  Ironically, both are now asking the present government to cleanse itself of false degree holders! The demand would have been more believable if the Opposition began its war cry by cleansing itself of its most obvious culprits.

The late Eliyantha Lindsay White, heavily sponsored by the Rajapaksas, who claimed to be a doctor with miraculous healing powers, and Viranjith Thambugala’s alleged PhD and teaching at well-known institutions, including at NASA, are among more recent cases.  None of these people – from Premadasa to Thambugala – have ever uttered anything sensible that can vouch for their alleged advanced formal training.  Nevertheless, they have been allowed to remain untouched, beyond short-lived public outcries, because such fakery is not a crime, but an ethical issue. More importantly, they had enormous political protection. Besides, ethics are of no concern for such people. This, however, was not possible for Ranwala.  The question is why not, and what feeds this ailment in our country.

The short answer to “what feeds this ailment” is, because of the long-standing importance given to education in our country, in the context of which advanced education and university affiliations are taken very seriously beyond simple professional matters.  What these nefarious people from universities and outside are doing is to make use of this broad-based public interest and institutionalized respect, for their own private social and political gain.  Up to now, it has been a safe game to play.

Information available suggests that Ranwala does not even have the bachelor’s degree from the University of Moratuwa, which he had initially claimed.  In his resignation letter, which itself is a fascinating document, he has claimed that he had not been able to collect the paperwork pertaining to his PhD from Waseda University, Tokyo, but he nevertheless has the degree.  But this is late 2024 and not the 15th century.  One does not need to send a delegation bearing gifts to the Vice Chancellor of this Japanese university to get the transcripts and authenticated degree certificates pertaining to any former candidate in any degree programme.  All that was needed in this case was for Ranwala to make that request himself or otherwise authorize someone else to do it and make the required payment.  The information would have come via email in a few days if not a few hours. There is no indication this was ever attempted. If that was done sooner — if the former Speaker’s claims are true — this fiasco would not have reached the heights it did. It also would have saved the government needless embarrassment.

But this also opens another more important question.  That is, why did the NPP wait for so long to get their man to relinquish his duties as Speaker, and that, too, with a somewhat non-committal resignation letter, with its spokesperson Nalinda Jayatissa deliberately evading questions by journalists. Some of its Ministers, like Wasantha Samarasinghe and Deputy Minister Namal Karunarathna, went to the extent of issuing an unnecessary threat amidst much bravado that they have the numbers in place (which we the people had given them not too long ago) to defeat any no-confidence motion by the Opposition.  What this means is that the NPP was willing to compromise its own ethical standards for the protection of one person and his possible dishonesty. This was not merely a debate over a certificate.  More crucially, it is about lying in public to all of us and getting elected because some voters would have voted for him assuming him to be a learned man. I am sure it is this belief in the integrity and the perceived qualifications of its man that the JVP was moved to appoint Ranwala as the Speaker when there were many better qualified people in Parliament to hold that responsibility, but without such dubious baggage.

Ultimately, this is about the confidence in the man, others like him and by extension the government itself.  Not just this incident, but the lackluster way in which it was handled by the NPP and the way in which its JVP members at large justified Ranwala’s status publicly and vociferously have only done one thing: it has created a needless rupture in the moral high ground with which the NPP was ushered into power. All indications are, he was protected within the government until it was no longer possible (with an impending no-confidence motion and widespread bad press) because he was an important member of the JVP.  None of us are doubting the work he has done tirelessly for years for the betterment of the JVP in considerably difficult times and with risks to his life. But would the same position be adopted if the individual concerned was from another entity within the NPP?

It seems there are many more Ranwalas in Parliament now in the ranks of the NPP. Since the eruption of the Ranwala saga, their degree and professional claims on social media handles and platforms they control have disappeared, opening more questions about their integrity than any answers. These degree claims were also part of their campaign arsenal.

Again, the lead for this was provided by Ranwala himself by discontinuing his LikedIn page as soon as the fiasco emerged.

But to be clear, the incident has so far only dented the government’s moral high ground, and it has not been dismantled – yet.  But if the government is serious about maintaining this hard won moral high ground and the trust people had placed in them, then, it needs to clean shop right now.  People who have lied during their campaigns claiming for themselves degrees and qualifications they do not have, should be identified via a thorough disciplinary investigation and made to resign or be removed. But not only from their positions in the government but also as MPs. The same applies to Ranwala. After all, we did not vote for them to be Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Speaker, but to be MPs.  Needless to say, all this should also apply to similar dishonest people in Opposition if they have any interest at all in reinventing themselves within slightly higher moral standards.

There is no point in arguing as some in the JVP’s public and social media bandwagons have already begun that these are not crimes and others have done it before.  We know all this.  But we did not vote this government in for it to tread along the same dubious and treacherous path other worse culprits have tread before.  That moral high ground that the government once had, and which I think can still be retained, must clearly be retained if it is to do what it promised all of us. But it must be done with effort and sincerity and not with nonsense and bravado. And to do so, we must be shown the government is serious about corruption at all levels.  Public dishonesty is the worst form of corruption. This cannot be an excuse for any reason simply because some of the culprits might be their own. For us to be led by elected leaders, we have to have trust in their integrity.  If not, what would be the difference between this government and those who came before but were booted out decisively?

I hope the President was serious when he said recently in public that the government will deal with all people appropriately within its ranks if they have done anything wrong.  Public dishonesty is ethically wrong, Mr President; it is morally repugnant though it is not illegal. It cannot be an excused for leniency whatever the pressures within might be.

A former student told me recently I should not be too critical of the government as it is doing its best.  I damn well have the right and the responsibility to be exactly this: critical but with self-reflection.  I voted for the NPP and went public for the first time in my life asking people to do so, too, as we as a country needed serious change. But in that same address to the public, I also said that if the government deviated from its principles we supported, we also had the right to object, come to the streets and look for alternatives.  Hopefully, that future will not come.  Hopefully, another Gotabaya saga will not come, which fortunately is in the mind of the President, too, going by his many public statements since the parliamentary election victory. The only way to ensure that this government governs effectively and with dignity is to be honest in public, to be honest in private, to be honest in words, and to be honest in action. Personally, I still have considerable hope for this regime.  But it needs to call off its over-enthusiastic and unenlightened public bulldogs drunk with the power of victory and majoritarian euphoria and begin to grow up politically and morally and not be caught up in the corrupt politics of the past. They also need to realize, most of us did not blindly vote for the JVP but for the JVP-led NPP.  Erasure of this crucial fact would be a serious mistake from which neither the NPP nor the country would be able to recover.

BY Amarasiri de Silva
(Emeritus Professor,
University of Peradeniya)

We Sri Lankans are facing a spate of karma in climate change, and its consequences are not due to our faults but because of those committed by developed countries. Those developed countries exploit natural resources such as fossil fuels, gases, oil, and coal, in excess. Burning fossil fuels for energy production releases carbon dioxide, methane, fluorinated gases, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. These major greenhouse gases (GHG) contribute to trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere. GHG allows sunlight but traps heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. This process, though natural and necessary as it makes the climate of Earth habitable, has been exaggerated through excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. The heightened concentration of greenhouse gases, especially the much-emitted ones from burning fossil, relates directly to the rise in global average temperatures that result in changes in climate through increased heat waves, melting of glaciers, rising sea levels leading to flooding, and strong storms.

Approximately 15 billion tons of fossil fuels are extracted annually worldwide; this includes coal, oil, and natural gas by the developed world in general. This comes to an average of about 41 million tons per day. Oil alone accounts for around 93 million barrels per day, and there are large additional volumes of natural gas and coal. The United States is among the largest extractors of fossil fuels worldwide. It is responsible for approximately 16% of total world production from fossil fuels and is the second largest producer, next to China. Fossil fuel extraction, refining, and combustion account for approximately 73% of all GHG emissions. For 2023, US energy use from fossil fuels was estimated at 79 quadrillion BTUs. These increased use of fossil fuels led to global warming. It has been recorded that global average surface temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C (2°F) since the late 19th century, while most of this warming occurred during the past 50 years.

China and Russia are major contributors to the global production of fossil fuels. China is the largest global producer and consumer of coal, accounting for about 47% of global coal production. Another major contributor is Russia, accounting for about 17% of global natural gas and 12% of global oil production. These two countries are the major contributors in the global energy landscape, and their production level contributes much to worldwide carbon emissions.

The most recent climate summit was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, which became a rich country due to fossil fuel extraction. Comparatively speaking, Azerbaijan accounts for around six or five percent of the global generation vis-à-vis key and major producers like the US, China, and Russia. But Azerbaijan is set to expand its production of natural gas massively. Currently, Azerbaijan produces about 37 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas a year; this is scheduled to rise to 49 bcm by 2033, which means a more than 32-percent increase. During the next ten years, the total gas extraction in Azerbaijan will reach 411 bcm and significantly contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to about 781 million metric tons of CO₂. While these facts are actual and megalithic, the contribution of South Asian countries towards the extraction of fossil fuel is nil or not at all.

The sub-region of South Asia that contributes a small percentage to the total amount of global fuel extraction includes countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. India is the central extractor in this region, followed by coal, which is considered a way to prevent energy shortages in the economic hubs of this country. The other countries of this sub-region extract a negligible share, and these countries are highly dependent on heavy imports to meet their ever-increasing energy needs. While exact percentages for the whole region’s contribution to the global extraction of fossil fuels are not available, the overall extraction of the area is minor compared to major producers like the USA, China, and Russia.

The region’s energy mix is dominated by fossil fuels and coal being an integral part of electricity generation. Moving away from fossil fuels is problematic for these economies, which face high energy demands, economic constraints, and limited funding for renewable energy development. These dynamics illustrate the global disparities in responsibility and action on climate change, as South Asia contributes very little to global fossil fuel extraction but bears enormous consequences of climate change.

Historically, developed nations, acting in concert with large extractors like China, Russia, and the United States, have been the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions through industrialisation, excessive fossil fuel consumption, and large-scale resource extraction. These activities have given rise to the current global warming crisis, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events, all impacting the Global South far more disproportionately than the developed world. The concept of karma in this context raises moral questions about whether this suffering is a consequence of past actions of individual countries in South Asia or a reflection of ongoing global inequalities in wealth and power.

Countries with geographical vulnerabilities, limited resources to adapt, and a minimal historical contribution to global emissions, such as Sri Lanka in South Asia, bear the brunt of these consequences. As the cases, there could be coastal flooding, stronger-than-normal monsoons, or cyclones that engender the consequences of economic losses, dislocations, or a risk to food security. While emitting negligible quantities, such countries have to bear all these financial and sociocultural costs of climatic alteration created by the carbon-based course of growth of more industrialized economies.

This inequality creates a climate justice concern. Treaties such as the Paris Accord use words like “common but differentiated responsibilities,” insinuating that countries that are more to blame for historical emissions [should] bear the brunt of mitigation and adaptation burdens. In practice, developing nations still consider many of these responsibilities to be short of satisfactory. The calls keep on coming for reparations, more financial aid, and technology transfers. And that, still, needs to go a whole lot faster”.

The “sins” of developed nations in driving climate change have made things particularly difficult for countries like Sri Lanka, calling for urgent international collaboration and accountability to address these inequities. As Naomi Klein, a prominent Canadian political and climate activist and writer says, “All of this is why any attempt to rise to the climate challenge will be fruitless unless it is understood as part of a much broader battle of worldviews, a process of rebuilding and reinventing the very idea of the collective, the communal, the commons, and the civil after so many decades of attack and neglect.” Klein’s overarching argument is that climate change isn’t purely an environmental crisis but more of a crisis in how society is organised. This calls for climate justice. As Klein puts it, the problems we solely have with our environment cannot and will not be fixed until we view them as justice issues and accept that it is time for us to rebuild. “Global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient, and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response.” According to Klein, real progress on such matters in developing countries like Sri Lanka, which faces disproportionate effects of climate change, can only be achieved by examining the underlying mindset of resource exploitation in developed countries.

Ingrained economic systems that prize profit over sustainability need reimagining in value to protect the environment and equity in resource use. For a country like Sri Lanka, issues related to climate change are multidimensional, from increased sea levels to frequent natural disasters, which would call for an integrated but transformational response. This movement needs to reposition the outlook worldwide, mainly for developed countries, de-link resources from profit-making motives like fracking, and focus on resilience, sustainability, and justice for vulnerable communities.

I found most pivotal to Klein’s argument to be, “So climate change does not need some shiny new movement that will magically succeed where others failed. Rather, as the farthest-reaching crisis created by the extractivist worldview and one that puts humanity on a firm deadline, climate change can be the grand push that will bring together all of these still-living movements. A river running from innumerable streams, collecting from their combination at last to the sea.” The passage includes a central argumentative idea- joining all the social justice movements under the key broadened factor of the struggle with climate change. She believes that the only way to address climate change and enact real difference effectively is not by having a multitude of isolated single-issue activist groups but rather by a broad yet unified association capable of fighting all the interconnected issues brought forth by climate change, such as environmental health, social and socioeconomic inequality, and systemic oppression. Klein argues that since climate change is the product of an extractive mentality, real progress can only occur through profound changes in our values and economic systems. Since all the issues concerning climate change are linked, this movement is the only practical way of fighting back, which shall change how the world looks at the world, separating resources from profit. We have to act fast as Southern countries to get the developed nations to adopt a more responsible mindset towards climate change.

We must unite together in some coalition and demand accountability and just compensation for the damages that we go through, such as the floods and cyclones, among other disasters caused mainly by irresponsible fracking, coal mining, and fossil fuel dependence on the developed nations. The United Nations should unite the Southern nations and form a strong international organisation to advocate for climate justice and just reparations. Together, we can ask for systemic changes that will benefit the well-being of our populations and ensure equitable global progress. In this respect, what is achieved by the Sri Lankan representatives attended the Baku conference is unknown.

A key passage from Patel and Moore’s -A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things- reveals that “World ecology has emerged in the past several years as a framework to think through human history within the web of life. Rather than start with a notion of human separation from the web of life, we ask: How do humans have power and violence and the work and inequality in which they are organised? Capitalism is not just part of ecology but is an ecology-a set of relationships integrating power, capital, and nature.” This quote shows the gravity of Patel and Moore’s argument because it frames capitalism as a complex and integrated system exploiting people and the environment. A “world-ecology” framing of capitalism places capitalism within the social and ecological. It illustrates that environmental and social injustices are intertwined. Such an understanding of capitalism would, therefore, mean that global environmental justice will be realised only when consideration is taken of the role of capitalism in forming these exploitative structures of power that take advantage of people and the Earth. By placing capitalism in the “web of life,” Patel and Moore argue for a unified response targeting the roots of ecological and social inequality- a more holistic approach than traditional environmentalism in and of itself, which only attacks one aspect of capitalism. This form of activism, they say, is called for in the quest for justice in times of global crisis.

Patel and Moore do not see the current system as broken but rather fundamentally flawed to the point where its removal, rather than traditional activism, is needed. They refer to the current period as the “Capitalocene” to emphasise capitalism’s leading role in driving environmental destruction, which suggests that simple reforms are insufficient to stop climate injustice. The idea of world-ecology allows us to see how the modern world’s violent and exploitative relationships are rooted in five centuries of capitalism.” To Naomi Klein, dystopia is a catastrophic state of the world created by unregulated climate change, abetted by an economic system that values profit and growth more than ecological and social well-being. Underpinning this is the global reliance on fossil fuels and extractive industries impelled by a neoliberal economic framework resistant to systemic change. She believes this accelerates environmental collapse and entrenches inequality in nations whose corporations continue their exploitation while less developed countries like Sri Lanka bear dire outcomes such as heavy floods, and extended droughts. There is nothing inevitable about Klein’s dystopia; it’s a call to action. Suppose humanity were to address the root causes of climate change and begin making systemic changes, such as transitioning to renewable energy, adopting sustainable practices, and engaging in collective action. In that case, she thinks it will be able to avoid further decline and build a just and sustainable future. (To be continued)

by Jehan Perera

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s statement that the government will not permit the erosion of its mandate for accountable government in the context of the resignation of the Speaker of Parliament is on track with the promises made during the course of the elections that brought the NPP to power. The President reaffirmed his commitment to maintaining public trust, stating his government will take decisive action against any wrongdoing, regardless of rank, and emphasised the government’s mission to uphold the people’s mandate and ensure accountability at all levels. This is an indication that the government will be pursuing its anti-corruption agenda which will help it to retain its support base amongst the people. It will also offer the opportunity to legally and legitimately neutralize or incapacitate political rivals who will stoop to any level to come back to power, if they can be proven to have engaged in corruption.

Tackling the problem of corruption will be advantageous to the government in other ways, too. It will improve the climate for business in the country and, thereby, make Sri Lanka more attractive to foreign investors who have been unreceptive to the allurements, including tax breaks, that successive governments have been offering. The recent US government decision to sanction two Sri Lankans for involvement in corrupt government deals out of only 14 individuals sanctioned worldwide is significant. The sanctions target specific individuals rather than the government, signalling that the US is not against Sri Lanka’s leadership but is, instead, committed to upholding universal principles of justice and transparency. By acting against these individuals implicated in corruption, the US is indirectly reinforcing the government’s mandate to clean up its institutions.

Sri Lanka’s most recent position on the Ease of Doing Business Index (as of its final publication in 2020 before the World Bank discontinued the report) was ranked 99th out of 190 economies. Among the issues highlighted is the pervasive corruption in both public administration and regulatory bodies which leads to delays and demands for unofficial payments, discouraging both domestic and foreign investors. Despite attempts to streamline processes through digitization and one-stop services, corruption often shifts to more sophisticated forms rather than being eliminated. The international community appears to be willing to support the government to overcome the systemic corruption that has permeated society, to take on corrupt former government leaders and to improve the investment climate necessary for rapid economic development.

FLEXIBLE POLICY

Before the presidential election, critics argued that the NPP’s opposition to the IMF agreement risked plunging the country into another economic collapse. Concerns centered on a potential devaluation of the rupee, fuel shortages, and a recurrence of the dire conditions seen during the 2020-2022 crisis. There was a massive political campaign against the ruling NPP on economic grounds. There was a propaganda barrage that claimed that the old-school Marxists in the NPP would take the country to another economic collapse by rejecting the IMF agreement. They also claimed that the Sri Lankan rupee would plummet to a new low again and that there would be long lines outside petrol stations, and shortages of essential commodities that the country had seen three years ago. There was justification that the NPP had no viable alternative to the IMF agreement and yet was contemplating its rejection.

Indeed, at the outset of the presidential election campaign, the NPP (along with other Opposition parties) had been extremely critical of the IMF agreement, negotiated under the supervision of the former President, on the grounds that it was adverse to the interests of the working people and the national interest. Just before the elections, however, the NPP changed its stance to one of accepting the basic structure of the IMF agreement as negotiated under the former President, which it is now sticking to, though not in full measure. It has not, for instance, agreed to the wholesale privatization of state enterprises or to the undermining of the state education and health systems, as might have happened if the previous government continued in power for longer. There is now a discussion on private-public partnerships and as time passes, and the new government gains in confidence about the stability of the economy, there are likely to be more innovations.

The government’s settlement with private international bondholders reflects its commitment to continue on the economic course set by the agreement with the IMF and with the larger international community, including creditor countries, such as China, India and Japan. The government has now gained support from private creditors to restructure its international bonds. Investors, representing close to 98 percent of the country’s USD 12.6 billion in dollar bonds, are expected to agree to swap their securities for new notes. The widespread support would mean that the debt restructuring should be completed before year-end. The debt rework with private creditors was a necessary step under the agreement with the IMF. This appears to be the best option in an economic world in which Sri Lanka is but a small player.

MONEY SHORTAGE

The government’s biggest problem, at the present time, is the lack of money to meet the various expenditures it has to incur. The recent floods and the shortage of rice and coconuts are not of the government’s doings and there is little it can do due to the financial constraints it is under. However, by securing private bondholder cooperation, the government has demonstrated its ability to address complex negotiations. The successful negotiation with private creditors is a positive signal to global investors, bolstering Sri Lanka’s credibility and being better positioned to gain future investments. This can counter the Opposition criticism that the government has reneged on its promises made in its election manifesto and during the election campaign.

The mandate that the government sought was contained in a manifesto publication of 231 pages. There were a large number of promises in it on a wide array of subjects, ranging from arts and culture to economic development and good governance. At the core of the promise was to change the prevalent system in the country to be uncorrupt and to respect the rule of law. These were also the demands of the Aragalaya protest movement of 2022 that drove the then President and government from office through the power of mass movement and street protest. Those protests were motivated by the complete collapse of the economy which the NPP pledged to restore in its manifesto. But this is providing to be difficult in the short term.

Fortunately for the government, the absolute disillusionment of the general population with the other mainstream political parties has meant that the people are willing to be patient and give the government more time to get the economy back on track. Most people accept that the sins of the past cannot be laid at the doors of the present government and that more time is needed for them to be corrected. The government is continuing to maintain its credibility by adherence to its anti-corruption and accountability mandate. The claim to have university qualifications that cannot be shown to be true, has fallen into the realm of accountability that the government has now shown it will demand of its members. The resignation of the Speaker of Parliament, the third ranking member of the government, due to his inability to back his claim of academic achievement, is a sign of this commitment.