Features
WHY THE HURRY ABOUT 20A?
by Professor G. L. Peiris
Minister Of Education
May I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Kandy Professionals Association for embarking on this very timely initiative of meeting every month, on a Sunday, to discuss in depth the issues involving constitutional reform, and the way forward in our country. I consider this an exercise of immediate relevance and value.
The decision by the Government to present to the Cabinet of Ministers the text of the 20th Amendment to modify significantly the contents of the 19th Amendment and, after obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, to move the Amendment in Parliament, has attracted considerable public interest and discussion. As a preliminary to this, I think it is important to explain to the country the need for this. The public should have a clear understanding of the rationale underpinning this reform. This is all the more necessary because of the elaborate myths which have been assiduously cultivated, skilfully spread, by vested interests throughout the spectrum of our society.
The core of their argument is that the retention of the 19th Amendment is essential to preserve seminal values which we all believe in – the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. They contend that removal or reform of the 19th Amendment is an act of treachery and that all must stand firm against it. If this is allowed to happen, so they contend, the result will be a mortal blow struck against human rights, democracy and seminal institutions including Parliament. The argument, set forth in the most emotional terms, needs to be assessed in the light of cold reason. What is the truth of this? Nothing is more crucial at this point than to inform the public mind about the reality of the current situation.
It is strenuously contended by interested parties that the 19th Amendment brought immense benefits in its wake, and that it has to be protected at any cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is for the entrenchment of narrow vested interests that this intricately orchestrated campaign, fortified by abundant resources and closely knit organization, has been launched. Why is 20A necessary? For a variety of reasons, no doubt. But chief among them, indisputably, is the maintenance of law and order – essential as it is for the protection of life and limb. This takes precedence over all other obligations – development in the economic, social and cultural fields.
This, then, is the principal and indispensable obligation of the State. If this duty is not fulfilled, all else become illusory.
What impact did the 19th Amendment have in this regard? The 19th Amendment categorically states that the President is debarred from holding any portfolios. Who is the President? He is the leader elected by the entire population of the country by the free exercise of the franchise. The inalienable duty of the President is the security of the State and the People. But the 19th Amendment prevents him from functioning as the Minister of Defence. We emphatically reject this position.
The 19th Amendment did contain a transitional provision. That, however, was limited in its operation to former President Maithripala Sirisena, who was permitted to hold the portfolio of Environment and Mahaveli Development during his tenure of the Presidency. This was an individual-centric provision which did not apply to Presidents who succeeded him.
For all other Presidents, the 19th Amendment imposes an inflexible bar against the holding of any portfolio, including Defence. Arguably, Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, read together, allow and indeed require, the President to hold the Defence portfolio, but this is a matter that would require judicial interpretation, in the event of a challenge in the Courts. Is this uncertainty and ambiguity desirable? Does it buttress or destroy the human rights and democracy which are sanctimoniously appealed to?
The 19th Amendment involves a basic conundrum. Articles 3 and 4 have the effect that the President is the repository of the Executive power of the State. Article 4(b) makes it clear that the defence of the nation is an integral and inseparable element of Executive power.
The defence of the country, then, is the sacred duty of the President. This is, without question, his responsibility. What he lacks, however, is the authority required to fulfil this responsibility. Here lies a fundamental contradiction, entailing as it does dire consequences for the nation’s security.
Prior to the enactment of the 19th Amendment, the Constitution of Sri Lanka contained explicit provision in respect of Urgent Bills. In the event of an unexpected contingency, an Urgent Bill could be presented to Parliament within seven days. The legislative process in ordinary circumstances, Is cumbersome and protracted: it may not enable a swift response to an unanticipated situation. To cater for this, the pre-19A law made provision for rapid intervention through the mechanism of Urgent Bills. It is this statutory provision that is abolished by 19A which compulsorily requires an interval of 14 days before legislation is introduced in Parliament. It is scarcely difficult to conceive of contexts in which this could imperil the safety and security of our country.
We have recently seen before our very eyes the horrendous consequences that were brought about by 19A. It created, in its foundation, two potentially warring centres of power. If the President and the Prime Minister belong to different political parties, we saw for ourselves the intensity of the conflicts, in terms of values, policy and even personalities, which arose in the day to day practice of Governance. It is the people of this country that paid an exorbitant price for this state of affairs. As many as 265 valuable lives were lost in the Easter Sunday carnage. To whom do we attribute responsibilities for this calamity? The Prime Minster says: “What can I do? I am not even invited to the National Security Council”. Indeed, meetings of the Council were not held for months on end. Was information conveyed to the President available to the Prime Minister, and vice versa? There was an internal tug of war – working not together but at odds with each other.
It is in the heat of this battle that the security of the nation collapsed altogether. The evidence being given on a daily basis before the Presidential Commission investigating this tragedy, is truly alarming. On the day this occurred, I was in Munich, Germany. On the following day the New York Times – a world renowned newspaper – carried on its first page the names, telephone numbers and addresses of those who were said to be involved in planning and executing this catastrophe.
Indian intelligence had brought these particulars to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government not once, but repeatedly. However, because of the internal dissensions which went from bad to worse, nothing whatever was done to avert the tragedy.
If there had been no 19A, responsibility would have been clear and undivided. What 19A did was to split it up and create chaos. The results are a permanent blemish on our national conscience. These are the matters of which the public should be informed.
What is the constant refrain of those who insist on the retention of the 19A? They proclaim the sanctity of the separation of powers, and regard authority in an individual or institution as the death knell of democracy and the basic elements of democratic culture. They assert their resolve to resist with the utmost vigour any attempt to dismantle the dual structure embedded in 19A. Is this an acceptable position?
At its very root, 19A elevated several institutions above the President. It took away the authority, hitherto vested in the President, to make appointments to high offices in the public service and the security establishment, including the Police. It characterised the retention of this authority in the hands of the President as a danger against which the public need to be protected.
On this footing the President was shorn of these powers. But to whom were they then transferred? To a Constitutional Council dominated by representatives of non-governmental organisations. This Constitutional Council is at the apex of the structure established by 19A, and wields the authority to constitute each and all of the Commissions which are said to be independent. Without the recommendations, or the approval, of this all-powerful body, the President is no longer empowered to make crucial appointments to the public service and the Police. In this regard the President is subordinated to this body – the Constitutional Council – which is sought to be sanctified as the embodiment of integrity, impartiality and probity.
Let us take a closer look at this body, close to being deified. Its membership includes persons who can in no way be regarded as legitimate representatives of the people. The whole object of the exercise, so the protagonists of the 19A whereby, stridently tell us, is to ensure depoliticisation of the State. Their contention is that everything in our country has become progressively politicised, and that the time has come to evolve a constitutional process where persons of undoubted rectitude, far removed from partisan politics, and professing fidelity to the highest moral and ethical standards, are vested with this awesome responsibility.
This is an absolute myth. Can it be maintained, by any stretch of the imagination, that the personnel constituting these Commissions are not tainted by partisan politics? A few examples will suffice. Professor Hoole is a member of the supposedly independent Elections Commission. He is expected to be apolitical. And yet, in an interview with a TV channel, he exhorted the public not to vote for the SLPP; he said that, if they were to do so, they would certainly regret their decision in the future. Can there be a more partisan intervention, coming as it has from a member of a Commission exalted as the zenith of objectivity and political neutrality? The yawning chasm between aspiration and reality is all too evident. Practice on the ground belies the grandiose pretence.
The Elections Commission is itself the creature of the Constitutional Council, identified by 19A as the source from which all the Commissions derive their authority. Mr. Javid Yusuf is a member of this overarching body. His impartiality is, therefore, by definition, axiomatic. Nevertheless, he makes so bold as to declare to the country at large in uncompromising terms, at a public forum: “Whatever you do refrain from giving the Lotus Bud a two-thirds majority. If you do this, you cannot evade responsibility for pushing the country to the brink of disaster”. Words to this effect are unabashedly uttered by a representative of the supreme body which functions as the fons et origo of all the “independent” Commissions.
Faced with this uninspiring reality, I state without hesitation that these “independent” Commissions brought into being by 19A are far more politicised than any other practicing politician in this country. It is to Commissions of this ilk that powers denied to the President of the country are supinely entrusted.
Here is a state of affairs which defies rational understanding, by any criterion. The position of apologists for 19A is, at bottom, the following: conferment of these powers on the President is preposterous and unthinkable; they represent an intolerable affront to the basic elements of democratic culture, and to the essence of human rights. However, these same powers, in the hands of institutions created in the manner defined by 19A, are innocuous and entirely acceptable.
Does this bear scrutiny for a moment? The President of the Republic is elected by all the people of our country, for the finite period of five years, at an Islandwide election. If they are dissatisfied with his performance at the end of his tenure, they have every right and power to reject him at the conclusion of this period. But can the people, in whom sovereignty resides according to the Constitution, make a similar decision is respect of the members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions? They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one.
During the last few months, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament have all changed in keeping with the democratically expressed will of the People. But members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions remain entrenched in their positions, impervious to the winds of change. Is this defensible as the epitome of a structure of democratic governance, to be acclaimed widely?
Nowhere are the effects of the dichotomy established by 19A more apparent than in the domain of the economy. Ever increasing volumes of debt cannot provide a sustainable avenue for economic advancement. President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, in his Manifesto, has explicitly underlined the importance of resiling from the debt trap. The answer is investment, which is certainly feasible, but subject to obvious conditions. The essential requisite is confidence.
In the current intensely competitive international environment for investment, confidence has to be engendered by appropriate policy initiatives. Would any investor look seriously at Sri Lanka as a destination for investment, given the conditions generated by 19A?
The contemporary Yahapalana experience under the aegis of 19A was that the Prime Minister, in the exercise of authority conferred on him, established a Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) which, in effect, arrogated to itself, under his Chairmanship, the authority to make major decisions straddling the whole spectrum of the economy, these decision being submitted to Cabinet for its mere formal imprimatur. President Sirisena, increasingly incensed by what he saw as the relegation of the Cabinet with regard to economic matters, in due course found his patience exhausted, and eventually intervened by doing away with the Prime Minister’s brainchild and substituting for it a novel institution, the National Economic Council, under his own superintendence and direction. A few months later, however, he dismissed his own handpicked Chairman of this body, declaring that the officer concerned, although drawing a handsome salary, was seldom in the country. This state of things is hardly likely to offer any incentive for investment in Sri Lanka.
These developments provide the backdrop for a series of reflections. Empirical experience has convincingly demonstrated the weakness of the foundations of 19A. In truth, political power is not to be viewed with innate fear or obsessive suspicion. The contrary is a facile assumption, intuitively made with a total lack of dispassionate thought. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia are telling examples of Asian countries which could not have achieved the remarkable economic development they did accomplish without the advantage of strong Executive authority.
Admittedly, any system of democratic governance must contain viable checks and balances. However, as with everything else in life, there needs to be a sense of proportion. If the Executive is to be so constrained and hamstrung in every way as to make coherent decision making and movement forward impossible, the inevitable outcome is stagnation, or worse, anarchy.
This is the sad legacy of 19A which is now sought to be swept away as a matter of urgent priority.
Features
Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future
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
Features
How to insult friends and intimidate people!
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
Features
Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence
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
-
Business5 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion4 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business3 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business3 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business3 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business2 days agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business2 days agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial3 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
