World Test Championship set to stay nine-team contest till 2031
‘Cricket reforms wouldn’t have happened if not for AKD’ – Wettimuny
Lihini wins Girls Under 18 Hard Court singles title
Aaron’s six wickets help S. Thomas’ take first innings lead
Matt Henry six-for and Will Young hundred crush India
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
(Retired from Sri Lanka Navy) Former Chief of Defence Staff
The School Cadet Organization of Sri Lanka (formerly known as Ceylon) was established in 1881 by Mr. John B Cull, the Principal of Royal College, Colombo 7. The idea of introducing Cadetting to Royal was to train the students on drill to make them disciplined and responsible. Mr. Cull believed that well trained and disciplined youth at school will later become more responsible citizens with leadership skills and eventually will be better prepared for success in life.
History says that about 320 Ceylon school cadets at the ages of 16 to 20 years had volunteered to fight alongside the Allied Forces in the Great War from 1914 to 1918. Royal, St Thomes, Trinity and Kingswood sent their cadets to war. The contingent was consist of Royalists – 88, Thomians – 86, Trinitians – 74 and Kingswoodians – 72.
Even though very limited records on Royal College Cadets available on participation in Great War, first Ceylonese Cadet to paid supreme sacrifice was young Royalist W E Speldewinde who was drowned when troop ship “Villa Dela Ciotat” was torpedoed by Germans and sank in Mediterranean Sea.
First Ceylonese cadet to win a military decoration for bravery and valour was Captain O J Robertson, who was awarded with Military Cross. Other Royalist recipients of Military Cross in World War I were Second Lt H E Speldewinde de Boer, Lt C W Nicholas and Second Lt J Robertson.
Almost 30 per cent of them had paid the supreme sacrifice for the British Crown and many had been severely wounded in action. In 1917, a District Judge in Badulla, Mr. Herman Loos had presented a Challenge trophy to be awarded to the best school cadet platoon in the Island. This was the beginning of the Herman Loos trophy competition for Cadetting in Sri Lanka, and it was first won by the Kingswood College, Kandy.
When we joined the Royal College Cadetting in the late 1970s, the Cadetting legacy of Royal College was reaching its 100th anniversary. I was a member of the 1980 Royal College Cadet platoon. Our Sergeant was Naeem Mahamoor. Lance Sergeant of our Platoon was Arosha Jayawickrama who was an outstanding cadet and the best Commander of junior Cadetting. Supun Hennayaka, C K Rajapaksa and I were the three senior Corporals. Later in our lives, Naeem went on to Airline Management and held high positions in Saudi Arabia and Dubai. Arosha migrated to the USA soon after leaving the College. Supun became a well-known specialist medical Doctor in the country. CK and I joined the Armed Forces.
We were very fortunate that Lieutenant (NCC) H M Dharmaratne, came to Royal College in 1979 on a transfer from the Ananda Shastralaya, Kotte. He was a young and energetic Cadet Master who had brought several cadetting achievements to Ananda Shastralaya. Royal College finally had a very good Cadet Master. We began planning for our “Operation Herman Loos” at our Cadet room known as the ‘Armoury.’ Our ultimate goal was to win the prestigious Herman Loos trophy for the Best Cadet Platoon in Sri Lanka. We had our plan carefully reviewed and crafted by our Sergeant and Master in Charge. We knew that both the Commandant’s Test (which tested the First Aid knowledge and the Field craft & Map-reading test) offered 300 marks. All the other competitions namely ‘Hut Inspections’, ‘Squad Drill’, ‘Physical Training (PT)’, ‘Athletics’, and ‘Drama’ offered either 100 or 50 marks each. We also knew with past experiences that most of the other schools concentrate and spend much time in practicing and training of the Squad Drill and PT.
Instead of focusing a lot on training for the squad drill and PT, we spent more time in learning first aid, fieldcraft theories, and map reading. I, being a President’s Scout at the time was tasked with teaching first aid to the platoon.
Captain (then) Parakrama Pannipitiya, a distinguished old Royalist (who later rose to the rank of Major General) from Sri Lanka Army’s Sinha Regiment agreed to teach us field craft and map-reading during evenings and weekends. He was working at the Army Headquarters at the time. With these arrangements, we knew our knowledge on first aid, and field craft & map reading subjects would be much superior to other cadet platoons.
We boarded the train from Colombo Fort Railway station to travel to the Army camp at Boosa for our annual cadet camp and Herman Loos competition. Under the able leadership of our Sergeant Naeem Mahamoor, we were determined and confident that we could change cadetting at Royal that year. In the 99-year history of Herman Loos trophy, Royal College had won it just twice. That was in 1963 under Sergeant Weerakumar, and later in 1970 under Sergeant MR Moosa.
As expected, we won the Commandant’s test with a very high margin. Sri Lanka Army examiners were surprised by our performance and were very happy with our excellent knowledge. We also won the Hut Inspection and became second in place in the PT test. Those accomplishments helped us win the coveted Herman Loos trophy for the best Cadet Platoon in the country. Royal College won it after ten years and for the third time in 99 years.
The rest was history. Royal won the Herman Loos trophy again in 1981 under Sergeant Pradeep Edirisinghe (that was the centenary year of Cadetting at Royal), and again in 1982 under Sergeant H D Jayasinghe. Present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna was Member of College 1981 and 1982 Herman Loos Trophy winning platoons. Later he rose to the rank of regimental quartermaster Sergeant – (RQMS) of 3rd Battalion of NCC.
Mr. Dharmaratne was the Royal College Cadet Platoon Master in charge for all three years. Later he was promoted to the rank of Captain in the National Cadet Corps (NCC). Thank you, Sir, for your guidance and advice as the Master in Charge of Royal College Cadetting for a very long time.
When we look back and see what we achieved 40 years ago with a clear plan and well-executed strategy, and have a sense of pride and accomplishment. What Mr. Cull, the Principal of Royal College wanted to achieve by introducing Cadetting to Royal in 1881 has materialized.
“Long live Cadetting at Royal College!”
Sri Lanka’s economic crisis: Finding peaceful, equitable and sustainable way out
Italy fines Meta $880m over photo privacy
It is the government’s aim to make the entrepreneurship one of the driving forces in the national economy – Prime Minister
Showers in the Northern, North-central, Eastern, Western and North-western provinces and in the Galle and Matara districts
Lanka plans more subsidized credit amid high inflation target
Sajith accuses Government of betraying election promises with Budget 2027
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
by Prof. Ranjith Bandara Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Colombo
The 2027 Budget has been presented with ambitious promises, large financial allocations and renewed assurances of economic transformation. The government speaks confidently about recovery, stability and a better future.
But one important question remains.
Is this a budget designed to transform Sri Lanka’s economy, or another exercise in presenting attractive numbers and political promises?
A national budget should be more than a statement of government income and expenditure. It should tell the country where its economy is heading and how it intends to get there.
After years of economic hardship, people expect more than financial targets. They want affordable living, secure employment, better incomes and confidence in their future.
Investors want policy certainty. Young people want opportunities. Businesses want an environment in which they can grow.
Unfortunately, the 2027 Budget does not offer a sufficiently convincing strategy to meet these expectations.
Economic recovery is not economic development
Sri Lanka has made progress in restoring macroeconomic stability. Inflation has become more manageable than during the worst of the crisis. Revenue collection has improved. Fiscal discipline has received greater attention.
These achievements should be recognised.
However, economic stability is only the starting point.
The Budget estimates revenue and grants of Rs. 6.18 trillion against expenditure of approximately Rs. 7.93 trillion, including supplementary disaster-related spending.
The fiscal deficit is projected at around Rs. 1.75 trillion. Interest payments alone amount to Rs. 2.64 trillion.
These figures reveal the continuing pressure on government finances.
More importantly, they raise a question about development priorities.
How much of public expenditure will genuinely strengthen the country’s productive capacity? How much will create lasting employment? How much will generate future income rather than merely finance current commitments?
The government hopes to achieve economic growth of at least 7% in the medium term. Yet the World Bank projects growth of 4.2% for 2027.
Closing this gap requires investment, productivity improvements and institutional reforms.
Announcing an ambitious growth target is easy. Creating the conditions to achieve it is much harder.
Cost of living remains real economic test
For ordinary families, economic recovery is measured differently.
They look at the cost of food, electricity, transport, medicine and education. They compare their monthly income with their household expenses.
Many still struggle to make ends meet.
The Budget proposes tax concessions and social assistance. The increase in the monthly income-tax-free threshold to Rs. 162,500 will benefit some employees. Allocations for Aswesuma and other social protection programmes will also help vulnerable households.
But they do not fully address the underlying problem.
Millions of low-income workers receive no direct benefit from income tax reductions. Their main problem is inadequate income and the high cost of essential goods.
Colombo inflation reached 8.3% in October 2026. Even when inflation falls, prices do not necessarily return to earlier levels.
People need higher real incomes, not merely announcements about lower inflation.
A meaningful budget should explain how production costs will fall, how market competition will improve and how household purchasing power will increase.
Economic recovery means little if families continue to struggle to afford a decent life.
A generation without economic confidence
Youth unemployment remains one of Sri Lanka’s greatest challenges.
In the second quarter of 2026, overall unemployment stood at 4%. But unemployment among young people aged 15–24 was 17.8%. Among young women, it was even higher.
These are not merely labour market statistics. They represent thousands of young people uncertain about their future.
The Budget refers to training, digital development and public-sector recruitment.
But training alone does not create employment. Nor can the government continue expanding public employment indefinitely.
The country needs businesses that invest, expand production and recruit skilled workers.
Where is the comprehensive strategy to create well-paid jobs in manufacturing, technology, modern agriculture, logistics and professional services?
How many such jobs are expected from the Budget’s proposals?
Without clear answers, overseas employment will remain attractive to educated and skilled young Sri Lankans.
Migration can support households through remittances. But the continued loss of skilled people also weakens the country’s long-term development prospects.
A successful development strategy must give young people reasons to build their futures in Sri Lanka.
Who will benefit from economic growth?
Another major concern is the unequal distribution of economic opportunities.
According to World Bank estimates, poverty remained at 16.9% in 2025.
Many rural households, estate communities and low-income urban families continue to face serious difficulties.
Economic growth does not automatically improve their lives.
The Budget includes welfare payments, housing support and regional development allocations.
But the critical question is whether these measures will create lasting economic opportunities.
Will farmers earn more from their production? Will small businesses gain better access to finance and markets? Will women have greater opportunities to enter productive employment?
Social assistance is essential for vulnerable households. Yet welfare payments cannot replace income-generating opportunities.
The real achievement of development is not the number of people receiving assistance, but the number who can eventually live without depending on it.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the Budget is the absence of a sufficiently clear and integrated economic transformation strategy.
Sri Lanka cannot build a strong future through government expenditure, tourism and workers’ remittances alone.
It must produce more, export more and compete more effectively in international markets.
The Budget includes proposals for public investment, railway modernisation, business financing, export incentives and investment facilitation.
Which industries will become the country’s major sources of future growth? How will agriculture become more productive? How will small enterprises connect with export markets? How will technology improve industrial competitiveness?
A development budget should answer these questions through clear priorities and measurable targets.
Investment confidence is equally important.
Investors need predictable taxation, efficient government services, reliable infrastructure and consistent economic policies.
They also need confidence that political decisions will not suddenly change the business environment.
A country cannot attract sufficient private investment through incentives alone.
Unless these structural problems are addressed, the ambition of creating a competitive production and service economy will remain uncertain.
Problem is not allocation, but belivery
The Budget proposes approximately Rs. 2 trillion for public investment, including supplementary reconstruction spending.
However, public expenditure figures mean little unless projects are implemented effectively.
By the end of June 2026, only 16.3% of the annual capital expenditure allocation had been spent. By September, reported spending had reached just 31.6%.
Such slow implementation raises serious concerns about administrative capacity.
Will project approvals become faster? Will procurement procedures improve? Will government institutions coordinate more effectively?
The Budget should not merely announce money for development. It should establish accountability for delivery.
Every major project should have a timetable, an identified responsible institution and measurable results.
A billion rupees announced is not a billion rupees of development achieved.
From the Election Manifesto to Economic Reality
The government’s election manifesto promised a more productive, fair and prosperous Sri Lanka.
It raised expectations of a different approach to economic management and public administration.
The 2027 Budget should therefore be judged against those commitments.
There are positive proposals. But much of its immediate appeal comes from allowances, concessions, public-sector benefits and visible spending announcements.
These may provide political advantages. Some also respond to genuine social needs. Yet political popularity and economic transformation are not the same. A government must demonstrate how its policies will increase productivity, expand employment, reduce inequality and improve living standards.
Otherwise, the distance between election promises and economic reality may continue to widen.
This matters beyond politics. When people see impressive announcements without meaningful changes in their daily lives, frustration grows. Social unrest may not disappear simply because macroeconomic indicators have improved. Public confidence depends on visible progress, fairness and credible opportunities.
Are we heading towards another IMF programme?
The Budget also raises important questions about Sri Lanka’s future relationship with the International Monetary Fund.
The President stated that the present IMF programme is expected to conclude in March 2027. A Cabinet-appointed committee is examining the possibility of another arrangement.
This deserves serious public discussion.
Another IMF programme is not necessarily a sign of failure. A precautionary arrangement may help protect the economy against future shocks.
However, repeated dependence on external financial support would raise questions about the sustainability of Sri Lanka’s recovery. Are export earnings expanding sufficiently? Is private investment recovering strongly enough? Are foreign exchange reserves and debt-servicing capacity becoming more secure? If these weaknesses remain unresolved, the country may need further IMF support sooner or later. The real challenge is not simply completing an IMF programme. It is building an economy that can maintain stability, finance investment and meet its external obligations without repeatedly depending on emergency assistance.
Sri Lanka needs direction, not another number game
The 2027 Budget contains useful proposals. It also reflects some progress in fiscal management.
But it remains more convincing as a statement of financial intentions than as a comprehensive development strategy.
The government must clearly identify the industries it wants to develop, the jobs it intends to create, the investments it hopes to attract and the improvements people should expect in their living standards. It must connect spending with outcomes.
It must also strengthen public administration and rebuild trust among investors, businesses and ordinary citizens.
Most importantly, it must explain how economic stability will become broadly shared prosperity.
Sri Lanka does not need another competition over the size of budget allocations. It needs a credible national economic direction.
A budget may impress Parliament with billions. But its real success must be measured in the lives of millions.
Until that happens, one uncomfortable question will remain:
Are we rebuilding the economy, or merely managing its problems while preparing for the next crisis?
Continue Reading Features Saving Sri Lanka’s tomato crop from destructive pest Published
Tomatoes are among Sri Lanka’s most widely consumed vegetables, providing income to thousands of farming families and supporting rural traders, restaurants and food-processing enterprises. Yet a destructive insect pest threatens both production and farmers’ livelihoods, warranting urgent national attention.
, commonly known as the tomato leaf miner and fruit borer, attacks tomato leaves, shoots and fruits. Its larvae feed inside plant tissues, making infestations difficult to detect and control once established.
Field observations have raised concerns that approximately 30% of Sri Lanka’s annual tomato crop could be wasted, with inadequate farmer knowledge of pest management identified as a possible contributing factor. This figure, however, is not a scientifically established national loss estimate. Independent research is needed to determine the proportion of losses directly attributable to this pest, as distinct from other pests, diseases and post-harvest losses.
Nevertheless, the concern raises an important question: how much food and farmer income could Sri Lanka save through better scientific knowledge, timely monitoring and affordable pest management?
A known threat requiring renewed attention
Sri Lanka has known about Tuta absoluta for several years. Research published in The Tropical Agriculturist in December 2019 documented its first detection in the country in July 2017, in tomato polytunnels in the Keppetipola, Boralanda and Kolathenna areas of Badulla District. By 2018, the pest had also been identified in open-field cultivation.
Scientists associated with agricultural research institutions, including the Regional Agricultural Research and Development Centre in Bandarawela and the Horticultural Crops Research and Development Institute (HORDI) at Gannoruwa, investigated different management strategies.
Their findings established a scientific basis for monitoring and controlling the pest. Pheromone traps were found useful for monitoring adult moth populations, while compact fluorescent light traps showed potential for mass trapping under the greenhouse conditions studied.
A separate study reported through the University of Peradeniya in 2019 found infestations in different tomato-growing environments in Badulla District. All four varieties examined were susceptible, with significantly higher infestation levels in protected cultivation than in open fields.
Sri Lanka therefore possesses research evidence on the pest’s presence and potential management methods. The crucial question is whether this knowledge has reached farmers effectively.
Pheromone technology: bridging the knowledge gap
Species-specific sex pheromones are an important component of Tuta absoluta management. These chemical signals attract male moths to monitoring traps, enabling growers to detect pest activity before extensive damage becomes apparent.
Pheromone traps are not a complete control solution. They should form part of integrated pest management, incorporating regular crop inspection, field sanitation, removal of infested plant material, biological control where appropriate and other scientifically validated interventions.
Agricultural discussions have raised concerns that pheromone products were previously made available to growers through Cargills, but insufficient farmer demand may have discouraged further imports. This account requires verification.
Cargills and other suppliers should be invited to clarify whether they imported or marketed Tuta absoluta -specific pheromone lures, the quantities and prices involved, the level of farmer adoption and whether subsequent imports were discontinued. If supplies were withdrawn, the reasons should be established.
The objective is not to criticise a private company without evidence. Rather, the experience could reveal weaknesses in agricultural extension and technology transfer.
Making a product available does not automatically constitute successful innovation. Farmers must understand its purpose, learn how to use it and recognise whether its benefits justify the cost. Without adequate education and field demonstrations, even effective technologies may fail commercially.
A damaging cycle can then emerge: farmers remain unaware of the technology, sales remain low, suppliers hesitate to reorder, and access becomes more difficult. Government agricultural extension services and private-sector distributors must work together to break this cycle.
A national awareness and monitoring programme
The Director General of Agriculture should initiate a coordinated Tuta absoluta awareness and monitoring programme in consultation with provincial agricultural authorities.
The first phase should begin in Welimada and surrounding tomato-growing areas of Badulla District, where the pest was initially detected. The programme should then expand to suitable tomato-growing areas in Nuwara Eliya and Matale districts before extending surveillance and training across all nine provinces according to actual cultivation patterns and pest risks.
Agricultural instructors should be equipped to explain the insect’s life cycle, recognise its characteristic damage and demonstrate appropriate monitoring methods. Training should be conducted in Sinhala and Tamil, supported by clear illustrations and practical demonstrations in farmers’ fields.
Farmers must understand that Tuta absoluta is an insect pest rather than a plant disease, because accurate identification determines the appropriate response. They should also be warned that indiscriminate insecticide applications can increase production costs, harm beneficial organisms and contribute to insecticide resistance.
Training should therefore promote integrated pest management rather than dependence on any single commercial product.
Agricultural retailers, nursery operators, vegetable collectors, supermarkets, transporters and producer organisations should also participate in identifying problems and disseminating recommendations. Universities, research institutes and responsible private-sector suppliers can contribute scientific expertise and practical support.
Radio, television, newspapers and mobile-friendly educational materials should reinforce field demonstrations. Communication must continue throughout tomato-growing seasons rather than being confined to occasional publicity campaigns.
The programme should have clearly assigned responsibilities, measurable outcomes and a defined timetable.
First 30 days: establish scientific leadership.
The Director General of Agriculture should appoint a technical committee led by agricultural entomologists and integrated pest management specialists. HORDI Gannoruwa, the Bandarawela research establishment, relevant universities and provincial extension services should participate. The committee should review available research, assess current infestation patterns, identify reliable pheromone products and prepare a standard monitoring protocol.
The reported 30% crop-loss figure should also be subjected to independent field assessment. Potential suppliers should be consulted about product availability, historical demand, import constraints and distribution prospects.
Days 31–90: conduct field demonstrations.
Demonstrations should begin in Welimada and extend to selected locations in Nuwara Eliya and Matale districts. Existing farmer practices should be compared with scientifically supervised integrated pest management incorporating pheromone monitoring.
Researchers should record pest activity, fruit damage, marketable yields, intervention costs and farmer understanding. The Department of Agriculture should publish practical guidance on trap selection, positioning, inspection and replacement, based on validated local recommendations.
Months 4–6: expand provincial participation.
Provincial agricultural authorities should appoint focal officers to coordinate training and monitoring. Resource allocation should reflect actual tomato cultivation and documented pest incidence. A national information system should record confirmed infestations, monitoring results, farmer participation and the availability of essential equipment.
Quality-assured pheromone lures should be distributed through appropriate agricultural service centres and commercial suppliers. Targeted support for small growers could be considered if evidence demonstrates that cost is a significant barrier.
Months 7–12: evaluate and institutionalise the programme.
An independent assessment should examine adoption rates, reductions in damaged fruit, changes in marketable yields and economic benefits. Successful practices should become part of routine agricultural extension services, with procurement and distribution arrangements strengthened where necessary.
Preventable crop losses affect more than individual farmers. They reduce food availability, weaken rural incomes and disrupt the vegetable supply chain.
Consider an illustrative calculation. A farmer expecting 25,000 kilograms of tomatoes per hectare who suffers a 30% loss would lose 7,500 kilograms of potential marketable production. At an assumed farm-gate price of Rs. 200 per kilogram, the resulting gross revenue loss would be Rs. 1.5 million per hectare.
These figures are illustrative assumptions, not verified national yields, current prices or confirmed losses caused by Tuta absoluta . Nevertheless, they demonstrate why even a modest reduction in avoidable damage could benefit farmers substantially.
A proper national assessment should distinguish losses attributable to this pest from those caused by other factors. It should also determine whether early monitoring reduces unnecessary insecticide expenditure and protects beneficial insects.
Ultimately, programme success should be measured through improved marketable yields, higher net farm returns and more reliable vegetable supplies.
Accountability must accompany awareness
The initiative must not become another programme whose success is measured merely by the number of workshops conducted. Indicators should include farmers reached, confirmed pest incidence, adoption of recommended monitoring methods, availability of quality-assured lures, reductions in crop damage and improvements in farmer income.
Independent researchers should validate the results, while provincial authorities submit regular progress reports and the Department of Agriculture publishes consolidated findings. Private companies should participate through transparent arrangements that protect scientific independence and prevent inappropriate product promotion.
The Director General of Agriculture is respectfully urged to convene the relevant scientific, extension and commercial stakeholders, establish an action plan and launch the programme in Welimada before extending it according to verified need.
Cargills and other agricultural input suppliers should be invited to share their experience and assess opportunities to restore or expand access to reliable pheromone-monitoring technology.
Above all, farmers must be treated as partners in agricultural innovation. Sri Lanka’s agricultural future depends not only on generating scientific knowledge but also on ensuring that it reaches the field, is understood by growers and produces measurable improvements.
Every tomato saved from preventable pest damage represents additional food for consumers, income for farmers and value for the national economy. The time has come to turn existing scientific findings into practical national action.
Lalin I. de Silva is a value chain management journalist at Vivonta Green Tech Consultants and the Proprietary Planters Alliance (Pvt) Ltd, and a former senior planter and agricultural adviser/consultant.
Principal scientific reference: Hadji, T. K. A. I., et al. (2019). Evaluation of different management
strategies to control Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in tomato. Tropical Agriculturist, 167(4), 34–50.
Neoliberalism operates on the core philosophical premise that greed is a functional virtue. Popularised by thinkers like Milton Friedman and politically implemented by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, in the US and the UK, respectively, the doctrine argues that unrestrained individual self-interest and profit maximisation naturally yield the most efficient distribution of resources. Over time, this created a structural dependence on greed through several key mechanisms. Firstly, to maximise quick capital gains, advanced economies shifted away from building physical infrastructure or supporting robust jobs toward speculative finance. Profit was prioritised over human development. This resulted in wages for the working and middle classes remaining largely stagnant while corporate profits surged. Consequently, consumer demand could only be maintained through cheap credit. When consumers failed to pay up and the debt bubbles burst, the state stepped in as the “lender of last resort” which saved the companies at the expense of people. Further, privatisation and state austerity targeted public services like healthcare, affordable housing, and education. Treating these fundamental human needs as profit-driven market commodities has led to extreme wealth inequality and diminished social welfare. This shows that neoliberalism cannot afford to hurt the corporate world which appears to be needing protection at the expense of public good.
Symptoms of implosion within the structure of neoliberal model are already visible. The neoliberalists expected tax cuts and deregulation to have a “trickledown effect” resulting in widespread prosperity. On the contrary such policies have caused wealth accumulation enriching the top 1% while crippling the purchasing power of the majority. Unfettered free trade and globalization was expected to ensure borderless stability but what has happened instead is that extreme vulnerabilities in supply chains have prompted a massive return to protectionism and tariff wars. Furthermore, champions of market economy expected markets to foster individual liberty and safeguard open societies, but rampant inequality and economic insecurity have fueled deep institutional distrust, loss of confidence in democratic governance, spawning sharp populist reactions on both the political left and right. Youth-led unrest in Europe is the latest manifestation of the apparent failure of the global economic system. There had been previous uprisings against this system in Europe as well as the US where the “Occupy Wall Street” campaign was a strong message against greed.
There is a growing global consensus among policymakers, including former critics and defenders alike, that the neoliberal era is coming to a close and the practical reality is being realised that an economy built solely around capital returns eventually runs out of the stability it needs to survive. That is the economic aspect of it, while the psychological aspect is greed and selfishness. The latter two human characteristics were considered ‘good’ because they were supposed to promote enterprise and sharpen competitiveness. Now, it is being realised that competition could be harmful to the human system and entrepreneurship is a tool of exploitation.
Leaving aside greed, which may be the driving force of consumerism, the vital ingredient for the survival of capitalism, one could examine the inherent contradiction of the present global economic system. As mentioned above in the last several decades the profits have surged while wages have stagnated and the purchasing power of the working class has reduced. Large profits are necessary to keep capitalism afloat. This in turn made it difficult to keep real incomes of the working class commensurate with rising cost of living. The incongruity of this situation is that capitalism cannot survive unless consumerism thrives which does not happen when purchasing power of people dwindles. State intervention by lending to keep consumerism going does not work as the ‘debt buble’ would eventually burst. This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism particularly in unfettered neoliberalism. The IMF and the World Bank were restructured to enable design of the world economic order to suit the neo-liberal policies.
Western philosophers did not study the psychology of greed in depth and therefore could not see the overall damage it could cause. Although the Bible and Jesus Christ have advised against avarice, John Calvin the 16th Century French theologian proclaimed that making profit was morally acceptable within Christianity giving a licence, as it were, for unfettered capitalism. In contrast the Buddha saw the fallacy of theories that encouraged greed and he delved deeply into the psychology of greed. He saw that the cause of human predicament is greed and found the means to control it. The political and economic message that Buddha’s theory conveys is that if poverty (suffering) is to be resolved greed needs to be brought under control.
There is another dimension to the problem pertaining to the present world order, and that is the climate change which is also caused by excessive human greed. Planet Earth is in peril due to global warming and overconsumption of its resources, two factors that contribute to climate change and cause damage to ecosystems that are essential for its survival. This is a direct result of adopting consumerism as the driving force of the present world order, the underlying philosophy of which is neo-liberalism driven by market forces. This market heavily depends on human greed which by nature could be insatiable, particularly when there seems to be unlimited attractions produced by the capitalist system. Paradoxically, if greed is controlled this economic system may collapse. Consumerism has been made the purpose of existence so that greed continues to operate unabated. Free market and greed feed each other. Furthermore, this state of affairs causes widening inequality and extreme poverty that constitutes yet another threat to the continuation of the present world order.
It is obvious that this state of affairs is unsustainable as the twin threats of poverty and environmental degradation would make life impossible on this planet. Unfortunately, world leaders are slow in reacting to this threat. Trump has repeatedly stated that climate change and associated environmental outcomes to be a ‘hoax’ a ‘scam’ and a ‘con-job’. The French President has blamed left politics for the youth-led uprisings which in fact have been caused by unaffordability and inequality. Both global poverty and climate change are caused by excessive greed and neither could be resolved without dismantling neoliberalism. The world cannot wait until neoliberalism implodes and destroys itself. The world must unite and create a new world order as early as possible, aimed at alleviating poverty and safeguarding the environment. Third World countries must cooperate with one another in this endeavour.
Unfortunately, some countries, including ours, though said to be governed by a left leaning party, still continue to embrace neoliberalism without reservation and they wholeheartedly collude with the worst offenders of consumption and pollution.
GMOA seeks restoration of duty-free vehicle permits
Government makes charity difficult in Sri Lanka – Pethiyagoda
Iran allows ship carrying fertiliser for SL to pass Strait of Hormuz
Failure to heed PM’s directive worsened Colombo floods: Patali
Monks defy court order as protest over A’pura development plan intensifies
Colombo floods: Facts beneath political sludge
Devananda to hand back Jaffna shops he held for 30 years to their owners
“It Will Be Forgotten in a Week” No Longer Works: Colombo’s Floods and the Demand for Proactive Governance
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…