Daily Mirror Editorial

Mr. President please explain

18 October 2016

President Maithripala Sirisena’s remark at a function held at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute on October 12 that the CID, FCID and the Independent Commissions are politicised, has also been politicised within hours.

Many people seem to attempt to take political mileage of it. However, one has to acknowledge that the matter that the President had raised was very serious and hence the remark might have its own repercussions. This is in brief what the President said: 

“The CID, FCID and the Bribery Commission cannot function according to a political agenda. The law should be the same for everyone. If these institutions were acting according to some political agenda, I would have to take action. There are objectives and a policy in establishing Independent Commissions. Those who are in these commissions should know their subject areas. Those who are not aware of national security, military administration and management are taking various wrong decisions without thinking.

“The top officials of the respective institutions have a right and a responsibility to inform me and the Defence Minister of these matters. Some people may say that it should not be so as these are Independent Commissions. Even though Commissioners were appointed by the Constitutional Council, it is I, the President, who appoint the Chairman and the Director General of these Commissions.”

If the Head of the State himself says that the Independent Commissions are not independent but politicised, one has to imagine the gravity of the situation in the much publicised anti-corruption drive of the Yahapalanaya Government. 

The situation is serious because it is true that the entire body politic is riddled with corruption. In other words the President says that his Government’s anti-corruption drive itself was corrupt.

However, he or the Government would not be able to rectify the situation unless the President explains what he really meant. On what grounds does he say that the Independent Commissions are politicised? 

He had specifically mentioned the Bribery Commission in his speech and singled out only two cases – the one involving the former Defence Secretary and three former Navy Commanders and the one on the abduction and murder of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. 

Even then he did not point out where the authorities faulted, except for the failure on the part of the officials to inform the President about the details of one case and the delay of the other. However, these points do not specify any politicisation of legal matters or the President did not place it clearly before the country owing to the brevity of the part of his speech on the matter.

Nobody is of the view that the President had intended to discourage the anti-corruption drive by the Government as it was a major election pledge made by him as well. 

It was he who initiated the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that reintroduced the Independent Commissions under his promise to abolish the Executive Presidency. But one has to acknowledge that the repercussions of the President’s statement seem to be serious.

Shock waves seem to have been sent already across the entire anti- corruption mechanism which are indicated by reports of moves by certain high ranking officials in the relevant sector to step down. The full impact is yet to be known.

On the other hand, people’s confidence on the anti-corruption mechanism is vital as it cannot function without the support of the people. 

Hence, taking immediate measures to resurrect and strengthen the confidence of the relevant officials as well as the people of the country on these mechanisms by the highest echelon is vital.

Ceylon Today Editorial

ONLY WAY FOR RURAL CHILDREN TO ENTER POPULAR SCHOOLS

18 October 2016

A few weeks back, the results of one of the most competitive examinations faced by children, Grade Five scholarship was released. With the release of the results multiple opinions were expressed on the examination, most of which claim for reforms.

It was reported recently that the Education Ministry had appointed a committee to look into the matter and come up with recommendations. Education Minister Akila Viraj Kariyawasam had said that there were many reform proposals which will be carefully evaluated by the committee.

The Grade Five scholarship is important for students for two major reasons. The most important reason is the opportunity it provides to enter a so called popular school. The other is the allowance received by the students who pass the scholarship examination. Whilst the allowance provided to student is important, particularly for those who come from low income families, the competition of passing the examination is for enrolling in a popular school.

In a way, the competition of the Grade Five scholarship examination reflects the disparity amongst the schools in Sri Lanka. Over the years, the human and physical resources are centred on a selected set of schools which belong to the category of popular schools. As a result of that the dream of an average parent is to enroll their child in such a school.

However, these popular schools are not merely about the human or physical resources such schools have. It is about the glory of attending such a popular school which later becomes a pass to enter many avenues. So often, we come across instances where the people are judged based on the school they have attended. Sometimes, the school you attend may be a qualification to obtain employment. In that context, parents were forced by the system to enroll their child in such a popular school. Those who are old boys or old girls of such schools would enroll their child in such schools easily. So do the politicians. That makes the scholarship the only option for average middle class parents to enroll their child in one of the popular schools.

In that context, reform of Grade Five scholarship goes way deeper than the scholarship examination. In fact, it is a part of the social problem which needs attention. It is clear that the Grade Five scholarship had made little children stressful at a very young age. The time they could have spent in playing cricket, they have to attend tuition class. That makes a terrible childhood for children who do not have much freedom. Therefore, reforms for scholarship are a must, but the way in which such reforms are brought is very crucial.

Whatever the reforms introduced to the Grade Five scholarship examination should go hand in hand with the education reforms. Therefore, the Grade Five scholarship reforms should be a part of the education reforms instead of being an isolated process. Therefore, the major focus of the government should be reforming the education sector.

On top of that there are simple changes that the government can introduce in reducing the pressure of students sitting for the scholarship examination. This year, the maximum pass mark was 160 out of 200 while the pass mark of 95% of the districts was still above 150, as the pass marks differ according to the district. If a student fails even after obtaining 150 out of 200, that means a student who obtains 75 in average per paper is still considered as failed student. That appears to be ridiculous. While the cutoff marks for schools can be retained till the reforms are introduced, the efforts of the students should be acknowledged. Students who obtain sufficient marks should be given a certificate acknowledging their success. It should be a passable pass mark that will motivate students instead of demotivating them.

Daily News Editorial

An ill-advised move

18 October 2016

Plans are afoot to increase the intake to Universities by 10% annually, according to State Minister for Higher Education Mohan Lal Grero. According to him only 27,500 out of the 150,000 who qualified at the ALs gained entry to universities last year. He said only 18% of the total number of students who sat for the AL examination numbering approximately 300,000 enrolled for the state universities. That is, some 82% of those who sat the examination were left in the lurch.

The State Minister said that the government has some higher education institutions related to technology, agriculture etc. that could absorb these “dropouts”, as it were, but they cannot be taken into the system since the subject matter was alien to them. In other words, what the State Minister is saying is the subjects they have been familiar with in their school curriculum would not fit them into courses taught at these technical institution. Ditto for those who pass out of the universities in subjects that are not geared for the modern day job market. Hence the government should consider the feasibility of increasing the university intake by the 10% annually, if by this it will produce graduates who will be unemployable.

This is all the more reason to take a good look at the subject matter dished out at our universities that are today nothing more than degree factories, with their products not fitting themselves to the present day job market. If that indeed is the case, increasing the annual intake to our universities can only exacerbate the problem, with graduates disgorged each year finding themselves at a dead end. Hence, before any increase in the annual intake to the universities are contemplated, steps should be taken for a complete overhaul of the higher education system to be in tune with current developments in this modern age and, more importantly, that caters to the job market.

Our Universities still continue turning out arts graduates in overwhelming numbers, bereft of employable skills in the current context, while the government, or more accurately, the public continue financing their education. State Minister Grero himself has admitted that some of these graduates don’t fit into the technological courses of the state run institutes. The end result will be that we will be increasing the number of the unemployed, or the unemployable, by adding to the university intake. This, while President Sirisena continues to appeal for a return of our expats bringing with them their skills for the country’s benefit, when we have youth with potential, if only they are given the right education and guidance to realize this potential.

The government should therefore take a holistic view on the country’s higher education set up and effect the necessary changes, particularly if it is going to expend 6% of the GDP on the education sector. We should be producing horses for courses instead of turning out a new generation of idlers. This is not in any way to suggest that we do away with the humanities and ascetic subjects. Neither is it suggested that universities close down their arts faculties and plunge headlong into subjects dealing with technology. But the accent should be laid on subjects with employable content.

A Commission should be appointed comprising educationists and experts in the field to study the whole matter and come up with a solution to the problems confronting our higher education system and effect the necessary reforms. If not, free education which we constantly boast of will be just that, an empty boast.

Power cuts

So, the power cuts are back despite assurances to the contrary by the subject Ministers and other government functionaries. According to reports, rolling power cuts were to come into force, beginning yesterday, with the CEB unable to cope with the demand brought about by the almost zero power generation by hydro-power, due to a drastic drop in water levels in the reservoirs, and the breakdown, once again, of the Norochcholai power plant. Appeals for power conservation has largely fallen on deaf ears, as is always the case, with an increasingly gadget oriented society unable to do away with their creature comforts. However government institutions and establishments themselves are guilty of observing its own rules in the breach with many state banks and other government buildings sporting dazzling illuminations in the night. Street lamps too are on late into the morning. With the terrorist threat no more, the authorities should issue instructions for switching off unnecessary illuminations while government offices too should take the lead in preserving power by knocking off ACs and fans wherever possible. The country was told that with the completion of Norochcholai, power cuts will be a thing of the past, and what is more, we would be in position to export electricity even to India. Now comes a report that shoddy work has gone into the construction of Norochcholai and who will be held accountable for this is anyone’s guess. With the Sampur coal power project now scrapped and electricity demands keep on rising, prospects indeed are bleak for a blackout free country in the future.

The Island Editorial

‘Motherships of terrorism’

18 October 2016

 

Time was when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would go out of his way, adopting as he did some unconventional methods, to mend fences with Pakistan. He even paid his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif a surprise visit in Lahore last December. The latter gave the former a warm hug on the tarmac and they powwowed for a couple of hours. That unexpected stopover warmed the cockles of many a heart and some observers claimed that it marked a thaw in the relations between the two nuclear capable neighbours. How naive they were!

Less than a year on, India and Pakistan are trading fire in border areas and a hawkish Modi is making bellicose declarations. He now rarely misses an opportunity to condemn Pakistan, which he has, in his address at the BRICS summit, referred to as a ‘mothership of terror’, which poses a threat to India’s economy among other things. Modi’s consternation is understandable. However, India is not free from blame though it pretends to be an innocent victim of cross border terrorism.

Some of the terrorist outfits troubling Pakistan are offshoots of the anti-Soviet combatants the US created, armed and funded to rid Afghanistan of Russians. Had the US cared to help develop that country after achieving its goal, the Taliban, which emerged, promising to bring order out of chaos and sponsored al-Qaeda, would not have come into being; the Americans could have saved billions of dollars spent on fighting an elusive enemy. Why India is not faulting the US, its newfound ally, for having paved the way for the destabilisation of the region by promoting terrorism, is the question. It is ironical that the US, which defended Pakistan to the hilt during the Cold War era, has now forged strong ties with former Russian ally, India so much so that if Obama catches a cold in Washington Modi sneezes in New Delhi.

Each and every global power has a history of using terrorism as a weapon against other countries to advance its agenda. Some powerful nations have gone so far as to harbour the perpetrators of terrorism plaguing the nations considered hostile to them.

PM Modi has, in his BRICS address, also called for action against terrorism and an early adoption of CCIT (Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism). About three decades ago, whoever would have thought India would one day call for an end to terrorism? It won’t be able to live down its past when it, as a strategic partner of Soviet Union, in a bid to tame Sri Lanka, which switched its allegiance to the US during the JRJ government, created, trained, armed and funded terrorist groups here. If it had not resorted to coercive action to frighten the JRJ government into submission and rescue Prabhakaran, who was about to be either captured or killed by the Sri Lankan forces way back in 1987, the war would not have dragged on until 2009 and tens of thousands of lives and properties worth billions could have been saved. Moreover, about 1,400 Indian soldiers would not have perished at the hands of the LTTE combatants. Rajiv paid with his dear life for the sinful act of coddling Sri Lanka’s terrorists and ‘all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten’ the hands of other Indians responsible for creating terrorism here.

That the US and its western allies created or backed terrorist groups in Latin America, Africa and Asia is only too well known. Would they also be called ‘motherships of terrorism’?

At least now, the powerful nations ought to realise that using terrorism as an instrument to achieve their politico-military goals is counterproductive. Most of them have been hoist with their own petard.  They sowed the wind and now they are reaping the whirlwind.

What we are witnessing is a case of sinners casting stones at one another. They are lucky that the victims of their terrorism are too weak to stone them for having made the world so dangerous a place.