GMOA wants duty free cars, but not

private universities
2015-12-21

he Government Medical
Officers Association (GMOA) threw a tantrum when the
government proposed to abolish duty free duty vehicle permits
granted to certain categories of public servants. After the threat
of a strike by the doctors, the government backtracked. Since
there is hardly any link between doctors duty free car permits
and patients welfare, the GMOAs trade union action was one
purely driven by pecuniary interests of its members.
On the other hand, professionals in the government sector, including
doctors, are paid abysmally low salaries (though, doctors on their part have
opportunity to make money through private practice, a luxury most other
professionals dont have ).
Like we, the journalists (who are equally underpaid) say, bylines cannot buy
groceries, professional esteem alone wont help in an increasingly
materialistic world.
However, the same GMOA has been up in arms against private medical
universities, with their self serving logic being that the provision of medical
education, or for that matter any other university level education, should be
the monopoly of the state.
GMOAs pursuit of duty free car permits (though it may have ethical
implications) is not different from the logical conduct of any other
professional body that lobbies for the interests of its members. But, its
other campaign to shut off many other thousands of desirable individuals
from joining the medical profession through private universities is a far
more sinister manoeuvring; it is anti- business, anti- free market and purely
selfish.

Equally incorrigible expressions are being used to justify its logic. Last
week, the health ministry agreed to accommodate medical students of a
private medical college in Malabe for clinical practices at government
hospitals in Avissawella and Kaduwela. That was as a result of a
fundamental rights petition filed by the students.
"Doctors, are paid abysmally low salaries (though, doctors on their part
have opportunity to make money through private practice, a luxury most
other professionals dont have )"
Later, a spokesman for the Inter University Students Federation (IUSF)
alleged that Health Ministers daughter-in-law and the offspring of several
other politicians are studying in the same medical college, to suggest that
hence the ministrys interest to provide facilities.
This skewed logic is what you would hear from women gossiping by the
village well. The problem is that a significant portion of our university
students did not leave that mental baggage at home, when they come to
universities.
Whether the Health Minister or his grandma has relatives studying among
hundreds of other students does not make a difference. While his relative
may benefit, so would hundreds of other children from Sri Lankan parents.
A rather more pertinent question would be as to why the health ministry,
which has abundant resources to utilize, has been hesitant until a Court
ordered to that effect. (Through its latest measures, not only would the
health ministry help create intellectual capital, but also would be
compensated for the resources that it provides.)
The answer is instructive: a cabal that is pursuing its monopolistic
interests, in the guise of protecting free education or free health care, has
taken an entire country hostage. The government simply does not have the
political will to face it.

Counter intentionally, though the self serving monopolistic impulses are

high in the medical sector, it is also one that is least affected qualitatively
by this ruinous practice, thanks to medical colleges in government
universities still continuing to produce quality graduates. Added to that is
sizeable funds allocated by successive governments to sustain free health
care.
"Government should expand free education, quantitatively there by
admitting more students to universities"
However, the same cannot be said about many other sectors, ranging from
academia, civil service to foreign service; inadequacies of all of which are
partly a reflection of the poor quality of university education.
The state monopoly in education would only perpetuate this dysfunctional
status quo. Free education should not be an excuse for sub standard
education. It should also not be an excuse to deprive hundreds of
thousands of others who are equally eager to have an education and willing
to pay for that.
The other argument that the government should expand free education,
quantitatively there by admitting more students to universities, though
sounds tempting, is hollow in practice. Sri Lankan universities annually
churn out thousands of sub
standards graduates who then
take to the streets demanding
jobs. An Increase in those
numbers, without a qualitative
change in education does not help
the country; rather it creates
fertile grounds for social tension.
Also, qualitative reforms are time
consuming and, of course, hard to
sell to university communities who
are inured to the current rot.
The most effective means to expand education opportunities to cater to
hundreds of thousands of other students is to encourage private investment
in higher education and provide tuition fee loans for the students who wish
to study. There is a strong economic rationale as well: According to UNICEF
statistics, an estimated 16,500 Sri Lankan students went abroad for higher
education in 2010. (According to UNICEF, 12,975 in 2007, 15,270 in 2008,
16,195 in 2009 and 16,510 in 2010 went abroad for higher education).
Also, according to conservative estimates they spend $ 145 billion rupees
annually on higher education. (That is more than the amount the
government allocates for higher education annually).
However, those numbers cannot talk sense to the university students who
take to the streets at the drop of a hat.

"The vernacular education system, at schools and universities produced

thousands and hundreds of thousands of sub standard graduates and
students, respectively. Understandable enough, they found it hard to find
productive employment opportunities"
They came to universities carrying their own insecurities; in the
universities, they were indoctrinated by an antiquated ideology, which they
later imposed on the others, turning universities into monolithic entities.
Universities, on their part, failed to provide modernist, cosmopolitan
exposure to their students. Instead, students were condemned to cram
from 40-year old text books. When they got out, the private sector shunned
most of them, for they brought no employable skills. Finally, the
government was compelled to employee a large swathe of them. At the
end, free education has degenerated into one of free-loading. One reason
that the government cannot pay competitive salaries for professionals is
that the government sector is bloated with free-loading passengers, from
the bottom to the top. Ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa doubled the size of
the government sector, filling its ranks , largely with candidates who are
otherwise unemployable elsewhere including 50,000 unemployed
university graduates. That partly explains the impending crisis in
government pensions.

The deep-rooted rot in the university education cannot be addressed

overnight. Though, more budgetary allocation in education would always be
welcome, the recent history of Sri Lanka would reveal such investments
may not generate intended outcome, rather the exact opposite.
For Instance, Sri Lanka invested heavily in education in 1950s and the 60s,
however such investments, though raised basic social indicators, hardly
created economic growth. Rather, a decade later, we witnessed the first
leftist insurgency.
The predicament at that time can be explained in two counts. First,
obsession with social investment left the government with no money to
invest in physical infrastructure, which is pre-requisite for creating
economic growth. Also, our economic policies at the time were not
conducive for private investment, therefore, hardly any new productive jobs
were created for the newly educated youth.

Second factor is equally important. By 1956, Sri Lankan education

completed its shift to vernacular. By the sixties, universities have moved to
the Sinhala/Tamil medium. The vernacular education system, at schools and

universities produced thousands and hundreds of thousands of sub

standard graduates and students, respectively. Understandable enough,
they found it hard to find productive employment opportunities.
This second problem remains even as of now -- and wouldl be so as long as
vernacular languages remain the primary medium of instruction in our
universities and schools. No amount of increase in investment in education
can fix that mess- until the self evident remedy is implemented, i.e. the
return to English medium.
However, the rot in the public universities should not be an excuse to
obstruct private education.
In the ideal scenario, competition would provide stimulus for the public
universities to get their acts together.
Free education is a noble concept, from which all of us have benefitted, but
it should operate alongside the free market. It should not be an excuse for
sub standard outcome, deprive hundred thousands of others of their pursuit
of education. Also, it should not be a faade that would allow a few, who
benefitted from it, to free-load on the rest of the public.
Follow Ranga Jayasuriya @RangaJayasuriya on twitter
Posted by Thavam