Letters to the Editor
View(s):Solar energy:Adding to the woes of already burdened consumer
I too invested some of my savings to instal solar panels on my roof. I opted to contribute to the Soorya Bala Sangramaya through the Net Metering System. Thereby I produced electricity on my roof during the day. I also exported the surplus to the national grid free of charge. I paid a fixed charge of Rs. 30 per month, which I believe is the legal levy as per the current consumer tariff system approved by the PUCSL. Although it was strange to be paying a tariff while providing a service to the country, I did not mind paying the small fixed charge as I saved a lot on my electricity bill. It felt good to be having an affordable electricity bill while also making a contribution in a small way towards solving the energy crisis.
My general feelings of goodwill were shattered when I received an electricity bill for Rs. 540 for October 2021. The levy has been increased it seems without even a gazette notification! It has become normal during these abnormal times to place enormous burdens on the citizens. In this case it is burdening the citizenry who have voluntarily contributed towards solving the energy crisis.
Harnessing solar energy can make us self-sufficient in electricity. Moreover it would be clean energy helping to reduce our carbon footprint. If many households and factories used solar energy converted to electricity and we also had solar parks, electricity would not only become affordable for everyone but also we would be reducing our Carbon footprint. It could also be the beginning of solar powered motor vehicles being used more in Sri Lanka and that would mean we would depend less on fossil fuels.
Sri Lanka is headed nowhere these days in many spheres. This is another instance of a good project being torn to shreds.
Is it too much to hope that the present trends of immature policy-making will be over and sanity will prevail once more?
Mayanthie Jayasinghe Via email
Why change our tried and tested medical course of 5 years?
I was shocked and amazed at a news item published in a daily paper recently referring to a proposal by the GMOA that our tried and tested Medical course of five years established by the British in the19th century (which is still extant in the UK) be replaced by a three-year one where one graduates at the age of 22. By and large, I find that our Sri Lankan youth are relatively immature for their age. Are they capable of dealing with the human condition at 22?
Their proposal goes on to state that post-internship, they could be registered as a specialist after a five-year training period.
This is based on the American system of board certification as a specialist after a five-year training period post-internship. However, the undergraduate in the US has to first do a general degree, before being accepted as a medical student. The total period of study approximates to eight years.
In our context, I dread to think of a scenario where a 28-year-old specialist walks the wards and corridors of our hospitals, in particular the private hospitals!
Dr. P. Amerasinghe (Retd. Consultant Radiologist) Via email