Year on the Web
Year on the Web
Much has been written about the cattle slaughter. Why are we silent about the human slaughter which goes on unabashed? I don't mean the war. It is something necessary perhaps at the moment. I mean the slaughter of patients at the hands of the Health Minister and the Unions - not only doctors, but the nurses and paramedics too.
The recent article by a father losing his only son during the paramedics work to rule is heart rending. But this is probably one in a million. There are others who had suffered too not necessarily by loss of life, but maybe by permanent effects due to delayed treatment. But why are we, the citizens, sitting down, and taking this? Don't we have a right in the name of humanity to stop this slaughter? A salary anomaly - surely should be settled without ransoming the patients. What sin did we commit to be penalized?
I quite understand that, given the way the bureaucracy works today, strike seems to be the only tool the unions have of making the government listen. But two wrongs do not make a right. Let them find an alternate way. I call upon Dr. Godamunne too, who is very concerned about the slaughter of animals, to consider these equally - if not more - an important aspect of slaughter and inhumanity.
While on the subject of the slaughter, election violence is another folly of the masses, taking the punishment for the undoing of the politicians. As one veteran politician once quipped: "When the elephants make love or war, it is the grass that gets crushed."
Those who fight for the political masters should take a walk along the Parliament corridors (if you are allowed to!) to see how pally these rivals are! Even if they breathe fire on the platform about the rival, once the election is over, they become bosom pals. People are being martyred, for one of them to come to power, while the other will continue to enjoy endless fringe benefits even as an Opposition M.P. How blind can we be, not to see that we are taken for a ride not once, not twice, but over and over again ?
Dear Madam,
May I most respectfully request you to spend a few minutes of your valuable time reading this letter as this is intended to remove a serious misconception in your mind about the teaching responsibilities of the university teachers and consultants of the Ministry of Health. Whoever is responsible for misleading you in this manner, enormous damage has been done to non-university teachers whose contribution to research and teaching has been completely denigrated. I only hope that your university advisors are not responsible for this gross distortion of facts.
While granting that university teachers are an important segment of our academic community the following facts too need to be borne in mind when you try to meet comparisons between these two types of teachers.
(a) Most of the teaching (undergraduate as well as post-graduate), in all teaching hospitals is done by Ministry of Health employees. Even in the university units the teaching is done by junior lecturers and registrars as senior staff are in private hospitals, out of the island or otherwise engaged in non-clinical work. The truth of this statement could only be verified by a questionnaire given to newly passed out doctors whose responses should be solicited anonymously. It will reveal shocking information about the teaching commitments of the senior dons in the medical faculties. When such is their performance as under-graduate teachers why single them out for favoured treatment. It is a pity that no university has done this type of research though papers are presented on many other topics of little relevance to under- graduate teaching in order to garner 'points' for promotions within the university.
(b) University teachers are professionals who have opted for a university career which involves under-graduate teaching as its most important activity. This they have willingly and knowingly accepted at the time of joining the university. Hence an allowance for teaching is ludicrous whereas allowances for travelling, housing, etc., are logical and understandable.
(c) They get full pay sabbatical leave of one to two years in every five years as night follows day. They also get unlimited short term scholarships and trips abroad every few months. Some of the professors are really "visiting professors" as they are so often out of the island!
(d) All the clinical teachers are engaged in private practice. They do not adhere to normal hours of practice. Anybody who visits well known private hospitals in the big cities are likely to find professors and lecturers long after 9.00 a.m., at lunch time and before 4.00 p.m. working in these institutions.
A significant feature of the recent history of Sri Lanka is the frequent turmoil taking place at Hulftsdorp. This time undergraduates of law of the Colombo University protested at the treatment given to their hard-earned law degree, by the authorities.
The case has apparently taken the shape of Law Faculty Vs. Law College.
Basically, three insitutions are responsible for legal education in Sri Lanka. But the Sri Lanka Law College is the only institution which provides professional legal education while the University of Colombo and the Open University (fee levying institution) provide academic legal education leading to Bachelor of Law degrees.
While the graduates of law of both the universities of Colombo and Open University are considered as academically qualified law graduates but not considered lawyers, those passing out from the Law College are considered to be attorneys.
The crux of the whole problem lies here. Though the Law College is considered to be a semi- government institute, still it can produce lawyers but not the universities (it is worth comparing this situation with medical graduates of the medical faculty). This is because the Sri Lanka Law a College is directly under the purview of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education-the sole body responsible for professional legal education which is chaired by the Chief Justice. Therefore, if a law graduate wants to qualify as an attorney-at-law having studied for four years at the law faculty, the rules laid down by the Council of Legal Education states that such person has to sit for the final examination at Law College. These law graduates have to sit for nine subjects, five of which they have already successfully completed in the university.
It is in this context that we have to view the demands of the law graduates. Basically their demand is to include the other four subjects in to the university syllabus or to exempt the completed five subjects at the Law College final examination. They also request financial assistance like the Mahapola Scholarship and hostel facilites to be given during the period of study at Law College in case they are to do those four subjects at Law Collage. This demand is also in line with the principle of equal and free education.
Conversely, the Council of Legal Education is not agreeable to amend the present system to comply with the demands of the law graduates. And surprisingly, authorities in the Ministry of Higher Education or the Ministry of Justice too maintain silence in this issue.
Historically, the Law College seems to be proud of being the oldest institution of higher learning and does not wish to share its power of producing attorneys-at-law with the faculty, since the university legal education began long after the Law College was set up.
When we further look back at the history of this issue, the Council of Legal Education has not always stood as a barrier for the demands of the law graduates, although it so appears. Somewhere in early ninties, upon a recommendation made by the Mark Fernando Committee Report, the council had resolved to exempt law graduates from local universities from sitting the final examination conducted by the Sri Lanka Law College except in the four subjects on the basis that they have followed the other subjects at the University. But firstly, the Junior Bar Committee of the BASL and then the BASL itself had protested. The main reason for this protest seems to be the desire of the respective institutions to maintain monopoly over the legal education. The Law College students replying to the demands of the law graduates say that the universities of this country do not allow attorneys-at-law to follow their respective post graduate degrees while the universities of other countries have accepted the Law College final examination to be on par with their own first degrees. This means that the Law College fails to recognize the LL.B. degree as a professional one, while the universities do not recognize the Law College final examination to be equal to a first degree. This is why the then President of the BASL, Ranjith Abeysooriya, P.C. registered his vehement protest to the resolution passed at the Legal Council meeting to exempt law graduates from this examination. In a letter to the Chief Justice he said, 'The recommendations if implemented, will give birth to an attorney-at-law who is truly an academic clothed in the garb of an attorney-at-law' (BASL News - July 1991).
When we consider all these facts of the case from the point of view of lay-man, it is a complex one. But one thing is clear. These two main institutions are trying to dictate terms to each other.
Although the core of law is justice, fairplay and logical reasoning, unfortunately these institutions have placed their trust in traditions. This could be vividly seen if one reads the BASL News December 1993 which states somewhere in its lead story, "To belong to a profession is to belong to a family. The profession has its own special values intended to discipline its members and casts out those who fail to comply. The rules are based on time-tested traditions and do not change." However, even if the demands of the law graduates are reasonable, it seems that the time-tested traditions cannot be changed. O tempora! O mores!
Return to the Letters to the Editor contents page
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk