The Most/Recent Articles

Showing posts with label ShamalaKumar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ShamalaKumar. Show all posts

University Nirvava

We make discoveries through our own lives. If the discoveries were made through genuine investment in the protocols and Due Processes of the existing system – which in this instance includes FUTA as part of the University system and our discoveries do not confirm the protocols and Due Processes that already exist then we need to publish our discoveries – for they qualify as Research. Due Processes are the flow of policies/ law. Law/Theory is the current version of yesterday’s discovery. Yesterday’s discovery beyond previously existing theories / laws is given fluid form to assist low investors in an institution/family. Those investors invest from their respective angles only.

l by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(03 July, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the article“Are FUTA’s demands regarding national policy on higher education within the Mandate of a Trade Union? Shamala Kumar of University of Peradeniya.

I do not have direct investment with the University of Peradeniya. My direct investment in the University system was/is through the University of New South Wales. The Truth is known more quickly by the average human, through direct life in a natural environment. My investment in University of Peradeniya is through my husband and his engineering colleagues and more importantly, through my father in law who insisted that my husband who won the Best Science Student prize at Jaffna College should not accept the place offered to him to study Engineering at Kattubadde campus but instead wanted my husband to try again for a seat at Peradeniya campus. To this day, we are grateful for that decision by my father in law Mr. Nallathamby Subramaniam. Hence my investment to uphold the investments by my father in law would naturally go towards ownership value in the University of Peradeniya.

Ms Shamala Kumar states ‘Three university academics, who are currently under State patronage, Jagath Wellawatta (Chairperson, State Mortgage Investment Bank formerly, National Child Protection Authority, Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau), Rohan Rajapakse (Advisor to the Minister of Higher Education; formerly Executive Director, Sri Lanka Council of Agriculture Research), and Ranjith Bandara (Chairperson, Sri Lanka Foundation Institute and Senior Economic Adviser, formerly, Director of the Financial Service Cluster, Strategic Enterprise Management Agency) discussed the trade union action on the evening of the 1st of June, 2012. It is disappointing to note that FUTA was excluded from this discussion.’

Trade Unions are part of the Democratic system. They are the parallels of Opposition in Parliament. Academics making decisions without an Opposition are therefore opposed to Democracy. By avoiding FUTA these academics have confirmed that they are fearful of FUTA and therefore are desirous of the company of FUTA’s opposition – the Government. In other words – they have ‘sold’ themselves to the Government and thus have let their own institution down. This happens when one desires immediate benefits over inherited higher status. The ‘right’ way to show this self-demotion is to renounce the higher status and become part of the University Council as representatives of the Government. Transparency requires that we ‘show’ our own valuation of our status.

We make discoveries through our own lives. If the discoveries were made through genuine investment in the protocols and Due Processes of the existing system – which in this instance includes FUTA as part of the University system and our discoveries do not confirm the protocols and Due Processes that already exist then we need to publish our discoveries – for they qualify as Research. Due Processes are the flow of policies/ law. Law/Theory is the current version of yesterday’s discovery. Yesterday’s discovery beyond previously existing theories / laws is given fluid form to assist low investors in an institution/family. Those investors invest from their respective angles only. These various angles are the positions in those institutions. Due Processes if they flow from true discoveries – would lead back to the original value of that position. These Due Processes are standard relationships that would lead us to get into the person at the other end of the relationship. Thus we would realize the core value of the position and with it the institution/family. Once realized we would work all parts of the institution through that position at its current value. Its current value is the value we inherited plus the value we added. Each time I took up an Accounting position, I worked genuinely through that position (which was usually lower in status compared to the positions I held in Sri Lanka) and added my own genuine value to it. The value added was the Truth I learnt about all on the ‘other side’ of that position plus my own investment in Sri Lankan Chartered Accountancy (including Accountants) . This usually lifted the position to a higher level. That was how I usually restructured positions that I held – at the workplace as well as within family. In the process, I accepted reduced status to ‘get the job done’. I became more democratic because of that.

The above academics are giving Politics greater status than Higher Education. This naturally leads them to ignore the Opposition (in this case the Union) and therefore behave as if they were the government. The position of Opposition is like the position of Mother in a family. A mother has Equal status in democracy and yet not visible to the outside world.

Ms Shamala Kumar states ‘In Australia, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union campaigns to increase funding for Australian higher education, and in India, the All India Federation of University and College Teachers in their June 2012 newsletter lists their struggles against commercialization of higher education (although this seems minor in contrast to their main campaign for increased pay).’

Australia’s Higher Education Union – NTEU is not yet a Democratic Opposition to University Administration. Like our Opposition in parliament and mothers of the old hierarchical system, the NTEU operates as second management and not Equal Opposition to University Management. As a Senior Academic of the University of New South Wales observed – once these Union leaders get into Administrative positions – they start talking like management. That happens when our status is not truly earned but is worn as makeup. To be a true Opposition the Union needs to have performed close to 50% of the Management’s work and therefore ‘show’ the other side.

Recently, my cousin Ravi Prakash forwarded as a Sai Devotee message the speech by Mr. Azim Premji, Chairman, Wipro Corporation. The message had the title ‘Respond instead of Reacting’. The following excerpt illustrates the difference between being second class management and equal opposition by making it yourself. Mr. Azim Premji says:

‘The second lesson I have learnt is that a rupee earned is of far more value than five found. My friend was sharing me the story of his eight year-old niece. She would always complain about the breakfast. The cook tried everything possible, but the child remained unhappy. Finally, my friend took the child to a supermarket and brought one of those ready-to-cook packets. The child had to cut the packet and pour water in the dish. After that, it took two minutes in the microwave to be ready. The child found the food to be absolutely delicious? The difference was that she has cooked it! In my own life, I have found that nothing gives as much satisfaction as earning our rewards. In fact, what is gifted or inherited follows the old rule of come easy - go easy. I guess we only know the value of what we have if we have struggled to earn it.’

I do not identify with the last part – about easy come easy go inheritances. Some of us value our inheritance by surrendering our current work to the old system. I did that here in Australia – at workplace as well as family level – especially after my children got married to white Australians. I had to ensure that my grandchildren carried the real values of my Sri Lankan heritage. Hence the way I included my Sri Lankan Chartered Accountancy minus its status as per Sri Lankans – I included my Jaffna-Sangarathai family values minus its status from the Community, into my positions freely allowed and accepted in Australia.

When we strip ourselves naked of all benefits – including status – what remains is our true value – as Mr. Nilantha Ilangamuwa , Editor, Sri Lanka Guardian, often says – our nudity. Truth has no status. It is wholesome. Hence when only our values merge – it matters not whether I am a Mentally Ill Australian challenging the Vice Chancellor or Smart Sri Lankan Chartered Accountant developing Chartered Accountancy in Jaffna with Jaffna Tamil status ONLY.

As the records would show, our sponsored relatives – once they started wearing the ‘Australian’ makeup would use even ‘mentally ill Tamil Tiger supporting - opposition’ label if they are not allowed to play the immigration game – Aussie style. Our relatives are not alone. Most parents sponsored by children are in this category and their children – like the Unions are taking up second management positions as Australians to demote anyone who shows signs of ‘made in Sri Lanka’ status. They are no longer in touch with their Sri Lankan heritage and they are very remote from the Australian heritage. If they were true refugees – their national values – naked of their Sri Lankan status would have naturally merged with Australian values to validate their current legal status as Australians.

If Sri Lankan Unions blindly follow Australian Unions they would also be like these refugees and start dictating to anyone who ‘shows’ true ownership in the old system. The Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW who had me arrested in the first instance – is the parallel of these refugees at the higher level. Likewise the above academics who sidelined the Union - FUTA


Are FUTA’s demands regarding national policy on higher education within the Mandate of a Trade Union?

| by Shamala Kumar
University of Peradeniya

( July 02, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Three university academics, who are currently under State patronage, Jagath Wellawatta (Chairperson, State Mortgage Investment Bank formerly, National Child Protection Authority, Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau), Rohan Rajapakse (Advisor to the Minister of Higher Education; formerly Executive Director, Sri Lanka Council of Agriculture Research), and Ranjith Bandara (Chairperson, Sri Lanka Foundation Institute and Senior Economic Adviser, formerly, Director of the Financial Service Cluster, Strategic Enterprise Management Agency) discussed the trade union action on the evening of the 1st of June, 2012. It is disappointing to note that FUTA was excluded from this discussion.

The panel agreed that FUTA was acting beyond its mandate as a trade union by demanding change in government policy on education and higher education. This perspective however is false because these policies affect how universities are run, and therefore directly affect the university teachers’ capacity to serve their mandate to society, through the provision of quality education. Therefore to say that the issues addressed are only tangentially related to our jobs is a misrepresentation of our role. It is also false because it is not unusual for unions to have broader demands than those related to pay. In Sri Lanka itself several teachers unions, the GMOA, and other trade unions have addressed policy level issues to safeguard their professions. Internationally also teachers’ unions are addressing such issues. To illustrate, currently in the United Kingdom, the University and College Union has two principle campaigns that fight against funding cuts and the privatization of tertiary education. In Australia, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union campaigns to increase funding for Australian higher education, and in India, the All India Federation of University and College Teachers in their June 2012 newsletter lists their struggles against commercialization of higher education (although this seems minor in contrast to their main campaign for increased pay). Finally in the United States, the American Federation of Teachers includes in their objectives the goal of campaigning to ensure that students receive what they need to succeed and to ensure that teachers receive what they need to facilitate learning. As the university system in the United States is not under an umbrella organization, a parallel organization to FUTA is not available. In each of these cases, unions are addressing policy that directly affects their ability to perform their job today and in the future. Addressing policy and the needs of future generations of students is fully within the mandate of FUTA as these policies hinder our ability to do our jobs.


Further cuts in Peradeniya funding?

| by Shamala Kumar

( April 01, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Reliable information suggests that the University of Peradeniya will receive a 30% cut in recurrent expenditure this year. Neither the promise to change salaries to those negotiated by FUTA last year nor the promises to include the academic community in forums that make policy decisions on higher education have materialized. Instead, only 1.19% of GDP has been allocated for education; a paltry amount compared to the 6% of GDP recommended by FUTA upon analysis of allocations in other countries.

Along with cuts in resources, the ability of universities to make their own decisions is stifled. Funds for staff development that were previously disbursed by universities will now be held at the Ministry. The most recent version of the draft bill on higher education, which was temporarily shelves but likely to resurface in revised form in the future, moves authority away from academic bodies to entities that are heavily stacked with appointees of the Minister. These moves diminish further the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of universities by diminishing the academic community’s role in decisions made in universities.

It is in this context that we must consider where resources are being placed. For instance, Rs 200 million is allocated for the army camp based ‘leadership’ programmes for incoming students and the few millions to be spent through the Higher Education for the Twenty First Century project (HETC, funded through World Bank loans) for English, ICT, soft skills and ethnic cohesion. Most recently the Ministry signed a legally questionable MoU with CIMA to provide supplementary training to university students within university premises. Although students will enjoy a discounted price from CIMA, the resource-starved universities will subsidize CIMA with free space and other infrastructure facilities. Inexplicably, CIMA will be further supported by government funds through HETC!

These recent events suggest the Ministry of Higher Education and Universities have misconceived notions of their mandates – mandates that go far beyond that of finishing schools or locations for supplementary training. They have also forgotten what higher education is about. No longer is higher education seen as a system that strengthens democracy, justice and opportunity, but as merely a means for national development or as something belonging solely to individuals. From the perspective of national development, education is viewed narrowly as no more than a commodity, similar to tea. Just as ‘value is added’ to tea, education ‘adds value’ to human resources.

At the individual level, education is relegated to our personal spheres, where the attainment of education is a matter of personal choice and innate ability. Those receiving education are seen as commendable and those who are not are blamed for either having misplaced priorities or being incapable. In other words, the individual’s relationship with education is seen independent of his or her context. The lack of resources, disparities in political and financial power and structural inequalities are ignored and the fault of a lack of education is made that of the individual not that of the State and society. This manner of conceiving education neither help deal with the serious limitations of access to education in the current system nor the manner in which the current system actually inhibits the freedom of the students and the staff in the State universities. Instead it perpetuates the myth that education is a private good for which the State’s only stake is utilitarian.

These perceptions are not restricted to the Ministry of Higher Education, but are found across the globe. However, unlike in the era of the Kannangara reforms when Sri Lanka had the strength to push for a visionary educational system, the State is today blindly embracing these unnecessarily narrow ideas of education. This is evident even in a public statement made by a particular teachers’ union. Why, they ask, do we resist these changes, when these policies are no different to those of other countries? It was not such shallow thinking that created the system of education in Sri Lanka, which, although with problems, is an international success story. It is certainly not what contributed to the national indicators of ‘development’ similar to those of wealthier nations. Our present system gives unprecedented access to education to women and other disadvantaged groups and resulted in populations with literacy levels far higher than those of most South Asian countries. Universities support more than the students and employees of universities. They provide expertise to virtually every sector in Sri Lanka from agriculture to health care, from the performing arts to industry. Therefore, this system needs to be strengthened, not just preserved, if Sri Lanka is committed to developing into a healthy, vibrant society.

The recent changes in policies and procedures on higher education will also tighten the Minister’s grip over universities and make the University system weaker through further cuts to funding and restrictions on the universities’ capacity to make autonomous decisions. As universities lose their autonomy, political appointees, who are sometimes academics, have taken on these decision making roles. Handing over these tasks to such compromised individuals, who have little opportunity for independent decisions, is already proving to be disastrous. Even today the Councils of universities, the highest university-level bodies, lack the capacity to make decisions based solely for the interests of universities and the general public because they are heavily stacked with ‘connections’ to the Government. Vice Chancellors do not seem to survive unless they become political stooges. Their appointments are political games in which their abilities are less relevant than who they are friends with. Those Vice Chancellors who show independent thinking are dealt with swiftly. Through changes to the University Act affected through the draft higher education bill and through changes to procedures that override the legislated rights of universities, the assault on universities will continue further.

It is easy to prescribe blame on what is happening to the Minister. Visions form in my mind of The Embodiment of Evil (conjure a villain of some sort, now transpose The Minister) clasping his hands and sinisterly laughing asking himself, ``What horror shall I invoke next?". Such visions, however, are both dangerous and unfair. They are dangerous because they label those we disagree with as evil - or as villains or even terrorists for that matter, and prevent further analysis. Labels avert examinations of how or why the Minister benefits, or how the social, political, and economic context facilitates his actions, or how we, as academics, are to blame for allowing his actions. These images are also unfair because the Minister is himself simply part of a larger worldview that prescribes this particular narrow conception of education; one which restricts it to a private good and limits its national implications to its contribution to national development. He is also part of a largely dysfunctional political system. What is happening in higher education is no different to what is happening or has already happened in other sectors in Sri Lanka. It is perhaps for this reason that we should care most for what is going on.

Last year an individual high up in the ranks of the administrative system of universities described universities as the ‘last uncleared areas’. He meant the non-democratic process of engagement by the student body in general and the student unions specifically that results in ragging and intimidation of other students. These problems clearly need to be addressed and the fact that they continue unchanged is an indictment of us all. However, equally dangerous are assertions that these ‘uncleared areas’ should be cleared using intimidation by the State – the entity responsible for protecting everyone’s democratic rights, even those of undemocratic students. Perhaps universities are uncleared also because they are the remnants of a disappearing tradition, disappearing from universities as well, of engagement in the democratic process and of belief in the public’s right to resist and to have their voices heard. Keeping universities uncleared, in this latter sense, and strong and independent may be an alternative and better route to the reconstruction that the government is working towards. It is a means through which successive governments can continue to boast of the quality of life of the Sri Lankan public, much as the present government does today.


Shamala Kumar is attached to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya.