Archives

The Storm's eye by Prof.Rajiva Wijesingha

When I agreed last week to resume my column, I reiterated my original condition, that nothing should be cut except after consultation. This was accepted, so I was astonished to find last Friday that the first few paragraphs had been cut, and mindlessly so. This meant the rest of the article sounded incoherent.

The editor it turned out knew nothing about this, so it seemed churlish to stop writing. But the incident is symptomatic of the lack of professionalism that dogs us, which is why I mention it. Sub-editors, or whoever was responsible, think editing means cutting without attention to the style and structure of what has been written. This may be acceptable with news reporting, but nowhere else in the world does it apply to commissioned features.

I can only hope therefore that the new Media Policy to be unveiled ensures proper attention to training, to ensure some sort of professionalism by drawing attention to best practice elsewhere. The points missed out last week were not vital, but I should perhaps reiterate that, in the present situation, I thought I should not comment on party politics. Some readers may find this a relief. Those who think otherwise can read of such things in my Sunday weekly column elsewhere.

This limitation does not however preclude administrative absurdities, and I was particularly roused last week by a workshop on the latest World Bank funded project for universities. It was run by a Consultant, specially imported from America for the purpose. He was a delightful man, full of fun stories, but he seemed to know very little, and freely confessed that he had been badly briefed. Our suggestion that he try to clarify certain doubts prompted the response that this would be useless, since the Project Office had not answered previous queries.

Now I would not object to this too much if World Bank funds were, as many of our administrators evidently believe, gift horses from nice old uncles in Washington. But unfortunately they must be repaid, in dollars, in a context in which the rupee will continue to slide, pushed further by businessmen who want to be competitive but prefer depreciating our currency to increasing efficiency for this purpose.

The kind uncle from America was one of six, in addition to two Indonesians here for much longer stays. Uncle's stipend, for his fortnight, will add up to well over 5 times our per capita GDP. This excludes his per diem, which may well amount to half that again. Multiply this by 6, and add on what the Indonesians may get, and you begin to understand that World Bank funds are a potential death trap.

But this is not the fault of the World Bank. Sri Lankans are meant to formulate projects to benefit their own country, and it is no use blaming besuited uncles for our own incompetence.

They may well believe, as the Project did, that to find out whether English competence has improved we must use TOEFL. To quote from the initial document ' The Project will support a national program to improve English language competency through grants awarded to any university committed to improve the average TOEFL score of students ... the institution will submit an Action Plan indicating the actual average TOEFL score, the annual TOEFL target for the next five years...and baseline information on the current English proficiency level using TOEFL tests'.

Fortunately, at initial workshops on the Project, several academics objected to this. The response was that World Bank funds would pay for the testing - another wonderful example of sending the money back to America as soon as possible, to be repaid again later by future generations. Our criticisms seem however to have prompted a modification as follows - 'English proficiency score: should use a widely used to measure proficiency (sic), such as TOEFL or ELTS, as long as it is conducted by an accredited institution...the score has to include all final year students in the respective study program'.

Whether local tests will be acceptable to the World Bank, or rather the local watchdogs they employ, is a moot point. Certainly, with the current UGC having effectively killed the University Test of English Language created when Prof Lalitha Mendis chaired the English Standing Committee, one wonders what can take its place and satisfy potential critics. You can of course rely on other Sri Lankans to tear to pieces any test devised by individual universities here.

Incoherent consultants and foreign English tests are just two aspects of a badly thought out programme that squanders resources we have to repay. In a context of what seems tight fiscal responsibility elsewhere, I think the Treasury, and its comparatively efficient watchdogs, should focus on such matters much more carefully, even if it means less jollu uncles.

www.ppilk.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager