Going lower & lower

IT IS no secret that the state of education in the country has shown few signs of improvement over the years. An inkling of just how bad the situation has become is available from the notice sent by the city government to the heads of nine schools in Karachi demanding an explanation for the abysmal performance of their students, not one of whom managed to pass the Intermediate examination. It has been argued that the higher secondary schools generally have those students on their rolls who are not high performers and are unable to qualify for admission into colleges. But then, that does not explain why some colleges are not faring any better either. As pointed out by a recent report in this paper, 20 private sector colleges were also hauled up on account of the zero per cent pass rate of their students in the same exams. These colleges can rightly be asked how they would justify their existence.

Public sector schools and colleges are reputed for showing a poor academic record. But how can private institutions, which charge a considerable fee, explain their deplorable performance? If this is how things are in Karachi that has the highest number of educated individuals in the country, what can one say for the state of learning in the smaller cities, towns and villages — especially the latter? It is a pity that enough attention is not being paid to the standard of education in the country. While the Higher Education Commission is concentrating on making Pakistan’s universities ‘world class’, not much is being invested in the school and college sector where young people are expected to prepare for the greater academic challenges ahead. An inefficient monitoring system has led to corruption in the education sector. Poor quality of teaching and teacher absenteeism, a deficient infrastructure and inadequate curricula and textbooks have all combined to produce an environment that is not conducive to learning.

This picture has generally been associated with government schools, but it seems that not all private schools possess the necessary material or trained teachers to benefit the students. Unless the government evolves an efficient system of effective monitoring and regulation of all schools, the standards will continue to fall. Reforms of the education sector have been on the cards for ages now and can be forgotten until the turmoil in politics settles down. Meanwhile, it will not be a bad idea for local education authorities to study and adopt the techniques of the handful of private institutions providing affordable education to the children of the low-income classes. This may sound simplistic, but given the scale of problems in education, it is best to start out slowly and progress sensibly towards a more comprehensive solution.

Why not abolish it?

RELIGIOUS Affairs Minister Ejazul Haq’s disclosure on Monday that the government is considering privatising the Zakat distribution system reinforces the plea we have made in these columns that the government should wash its hands of the entire process. The minister’s views in a TV interview come at a time when the Federal Shariat Court, approached by a citizen, has sought the ulema’s views to study the matter further. Incidentally, no less a person than the chairman of the Islamic Ideology Council has declared the present government-controlled Zakat system un-Islamic. Like Salat, Zakat is compulsory for a Muslim who meets the given criteria, but it is an obligation that is independent of the state. Introduced in 1979, the operation of the collection and distribution of Zakat by the government has been marked by bureaucratic sluggishness and corruption. Traditionally, Muslims of South Asia have paid Zakat as a personal act without official interference. This way they had the satisfaction of knowing that the money was going to those they knew to be deserving. Under the present system, Zakat is deducted compulsorily from all savings bank accounts above a given ceiling on the first of Ramazan and profits on saving certificates when encashed. There are anomalies in the collection method which people circumvent by withdrawing the bulk of their deposits a few days before Ramazan. Those following the fiqhs Jafaria and Hanafia are also exempted from Zakat deduction.

As a result, only a measly amount is collected every year. The religious affairs minister admitted that the people had no confidence in the government machinery’s ability to ensure a quick and equitable distribution of Zakat. The figures speak for themselves. According to the minister, the amount of money given in Zakat by the rich and the well-to-do comes to Rs70 billion a year, but the government itself collects as little as Rs4.5 billion. The government must let the public know how much is actually distributed among the needy, what is spent on the Zakat bureaucracy and how much is eaten up by corruption. This may take the form of a Zakat official showing favouritism in the disbursement of Zakat or obliging a ruling party politician who may want the Zakat money to be distributed in his electoral constituency at the expense of the needy elsewhere. According to press reports, many Zakat committee officials have been found guilty of corruption and favouritism, and in many cases the Zakat money could not be given to the poor for several years because of red tape. One hopes the ulema and the well-informed will respond to the FSC’s appeal and help it arrive at a ruling that is in keeping with the Islamic spirit of charity.

Her master’s voice

MS BENAZIR Bhutto’s growing estrangement from reality is now approaching irreconcilable proportions. Just about a week ago, Ms Bhutto told a gathering — in Washington, tellingly — that she would make Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, accessible to international agencies if she were to come to power. Now comes the astonishing statement on BBC that a government headed by her would, under the right circumstances, allow the US military to strike within the territorial borders of Pakistan. Ignore for the moment questions of national sovereignty, for that is an area where almost every government has failed us. Focus instead on the fact that the country is facing an insurgency-like situation rooted in anti-American sentiment. Against this backdrop, does Ms Bhutto not realise or care about the perils of sounding more and more like a mouthpiece of the US State Department? The PPP chairperson is right when she says that a representative government is better equipped than a military ruler to tackle the root causes of intolerance and militancy. Ms Bhutto is mistaken, however, if she thinks that a prime minister who so publicly toes the American line — like President Musharraf — will ever be accepted as an honest broker by the clerics and the Taliban.

On the political front, there is an element of practicality in the PPP’s on-again, off-again collaboration with a military ruler, allowing as it does an opportunity for Ms Bhutto to assume the reins of government for a third time. This is true to an extent, the grievous moral costs notwithstanding. The benefits of any deal with a military ruler will, however, be limited to Ms Bhutto’s person and some select hangers-on, not the country or its people. Even if the next elections are not rigged in favour of the PPP, and even if Ms Bhutto wins fair and square, her tenure will be plagued by the irreparable damage she has inflicted on what remained of her credibility.

Will the generals step aside?

DESPITE indications of popular unease since mid-August, recent events in Myanmar (Burma) took the world by surprise. Their consequences are far from clear, not least because much of the information emerging from that country takes the form of rumour or hearsay. But it would be a monumental shame if they do not lead, in the short term, to the deliverance of its people from four and a half decades of frequently brutal military rule.

That did not come to pass 19 years ago, when an estimated 3,000 pro-democracy protesters were shot dead by troops, although there were signs of hope. Two years later, in 1990, the junta permitted elections. However, the results — a landslide for the National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi — were not to its liking, so it simply ignored them and has since then refused to budge.

Actually, that’s not entirely accurate, because two years ago the regime did budge: it shifted 200 miles out of Yangon (Rangoon) to Naypidaw, the new capital, constructed at considerable expense in a country where average annual earnings are not much more than $200 per capita. Its name means “abode of the gods”, and the move reinforced rumours that Senior General Than Shwe — who took over following General Ne Win’s resignation in 1988 after 26 years at the helm — is keen to be crowned king of the nation he renamed Myanmar.

Be that as it may, the regime’s migration clearly symbolised its desire to cut itself off from the people. The developments of the past two weeks suggest it was a canny move. The unrest did not, however, stem from cumulative unease over the political gridlock and long-term mismanagement of the economy. Just as the mass protests in 1988 were preceded by a currency devaluation that sharply diminished and in some cases wiped out the hard-earned savings of a sizeable proportion of the population, this time around the motivating factor was a sharp rise in fuel prices.

Somewhat surprisingly for a country that cannot, because of sanctions, obtain loans from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, Burma decided in mid-August to partially follow the advice of the two institutions by reducing fuel subsidies. The cost of petrol and diesel doubled overnight, while that of compressed gas — which is used to operate buses as well as domestic cooking appliances — increased five-fold. This not only meant that many Burmese faced the prospect of spending up to 70 per cent of their income on transport, it also entailed a flow-on effect on the prices of more or less all goods, and that too in an economic milieu where inflation was already running at 40 per cent.

Within days of the fateful decision, a few hundred Burmese took to the streets of Yangon, and there were reports of similar demonstrations in other parts of the country. During one such protest march in Pakokku on Sept 5, three Buddhist monks were wounded when government troops turned violent. The nation’s monks sought an apology from the authorities and set a deadline of Sept 17. When it wasn’t forthcoming, they took to the streets in much larger numbers, emboldening many of their compatriots, who followed suit.

Apparently caught unawares, the junta initially betrayed signs of indecision. Monks are a revered segment of society in largely Buddhist Myanmar, and their defiance was coupled with indications that they would withhold their blessings from representatives of the military regime. It is quite conceivable many army personnel feared that the coercive use of firepower would entail bad karma. Hence the monks were allowed to make their point, and were even able to exchange greetings with Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for much of the period since 1988.

However, by the third day of the protests, when it seemed that things may be getting out of hand, most compunctions were set aside. The government says 10 people died that day, but various other sources suggest the toll was far higher. Many monks were beaten up; some were imprisoned while the remainder were confined to their monasteries. The show of force succeeded as a deterrent — memories of 1988 are, inevitably, still fresh — and the number of protesters subsequently dwindled sharply.

Or that, at least, is how it seems. A clear picture of the situation is impossible to come by. There are hardly any foreign correspondents inside Myanmar: most of the reports and images of the early demonstrations were transmitted abroad by members of the growing breed known as citizen-journalists, using mobile phones and the Internet. Unfortunately, it is within the government’s powers to restrict access to such means of communication, which is exactly what it did. Words and pictures continued to seep out, but on a minuscule scale.

Partly as a consequence, the rumour mill has gone international, and it is hard to tell whether hints of a rebellion brewing within military ranks are anything more than wishful thinking. It is widely believed that such a revolt could offer the smoothest means of superseding the increasingly untenable status quo. It may be facilitated by the fact that Than Shwe has lately concentrated power in his own hands, whereas the previous norm was rule by a committee of generals. Besides, the largesse that the army accrues — mainly through foul means — is no longer widely distributed: the generals and other senior officers live in luxury (and Than Shwe’s tastes are reportedly particularly extravagant), but the rank and file broadly share the misery of ordinary Burmese.

Following a United Nations Security Council resolution, watered down at the insistence of China and Russia (both of which earlier this year used their first joint veto since 1972 to prevent the world body from focusing on Myanmar), UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari arrived at the weekend to hold talks with the generals as well as Suu Kyi and other opposition representatives in an attempt to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

His chances of success are not rated too highly, unless the junta comes under sufficient pressure from its main trading partners — China, Russia and India — as well as its neighbours in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean). Beijing, as well as leading members of Asean, have been considerably more forthcoming than usual in their nuanced condemnation of the junta’s actions, and it has been reported that the US has requested China to provide sanctuary to the military elite if that can help persuade the latter to relinquish its stranglehold over the nation.

The trouble with the expectation that countries such as China, India and Russia will give precedence to moral scruples over profits is that it militates against the globalisation ethos. And if anyone were asked to name two countries worse off than Myanmar, the most obvious answers would be Iraq and Afghanistan — a fact that kind of pulls the high moral ground from under America’s feet of clay.

At the same time, however, there can be little question that the Burmese have suffered more than most former subjects of the British empire. Whatever the course of events in the weeks and months ahead, it would be tragic if they did not precipitate a drastic change of political course.

The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.

mahir.worldview@gmail.com

Red, white, blue, and green

Boston Globe

ALTHOUGH his poll rankings are perpetually low, it’s easy to spot Dennis Kucinich in the crowd of Democrats running for president: he’s the bright green man, the one pushing for an almost utopian recommitment to the environment.

Kucinich proposes a WGA — Works Green Administration... Kucinich’s WGA would spend federal funds on a sweeping environmental makeover… It’s an idea that sounds too good to be possible…

That’s where the Green Jobs Act comes in. Co-sponsored in the US House by Massachusetts Democrat John Tierney, the bill would train a citizens’ army of ‘green-collar workers’, employed in the fields of renewable energy and energy efficiency...

The bill would help by investing $125m a year for five years to guide 35,000 workers towards promising, environmentally sound careers. Programmes would update the skills of current workers and train returning veterans, the unemployed, disadvantaged youths, non-violent ex-offenders, and workers affected by changes in national energy policy.

If this bill becomes law, it will be a step towards Kucinich’s ideal world, where it’s a lot easier to be green. — (Oct 1)

Horse latitudes

Houston Chronicle

ATTUNED to humans, a horse in this country heading for slaughter can’t guess what awaits it. In recent years, state laws have banned horsemeat production in the United States. The result in 2007 has been 30,000 horses jammed into low-ceilinged box cars and taken to Mexico. There, in unregulated factories, workers stab the horses’ spines until the animals are paralysed.

...Because state laws recently outlawed horse slaughter at the three US plants that did it, the number of horses sent to Mexico has skyrocketed: 369 per cent since this time last year. The answer is not restoring horse slaughter in the United States, but to ban its export...animal cruelty concerns helped end horse slaughter at the American plants. But there’s no ban on exporting the animals for slaughter elsewhere. A federal law banning domestic horse slaughter and the outsourcing of slaughter would correct this...

The great majority of horse owners would never let their horses be slaughtered for meat… But owners who send aging horses to auction might not know that middlemen, or ‘killer dealers’, wait in the crowd to send American horses to a savage, protracted death. A ban on their business would end this form of animal torture. — (Sept 30)