| October 07, 2007 | Sunday | Ramazan 24, 1428 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Expatriate doctors in S. Arabia
Harassment by VVIP police escort
A word of caution
Students’appeal
HEC’s plagiarism policy
Bt. pesticide and cotton
Global village
Hospitals or killing fields
Woes of a KPT pensioner
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
THIS letter is based on uncalled-for ranting by Pakistani politicians on the recent statements of Benazir Bhutto.
The issues in point are the statements to the US press about giving IAEA access to Pakistani nuclear icon, Dr Abdul Qadir Khan, and an interview to the BBC wherein Ms Bhutto had indicated she would allow US actions inside Pakistan to target Osama bin Laden. My take on each one of them is as follows:
Ms Bhutto had never said she would hand over Dr Khan to the IAEA. The fact of the matter is that she was responding to a scathing question by a US journalist if she would consider handing over Dr Khan to the US.
Her response was very candid. She had said then she would not and never hand over Dr Khan to the US.
Further to this, she also had very bravely defended the Pakistani nuclear programme and had said that the western questions on the Pakistani nuclear programme were unfounded. She had added that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was in safe hands in Pakistan and that the Pakistani nuclear programme was very transparent and there was nothing to hide about it.
Further to this, she had also said that since there was nothing to hide about our nuclear programme, so if need be she would consider providing the IAEA an ‘access’ to Dr Khan so that shady questions are answered and are settled once for all. Now giving access doesn’t tantamount to handing over. So all hue and cry about the same is simply baseless.
The second issue concerns about Osama bin Laden and allowing US actions against him inside Pakistan.
First, we should understand we are a partner with the US in war on terror. President Musharraf had given a word of ‘unstinted’ support to President Bush right after the 9/11 attack by Al Qaeda in the US. Osama bin Laden has thus far been a sworn enemy of both Pakistan and the US. He certainly is not our friend. So, when the task is to go after and annihilate the enemy, what difference does it make either we do it or our partner US does it for us?
And, also, what difference does it make if the US does it for us inside our country? Have we not been using the foreign experts to do our job for us inside our country for other jobs as well? The Russians in Karachi built Steel Mills. The French built the submarines in Karachi. The Chinese built a number of military complexes in Taxilla. How is the US action against Al Qaeda inside Pakistan for the benefit of Pakistan different from all that mentioned above? Will some body kindly explain me the difference between the two?
Moreover, we should not be so nostalgic about ‘our sovereignty’. How do we explain the issue of sovereignty when we had provided American bases in Peshawar during Ayub Khan’s days? How do we explain the spy plane U2 flights inside our country? How do we then explain the US missile attacks in Bajaur and other places? And, the US bases in Jacobabad and elsewhere still in existence in our country?
The people who criticise unnecessarily should know that sovereignty comes with security. If you are not secure, you are not sovereign as well.
Finally, we as a nation must decide once for all about Osama and his men in Al Qaeda. Do we consider them our heroes or enemies? If the nation thinks they are heroes, then it is altogether a different matter. However, the truth is we all agree that they are our enemies and we must do everything possible to take them out, including help from the US, both inside and outside Pakistan.
FAIZ AL NAJDI
Riyadh
THE decision to impose a 20-year limit for senior Pakistani and other expatriate doctors by the Saudi health ministry (Dawn, Sept 24) is regrettable.
This new rule which directly hits 78 per cent of all the doctors currently working in the kingdom is a deathly blow, especially since the majority has spent the prime time of their lives serving in Saudi Arabia.
The restriction to exercise the contract renewal clause would result in a massive influx of doctors in the twilight of their careers in their home countries. These middle-aged returning expatriates would not only become social and economic pariahs but would find it extremely hard to adjust themselves in their homelands.
This would indeed be a tragic way of compensating those who left their hearth and home and dedicated themselves to serve the kingdom’s populace at a time when the Saudi nation was in desperate need of them. The degree of the sacrifice was even greater in the case of South Asian doctors because they have always been discriminated in terms of remuneration against their less qualified and less skilled, not only Saudi but white-skinned counterparts as well.
A large majority of these doctors are Pakistanis. It is unfortunate that this decision comes at a time when efforts are needed to mobilise and unite the Muslim Ummah. It is ironic that while the world moves towards increasing globalisation, Saudi Arabia effectively closes its doors on its Muslim brethren.
The rationale behind this decision is quoted as aiming at creating job opportunities for Saudi doctors. Saudi Arabia’s accession to the WTO demands that it develop its human capital. However, it should be noted that protectionism is never conducive to development. It is only through free exchange of labour, goods and capital can Saudi Arabia ever achieve projected growth targets.
The Pakistani government should approach the Saudi health ministry to rethink its decision. It is because of these expatriates that Pakistan has managed to pull itself out of economic doldrums and its reserves have reached $16 billion. This decision if carried out would reflect badly on the Saudi government and would be a poor return for Pakistan’s friendship.
AYESHA ARIF BAWANY
Karachi
WE are sometimes made to think that the word police stand for ‘polite, obedient, lenient, intelligent, courteous and efficient’, but these words don’t even come near what our police stand for.
Last week I had a bitter experience with our police while driving alone on Sharea Faisal. I was coming from the Shah Faisal Colony overpass and after crossing the Natha Khan Bridge on Sharea Faisal, I took a U-turn for going back towards Malir Cantt.
I was in the rightmost lane adjacent to the island when suddenly like a storm the police escort of some VVIP motorcade descended on me. As I completed the U-turn and while my car was still picking up the speed, the passing police escorts started shouting and using abusive language seeing that they can easily harass a young woman, driving alone in the car.
They also brought their vehicles very close to my car in a dangerously threatening manner. The policemen sitting in the vehicles perched out and started banging on my car’s windows and rooftop and shouting at me to clear the way. They wanted me to immediately swerve my car to the extreme left lane from the extreme right lane where I was after having taken the U-turn.
Their rude behaviour shocked and disturbed me. It also distracted my attention from the road ahead of me. This could easily have made my car to bump the island on my right or a passing vehicle on my left. Interestingly, there were no traffic policemen posted on the cut who could have stopped the vehicles from taking the U-turn during the VIP movement.
I wonder when our police will learn to behave with common citizens. Is there no law for the high and mighty? Why do we, the taxpayers, have to suffer the impudence and lawlessness of these ‘law-enforcement’ agencies? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
SARAH HYDER
Karachi
QUITE recently my aunt and I had a bitter experience shopping in Karachi. My aunt was here to shop for her daughter’ s wedding. We went to a jewellers’ shop of repute in Saddar and placed an order for a gold set worth Rs200,000.
The set was almost ready and only the beads had to be changed. After finalising all the details, we made the full payment. The jeweller then asked us to visit a couple of days later in the afternoon.
We then left with the thought that when we return next to the shop, we would have the set ready and delivered to us. On the appointed day and time we were again at the shop. But, according to the shopkeeper, our set was not all ready. He suggested we should do other buyings and come later. When we made it clear to him that we had come only for the set, he kept dilly-dallying.
Finally he asked us to come after Iftar.
When we returned to the shop after Iftar, to our horror we found the shop closed. The security guard stationed outside it argued with us and told us that we were lying to him as the shop never opened after Iftar. We were now in a state of shock. Soon a crowd of some idle folks gathered around us to have some after-Iftar entertainment.
Finally, after much heated argument the guard decided to call the shopkeeper. It was almost half an hour later that the shopkeeper arrived and burst upon us, charging us with disrupting his ‘taraweeh’ and even questioned our motives.
We hit back, saying he should be mindful of his commitment. Otherwise, there is no point in his keeping fast, etc.
Our advice to people to beware.
KAVITA RAJ
Karachi
WE are students of Hazara University, Mansehra, recognised by the Higher Education Commission.
There are at least three to four batches of bachelor honours who completed their education from the university in 2005-2006.
According to the norm, after honours the master’s programme should be of one year and that was also mentioned in the previous prospectus.
But now the issue is that Hazara University is not offering any master’s programme of one year to the students who have done four-year honours course of bachelors, neither is it giving any exemption in courses that have already been done in bachelor classes.
The higher education authorities should look into the matter so that the affected students should not be any loser.
STUDENTS
Hazara University, Mansehra
THIS is apropos of your editorial, ‘HEC ‘s plagiarism policy’ (Sept 29). The editorial questioned the varying levels of punishments proposed by the HEC for plagiarist academicians. It proposed that “the penalty for teachers who plagiarise should have been uniformly tough so that the pupils do not get the message that some irregularities can be condoned.”
It further suggested that, for academic uprightness, policymaker should focus on the improvement of primary education where “young minds are moulded to differentiate between right and wrong and to inculcate good study habits.”
Admittedly, ‘uniformly tough penalties’ may have some short-term impact to deter the deviants and improved primary school education may sow some seeds of academic uprightness. But this may not be the solution: plagiarism is a complex problem and should not be tackled simplistically.
Plagiarism is a symptom of some deeper decay and disease spreading in the intellectual organ of our society. It occurs when a scholar/scientist is either unable or unwilling to think independently and, thereby, renders himself incapable of producing some original scholarly work. For his professional survival, he copies others’ work without acknowledgement.
This behaviour is governed and shaped by society. To change this, you need to change the underlying social and organisational dynamics.
Now, it is tempting but simplistic to argue that by imposing tough penalty, like removal from service, the problem of plagiarism can be solved. You can dismiss one plagiarist today, but the corrupt system will produce another ten. A penalty is no answer. Instead, it is advisable to encourage, reward and value high quality and innovative scholarly work while our existing system is not programmed for this. Here are some areas where some reforms and interventions are warranted:
First, we need to develop a culture of science and scholarship and when this becomes a part of popular culture, scientific products (research publications) are consumed at both professional and popular levels. In such a culture, plagiarised work is difficult to publish and easy to detect.
Second, the quality of research should be the sole criterion for appointment of leadership and coveted positions in the university power structure. At present power and prestige go to ‘politically correct professors’ who occupy administrative positions like chairmen, directors and deans, many of whom are not known for high quality teaching and research.
Third, corruption, piracy and plagiarism thrive under the cloak of secrecy. All over the world, professors put their CVs on university website by clearly listing their publications. This is not the case in Pakistan. According to this writer’s survey, about 50 per cent university professors have not placed their CVs on the website.
The HEC should make it obligatory for all academicians to let the public know about their scholastic achievements. This can help check plagiarism and professional incompetence.
Fourth, scholarly creativity presupposes existence of core democratic values like freedom of expression, respect for human rights and human ideas, tolerance and pluralism.
Thus, overall improvement in the functioning of our universities is essential to reduce the incidence of plagiarism. To achieve this, we need to redefine the place of knowledge in our society and polity. There is a need to empower our universities so that they can produce relevant and state-of-the-art knowledge for our day-to-day needs. Society, in turn, should consume and own that indigenously produced knowledge. In essence, plagiarism signifies academic alienation and a dangerous disconnect between academy and society.
DR MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA ZAKAR
Punjab University Lahore
THIS refers to the news items published on Sept 18, 19, and 26 in Dawn pertaining to the strategies for protecting cotton plants from entomopathogens and thereby increasing the yield of cotton.
The most popular biopesticide is derived from bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) which is a soil-borne bacterium and produces a number of insect toxins. Bt. reproduces by means of spores. Bt. formulation as biopesticide consists of parasporal crystals produced during sporulation.
Bt. pesticide incorporating Bt. insecticidal crystals (proteinaceous) sprayed as protective measure resists/kills cotton entermopathogens. As a result, cotton production increases by at least 10 per cent. The killing of insects is due to ingestation of parasporal crystals by insects feeding on cotton plants sprayed with Bt. formulation.
Bt. formulation dissolves in the gut of insects and the dissolved insecticidal crystals (proteinaceous) cause death of insects. The Bt. pesticide has no harmful effect on mammals and humans.
The Bt. pesticide has been developed by multinationals (Mansanto etc). The Bt. cottonseeds smuggled from India is called Bhittai in Sindh. It has come to light that the longevity of Bt. cottonseeds and their pest-resistance capability decline with the passage of time.
This is owing to the fact that in the genome of cotton the longevity of seeds and protective DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid -- master molecule of life and traits) have been switched off in GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) by the multinationals so that farmers may remain dependent on Bt. cotton seeds supplied by multinationals.
This has been done for getting back the money involved in developing genetically-modified (engineered) plants (maize, cotton, corn, soybean, etc). Such biotechnological research initiated at NIAB and NIBGE in Faisalabad with a view to blending Bt. cotton technology with the help of China (Sept 26) is noteworthy.
On the successful completion of this technology, along with other agronomic incentives, cotton production is expected to increase by five million bales. Cotton is the best foreign exchange earner for Pakistan and, therefore, every effort should be made to enhance its production.
DR M. JALALUDDIN
Karachi
A NEW US military command for Africa (Sept 13). This completes the definition of the global village that the sole superpower is the immediate neighbour of all the countries in the world.
Z.A. KAZMI
Karachi
APROPOS of the news reports, ‘Hospitals or killing fields’ and ‘Battle between the doctors and the teachers’ (Sept 28), I would like to say that teaching hospitals are actually a training ground for the resident doctors. But our doctors are forced to do long duties of 30 hours every third day, and the exhausted and tired among them some time fail to provide the expected care .
Medical officers are being paid only for an eight-hour shift, attendance is also marked for one shift but they are forced to do 30 hours. All over Europe doctors’ working hours have been converted to shift duties.
In our case, in all teaching hospitals caesarean sections are being performed by the resident doctor without supervision of the senior registrar, and anaesthesia is also administered by the resident medical officer. So in such a situation most cases are rather mishandled, with serious consequences for the patients.
Also, cardiac patients arrive at irregular intervals, and the on-duty registrar and the resident doctor have to manage the patients. It is not possible for the consultant to visit one patient at, say, 6pm, then at 8pm, 9pm,12 midnight and so on.
DR NOUREEN AQUIB
Lahore
I RETIRED from the post of superintendent (Grade 15) in the Karachi Port Trust in 1973. The KPT was giving me pension at the same rate as prescribed by the federal government, including periodical increases, because it was following the federal government’s pension rules.
On Sept 1, 1990 the KPT ‘delinked’ its pay and pension structure from the government’s basic scales and formulated its own pay and pension scales. These new KPT pay and pension scales were made applicable to those KPT employees who retired after Sept 1, 1990.
It, therefore, stood to reason that my case would continue to be governed by the old rules in force before Sept 1, 1990 (‘pre-delinking’). Yet, whereas the federal government has been allowing increases in pension from time to time, the KPT did not give any such increase in my pension since July 1993. When I applied for the increase, the KPT rejected my request saying it had ‘delinked’ its pay scales since Sept 1, 1990.
What I am asking for is that the KPT should decide my entitlement whether it is to be under the federal government scales or under the KPT’s scales and pay accordingly.
S. G. MOHIYUDDIN
Karachi
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.