|
| November 10, 2008 | Monday | Ziqa'ad 11, 1429 |
Harassment on the job
For a better labour law
OTHER VOICES - North American Press
In the name of research
The blame game
TODAY the knowledge economy is central to holistic development. The knowledge economy owes its strength to the creation, documentation, dissemination and appropriate use of new knowledge.
AS the implosion of the defeated Republican campaign continued on Friday, the landscape of American conservatism was dotted with signs that these were very strange times indeed.
A NEW age calls for new rules. There have been several cases in the last few years of internet fraud in which credit cards and ATMs have been misused, confidential information robbed electronically, and the happily democratic and largely unpoliced medium of the worldwide web exploited to disseminate messages of hate and terror. No doubt there has to be a check on such flagrant abuse of the internet and the many services that an increasingly large number of people are availing electronically. But while we welcome the government’s decision to crack down on cyber crime, this paper reiterates its stance that the death penalty should have no place on the statute books. A human being has no right to take another person’s life, irrespective of the barbarity of the crime committed. To do so would involve extreme hubris and almost God-like powers to which none of us are entitled. At the same time, while the Prevention of Electronic Crimes law does address specific concerns, and rightly so, it also opens up a huge grey area called ‘national security’. Anyone of political bent knows all too well how national security and national interest can be construed to fit the interests of the ruling party. Taken to an extreme, the new law can be used to collar even bloggers who are opposed to the government’s policies. Precise definition is needed here
if throttling freedom of expression is not what the government intends. Given her background as a former journalist of some repute, the current minister for information knows full well how rulers abuse laws and suppress dissent. This must not be allowed to happen in a democratic dispensation.
We support the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in its criticism of the death penalty for cyber crimes. Who gets to define what a ‘cyber terrorist’ really is? Should we put to death a person who mouths off in the heat of the moment only to regret it in the cold light of day? Should we execute impressionable teenagers who may have been misguided by the hate-mongers among us? And do we really have enough confidence in the investigation procedures of the police in this country to put to death a person who may have confessed to a crime under duress? Torture is routine in Pakistan, everyone knows that. Yet there are people who believe in an eye for an eye, even when they are unsure if the accused is really guilty. The prime minister has said on a number of occasions that the death penalty should be abolished. He should live up to his word. Besides saving lives, the move will only improve Pakistan’s battered image in the comity of nations.
WORKING women all over the country must be relieved by the federal cabinet’s approval of the ‘Protection from Harassment at Workplace Act’ and hoping for the quick enactment of the law. Women and men are both victims of harassment at the workplace but for women it is generally more distressing as it is often of a sexual nature. Unfortunately, in a conservative set-up — and that too one with horrendously antiquated values — such as ours, women are often blamed for attracting unwanted attention. That is one of the reasons why many women are reluctant to talk about being sexually harassed by male colleagues who are confident that, fearing for their reputation, the victims will not complain to a higher authority. In fact, there is little confidence in the higher authority itself since many bosses often choose to summarily dismiss complaints of sexual harassment in the belief that women are the source of all such trouble at the workplace. All too often the boss himself is the perpetrator leaving the victim practically no one to turn to and in fear of losing her job if she seeks redress.
Legislation will certainly help to protect vulnerable working women, but we need to go beyond that if sexual harassment is to be effectively dealt with at all levels. Efforts towards this goal involve changing society’s outlook on women and accepting the latter as individuals in their own right. It means discarding a whole mindset that on one hand sees women in the mould of mothers, sisters and daughters and on the other as sex objects. This is a tall order considering that we still carry anti-women laws in our statute books and our heads of state are prone to projecting sexism and bias against women. Former President Pervez Musharraf’s famous theory that women got themselves raped in order to get a foreign visa is a case in point. So if change is to take effect, it will have to begin in the corridors of power and trickle down to institutions such as the police which need to be sensitised to women’s issues, including sexual harassment at the workplace. These are measures that are necessary not only for eliminating workplace harassment but also for instilling confidence among women that their complaint will be heard and action will be taken against those persecuting them. Without the government’s active support in the matter, the intended law will not achieve its purpose.
IT is unfortunate that our parliamentary politics leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to debate and discussion with stakeholders prior to the passage of a bill. This is a factor in the government’s disregard of key concerns in the draft of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. The bill has been approved by the Senate and there are fears, articulated strongly by the Workers-Employers Bilateral Council of Pakistan (Webcop), that it will impede progress on labour issues if it assumes the shape of a law without the revision of its contents. Among the most significant objections to the draft — that as law is intended to promote industrial peace — is that it is based on the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969. The latter was replaced in 2002 by a new IRO that had been extensively discussed by all stakeholders, but which, in its final form, caused anger as it did not incorporate some vital recommendations. However, it was an improvement on the previous law which in many ways is obsolete in its applicability to labour conditions today. The demand now is for amending the 2002 ordinance and not altogether replacing it.
There is much sense in this for the 2002 ordinance, with all its faults, is more in step with the times than its predecessor. In this regard, a drastic revision of the 2008 draft could correct the current law’s shortcomings, for instance, by bringing into its ambit all public sector organisations with the exception of the police and armed forces as suggested by Webcop. At present, the new draft does not do this. Similarly, there are provisions in the IRO-2002 which need to be retained in the new law. For instance, a clause regarding the cancellation of the registration of a trade union in IRO-2002 has been deleted in the draft. While there are many other items that need correction, perhaps the overriding concern is the lack of consultation with experts that has shown up glaringly in the new text. It is important to have a thorough debate in parliament about the upcoming law and equally essential for this to be guided by expert opinion.
Money really is fungible
The New York Times
JUST weeks after the Treasury Department gave nine of the nation’s top banks $125bn in taxpayer dollars to save them from unprecedented calamity, bank executives are salting money away in billionaire bonus pools to reward themselves for their performance.
Outraged? The bankers (who didn’t anticipate the sub-prime crisis) were ready for that. So they are assuring everyone that this self-directed largesse won’t be paid with the same dollars they got from taxpayers. They’ll use other ones.
What we want to know is will they be marking the bills so they can be sure which is which?
Unfortunately, the legislation that created the $700bn rescue fund barely touched on the problem of executive compensation — limiting bonuses only when they are found to have been based on inaccurate statements of earnings or when they are deemed to encourage bankers to take “unnecessary and excessive risks.” The new Congress should impose tighter limits on executive pay at banks taking taxpayer money.
Meanwhile, other ways should be explored to recover undue rewards. New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, sent a letter last week to all of the banks that got money from the Treasury Department asking for information about their bonus pools. He already has used laws on fraudulent payments to convince the American International Group, the insurance giant, to suspend some bonuses.
Banks cannot simply do away with all bonuses for past performance. Many are cooked into contractual agreements. And they are shrinking anyway. The New York State Assembly (which depends on Wall Street payouts for tax revenue) forecast that financial-industry bonuses would fall 41 per cent, on average….
This isn’t just an issue of fairness; it’s sound business practice. It is past time that banks — which turn to the taxpayers for help when they get in trouble — institute a system of incentives that aligns rewards with long-term success. It’s about tempering bankers’ intemperate appetite for risk, which has led this country into the most desperate financial crisis since the 1930s.
The new Congress should take up this issue. For starters, it should tighten limits on executive compensation for bankers who have taken taxpayer money…. All financial institutions must review their compensation practices. They must do away with a system of rewards that encourages bankers to throw away all caution in pursuit of short-term profits — leaving shareholders and taxpayers holding the empty bag. — (Nov 8)
Unfortunately most of the developing countries find themselves at the receiving end of the knowledge economy and are simply consumers of knowledge. To alter this reality and move on to the path of sustainable development is the role of research, which alone can generate new knowledge. In Pakistan the picture of genuine indigenous research is dismal. It is hardly comparable to international standards.
In the post 9/11 scenario when a lot of funding was given to Pakistan to improve our education, the Higher Education Commission embarked on a number of initiatives and generously funded them. One such initiative was to broaden the base of PhDs in the hope that these scholars would create new knowledge through their research and that they would help in the process of sustainable development. The HEC generously funded universities where HEC scholars were enrolled. This included money for tuition fees, reference books, software, lab materials, etc. Besides money given directly to the relevant universities, the concerned scholar was given a monthly stipend and his supervisor received Rs5000 monthly as a supervision fee.
A number of universities found this an appropriate time to launch MPhil/PhD programmes. The impression created was that they were in line with the HEC’s desire to produce more PhDs. But their real objective was to enhance their income under the head of tuition fees, books allowance and supervisors’ stipends. A large number of universities were not qualified to offer research degrees for the simple reason that they did not have the requisite resources in terms of faculty, library, infrastructure, etc.
The HEC set minimum criteria for PhD programmes but allowed some flexibility within the guidelines provided. For instance, an HEC rule says that to start a PhD programme in a department you have to have three PhDs. The next sentence in this rule reads, “However, in extraordinary cases, even one PhD teacher could start a PhD programme if justified properly and approved by HEC.” A number of university departments fulfilled the given criteria on paper and hastily started the programmes. In the absence of a quality-check mechanism at the university level we see a mockery of research programmes at different places.
In response to my last article, ‘Education in futility’ (Oct 27), I received some revealing emails from MPhil/PhD students from various public and private universities. I shall quote from only two of them. One PhD student writes, “We were not taught research methodology. Rather we were dictated research [sic] just like kids in a primary school. There were no research seminars throughout the coursework. No latest books were available in the library on applied linguistics.”
Another student studying for a MPhil leading to a PhD programme in a public university commented, “Being a student of 2nd semester of MPhil and having 3.7 GPA in 1st semester [sic], I should be aware of the research methodologies, research designs, research models, etc. but, honestly speaking, I don’t know even the A, B, C of research.” These are just two emails which can help us guess what is happening in other universities. In most of the universities there are no sound courses on research methodology and the scholars are at a loss to understand the rationale of a research paradigm.
In some universities educational research is another name for quantitative research. Consequently some self-styled researchers offer their services to analyse data with the help of stereotype t-tests, chi-square tests, etc. Even in the humanities and social sciences, qualitative research is still out of bounds in many universities.
Most universities only fulfil on paper the HEC criteria for offering a programme. A large number of students are enrolled in the absence of requisite resources without any rigorous academic process and evaluation. Certain universities are engaged in admitting candidates every semester. The ultimate result is a heavy backlog of students who are stuck in the research phase and are groping in the dark.
One basic reason for this situation is the absence of qualified supervisors in the concerned universities. The universities need to plan the research supervision schedule at the time of admission but on the contrary students are taught courses with the help of visiting faculty and are left unattended at the research phase. The HEC has allowed MPhil students to complete 30 credit hours and transfer to a PhD programme without even writing a research dissertation. Some obtain an MPhil without even writing a research thesis. They are allowed to complete their degree just by completing the required credit hours.
Some of the HEC approved supervisors have eight students attached to them. The university takes advantage of the flexibility in the HEC rule which reads, “The maximum number of PhD students under the supervision of a full-time faculty member will normally be five which may be increased to eight under special circumstances in teaching departments.” Having a large number of students under the pretext of ‘special circumstances’ fetches handsome sums of money for the supervisors — Rs5000 a month for each student.
But the quality of supervision is bound to deteriorate. Is it humanly possible for a supervisor to properly guide eight PhD scholars while performing his administrative and teaching functions? This is something that needs to be looked into.
The HEC has set up a quality assurance cell and its teams visit different universities. But the responsibility lies mainly with the concerned education institution to maintain its standards. If it is not serious about the quality of its programmes no external agency can bring about a change. In this process of maximisation of profits by the universities — through offering substandard MPhil/PhD programmes — the students are the ultimate losers. In some cases the students are not even aware of the repercussions of enrolling themselves in a substandard research programme. It amounts to wasting their time, energy and efforts.
The students need to be more proactive. It’s the students’ awareness and active participation in decision-making that can prompt the universities to develop rigorous and reliable academic audit systems and revamp their research degree programmes.
The writer is director, Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences, Lahore School of Economics, and author of Rethinking Education in Pakistan.
shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.com
Rush Limbaugh, behemoth of rightwing radio, took to the airwaves to declare war on two enemies: Barack Obama and the Republican party. Bloggers at FreeRepublic.com, an internet hub for conservatives, announced a boycott of Fox News and John McCain’s aides fell over one another to leak embarrassing details about the campaign to the press.
Liberals, indulging in what the writer Andrew Sullivan termed “Palinfreude”, were presented with a smorgasbord, ranging from the tale of how McCain’s pro-Palin foreign policy adviser had his Blackberry confiscated in the closing days of the race, to how the party had paid for Todd Palin’s silk boxer shorts.
The fighting consuming the McCain and Palin camps threatened to derail broader efforts to overhaul the Republican party after Tuesday’s decisive defeat, for which some insiders blamed Sarah Palin. Veterans of the right gathered in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, for a summit on the movement’s future, but even as they did so, the blame went on.
John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist, said he had received multiple calls from campaign aides wanting “to use me as a conduit for their complaints”.
“Some on the McCain campaign staff seem more eager than most to settle scores,” he noted.
The main ammunition in the war was a lengthening list of allegations against Palin: that she thought Africa was a country; that she failed to inform the campaign about a scheduled call with Nicolas Sarkozy which turned out to be a prank; that she refused to undergo coaching prior to her disastrous interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric; that she couldn’t name the three countries in the North America Free Trade Agreement; and that the party had spent up to $70,000 on “wardrobe items” for Palin and “luxury goods” for her husband, in addition to the $150,000 already reported. (Some of the claims were revealed by Fox, hence the boycott.)
The New York Times reported that when Palin met McCain in Phoenix on Tuesday night, she held the text of a speech she planned to deliver, in defiance of campaign convention, and had to be overruled. The attacks are partly ideological.
— The Guardian, London
