Editor,
I congratulate Albert Thyrniang for his enlightening article, “Against provincialisation of schools,” (ST July 30, 2013) which suggests that the Deficit System has worked well for Meghalaya. This is an undeniable fact that Deficit Institutions from lower primary to college level outperform their counterparts run by Government. Provinc-ialisation of educational institutions will not improve the educational scenario in the State; rather it will bring down the quality of education. In recent times, the State Government has spoken on the importance of private-public-partnership (PPP) mode for quality service delivery in education. The Deficit System is precisely that! If the Government is serious in ushering quality education in the State, it should improve upon the present Deficit System by ensuring timely and regular payment of teachers’ salary and extension of pension and other benefits to them to avoid wastage of energy and time spent by teachers in agitations and also the loss to students as a result of such agitation. The Government should start rewarding the performers instead of pampering its easy going employees. It is a fact that some government schools do perform, but it is again an indisputable fact that at the college level, the performance of Government Colleges leaves much to be desired. How many of us can take glory for graduating from Government Colleges? However, by stating this I do not mean to say that deficit educational institutions have reached their peak as far as room for improvement is concerned. For optimum human resource development in the State, we need more deficit institutions with emphasis on science, professional and technical education.
Yours etc.,
Batskhem Myrboh,
Via email
The ILP dilemma
Editor,
Apropos of Mr Aubrey Scott Lyngdoh’s observations on the MPF’s statement on the question of extension of the ILP system to the State of Meghalaya (ST, Aug. 13), since the writer has sought a point-by-point clarification on the matter, I wish to state as under:
1. The crux of the statement is our (that is, MPF’s) emphasis that since the current Chief Minister, Dr. Mukul Sangma, had initiated the constitution of the High Level Committee (HLC) on influx under the chairmanship of Mr Bindo M. Lanong, Dy. CM, in 2012 and that the HLC had, in the course of its report, recommended the implementation of the ILP system in Meghalaya , it is only fair, logical and natural for us to expect that the Cabinet under his stewardship should have taken up the report for its consideration . Instead, the CM has been making a series of statements on the ILP without having bothered to table the report before the cabinet to elicit the views of its members, thereby violating the fundamental principle of collective responsibility on which the success of parliamentary democracy hinges. It is entirely up to the cabinet to either accept or reject the report either wholly or partly. But how does the CM take a view on the issue without studying the report and engaging with his colleagues in the ministry and parliamentary party?
2. The reference to the T. H. Rangad Report on the ILP seems out of place in this context. However, to put the records straight, I have at no point in my capacity as the then KSU President endorsed the official stand of the then Government, of which Bah Thranghok Rangad was Home Minister, to oppose the ILP system. The report under reference was never put up to leaders of the NGOs for their concurrence and appears to only reflect the stand of the then Govt in the face of the agitation against illegal immigration.
3. Even presuming that we had opposed the ILP then, what bars us as elected representatives from revisiting the issue years later given the changing dynamics and circumstances? Bah Scott himself was a staunch votary of regional parties until he became a dyed in the wool Congressman!
4. More importantly, the MPF reaffirms that Govt must take a call on the strident demand for resolving the influx imbroglio and the ostrich-like attitude of the current ruling dispensation is not helping matters. If ILP is not considered a viable formula, let this Govt propose a workable alternative to it. Mouthing cliches like, ” We have the Foreigners Act and the Land Transfer Act” or, “We will empower the Traditional Institutions” does not inspire confidence any longer!
5. The special session as demanded by the MPF would have afforded members of the legislature sufficient space for a comprehensive debate on the entire gamut of issues relating to influx, more particularly the desirability or otherwise of adopting ILP as a control mechanism. By jettisoning the proposal, Dr. Sangma has unwittingly conveyed the impression that he would rather have the matter resolved in the boulevards of Motphran rather than the floor of the Assembly, from where laws are supposed to originate!
Yours etc.,
Paul Lyngdoh,
MLA & Spokesperson, United Democratic Party ( UDP)