SAITM issue : Towards a politically-managed middle path

While South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) undergoes the debate of ‘To be or not to be’, Deputy Minister of Mass Media and Parliamentary Affairs Karunarathna Paranawithana has proposed that we adopt the middle path to solve the problem.

“Have SAITM under the State university system as a fee-levying institution”, he said in an interview with Daily News, and explained that the situation needed to be ‘politically-managed’ soon, before it got out of control.

Excerpts follow:

Q. What do you think is the government’s current plan of action for SAITM?

A. The government has to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision. The medical council has appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal, so we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides on it. Until then, the government cannot take any decision. Those who are protesting against SAITM don’t seem to understand this.

The court will, however, only look at the procedural issues in this, but I believe that there are some policy issues which need to be sorted out first in this matter.

Q. What kind of policy issues?

A. There is polarization in society between the pro-SAITM group and the anti-SAITM group. Both ends propose extreme solutions which is not healthy. I personally believe that SAITM is a crooked entity which was started through the personal contacts Dr. Neville Fernando had with the previous regime. It was not properly established, and at present, its integrity has been challenged.

Such an institution should not exist. But on the other side, those who oppose SAITM do not want to resolve this issue. They want to take this fight on to the streets until finally, someone is killed. They want to topple the government by using this issue.

But I believe that we need an alternative solution to this problem. This is my solution: have SAITM absorbed into the state university system as a fee-levying institute. The best option, thus, would be to convert SAITM to the Medical Faculty of the Open University. The Open University is a government-owned fee-levying university; their law degree is offered on a fee-levying basis.

Student selection then can be done through the University Grants Commission (UGC). Those who do exceptionally well at their Advanced Level exam can be chosen on merit to other universities, those with minimum qualifications, but were not selected due to the district quota system, can go to this.

Those with minimum qualifications and can afford to pay can also go here.

Those who have been discriminated against as a result of the district quota system and cannot afford to pay, can have access to a government student loan scheme, which they can pay back once they start earning as doctors. I am sure they would all be able to pay it once they become doctors. Foreign students can also come to this university. This is the long term-answer. In the short term, you need to think of the students that are currently registered at SAITM. Contrary to what people say, most of them are qualified students, and they should be given the medical degree.

To get the license, they need to sit for a Medical Council exam, either the EPRM or any other exam specified by the Medical Council. We can also have required legal reforms to enable that. There is also an understanding that the clinical training of these graduates is a bit weak, thus the internship period can be extended to give them more time to practice. At present, the government medical colleges have the internship set at one year, for SAITM, we can have it increased to two. By adopting this alternative, we can solve this issue. We are not curtailing free education in this country, rather, we want to expand it. We can even introduce two other medical universities—one in Sabaragamuwa and the other in Wayamba.

We are also not cutting the proportion allocated for free education, and neither are we asking the people who have the minimum qualifications and the money, to go abroad to complete their studies. This will save valuable foreign exchange for the country while ensuring that the free education system continues.

The most serious problem with SAITM was the issue of standards and regulations, thus, when it is within the State university system, standards which all other universities follow can be applied to this and closely monitored.

Q. SAITM has been in existence since 2008, and consecutive governments, even the incumbent, have not really taken steps to solve the issue. Why do you think this is so?

A. Actually, there was no issue earlier because all groups concerned agreed with it. When it was first established, neither the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA), Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC), nor the students protested over it. All knew it was a crooked deal. When Kotalawala Defence University too, got a medical faculty, none opposed.

They were too scared to oppose then, but now, with the change in government, all these cardboard heroes have come forward to protest.

The other issue was that in this country, there was no coherent debate on the policy on higher education. In developed countries, education is not a commodity. If you take Oxford University or Harvard, University of London, Cambridge, you pay a lot to study, but they are not profit making, they are maintained by trusts. But if you take India, they started private medical colleges, and after many years, one of their Health Secretaries, Sujatha Rao, says that the biggest error committed by the Indian government since Independence was the privatization of medical education. So nowhere in the world can you see private medical colleges succeeding, once they are in tune with market forces.

On the other hand, there is also a certain myth that is being propagated under the name of free education, which is the Kannangara Education system. Under the Kannangara system, you can have fee-levying schools. But the students who protest have come to believe that an education system has to be completely free, and if not, it will cease to exist. This is a baseless argument.

The free education system was really started during the Dutch period; during the British, it expanded. It was given by force, parents who did not send their children to school were punished. But it was not a national education; it had no national goal.

Then, Kannangara introduced a national framework for education and opened up many free schools. But he did not suggest that all fee-levying schools should be closed. Schools such as St Thomas, St Joseph, Bishops College, Trinity College, etc. all remained. Thereafter, during Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s time, there was public acquisition of schools, but even then, around 40 odd schools remained under the control of private entities. Those schools, at the same time, are not profit making.

I do not say that only free education should exist in this country. We need fee-levying schools, but at the same time, education should not be turned into a commodity. There should be strict regulations by the government to monitor them.

Q. There are many private colleges in existence already, but why do you think there is so much opposition just for medical? We even have law degrees that are offered by private institutes, and a bad lawyer is just as dangerous.

A. Yes, those who oppose private medical, even the students are very much silent on other fronts.

The students do not oppose tuition classes, and many who have been selected to university have done so by attending multiple tuition classes. Once they get to university, many even take tuition classes to earn extra money. That is all private.

Then, some while obtaining a degree at a government university, go to private colleges to study their degrees like CIMA. That is the hypocrisy. But I believe this sector should be scrutinized and regulated. I am for fee-levying education, but my argument is that standards have to be maintained and regulated.

Q. Minister of Higher Education Lakshman Kiriella has said that they expect to introduce a system of monitoring quality for all universities soon. Do you think the problem would be solved after that?

A. No, that alone would not solve the issue. The issue of commodification of education would still persist. Market forces cannot determine the path of higher education.

Q. The government also wants to bring in other private medical colleges such as Manipal University to Sri Lanka. Do they hope that if SAITM works out, others too, can come in?

A. That is not advisable. Look what happened to India. I do not oppose private universities, bring them, but do not commodify education.

Q. Do you think there is also a fear that if SAITM is shut down, then you would close the door for all other private medical universities, and thus, there is a certain determination to make SAITM work?

A. No, we have many private universities in Sri Lanka already, but medical education is special because you cannot teach forensic medicine without forming certain links with the government.

It is the same with other countries. I do not think the medical profession is above all other professions, but medical education has certain unique features which make it necessary that it is highly regulated.

In this country, I recommend that medical education come under the state system, but whether it is offered free or not has to be decided. If it is fee-levying, others will also get the chance, so why do we need others to come in?

Q. But isn't the Minister of Higher Education saying he wants others to come in?

A. He says that, but they are all in the same old debate. Look at the current situation in Sri Lanka and study our history.

Q. Would you say this is a repetition of what happened with the North Colombo Medical College?

A. Yes, at that time too, the courts gave the judgement in favour of the North Colombo Medical College. The government could have been satisfied with that, but what happened after? It led to a big calamity, and many people died.

Q. So you think the government will have to take the same steps as before to manage SAITM?

A. No, I don’t think so but we have to politically manage this situation and come up with the alternative.

Q. If the government was to take over SAITM, will you have a lot of objection from people like Dr. Neville Fernando?

A. I don’t think so. He is already asking to nationalize the hospital. Why is that? Because they cannot run it. We can take the hospital as a public-private partnership hospital and can share the profit.

The faculty, however, can be taken over by the state, and relevant compensation given as it is a fee-levying university.

Q. If you take the example of the North Colombo Medical College once again, the founders of the institute later complained that the government never paid them their promised compensation. Would the same fear be here?

A. That cannot be accepted. They want the government to take over the hospital, but they still want to reap the profits off SAITM—that cannot be. By trying to continue with this crooked entity, they are trying to rob the country of its money. We cannot tolerate that; this would encourage others to practice in similar actions.

Q. Do the student groups who oppose this allege that the government is trying to protect SAITM?

A. Those students who are on the streets cannot understand the concept of free education. How can they understand what the government is doing? We want a just solution.

Q. Has the President appointed a committee to look into this?

A. Yes, that is to look into alternatives. If we already have a solution—if the answer is there—the President would not have to appoint a committee, so this shows that we clearly have a problem and need alternatives.

Q. As the Deputy Minister of Mass Media, do you think the government has a problem in not being able to communicate its stance to the protesters?

A. We actually don’t have an agreed stance. If you looked at the Parliamentary debate on it, some ministers argued in favour of the previous government’s SAITM formula, and then some came out and said this was completely wrong. Members such as I, have put forward this formula.

At the same time, some have kept silent on the matter while others have no opinion on it at all. So the discussions are going on.

There is no agreed solution, so we need to create a debate on the viable alternatives.

Q. Isn’t that the problem? No agreed stance?

A. Stances do not just appear, it has to be discussed. There needs to be a wider debate on this.

Q. Until that time, would many be carrying out their protests unhindered?

A. That is the nature of democracy.

Q. Do you think the students will accept such an alternative?

A. We cannot accept what the students say. Their concern is to protect free education, but they do not care whether there is social justice for all.

The opportunities for free education at present are limited, so what happens to the others? What kind of egalitarianism are they talking of?

Q. Do you also think these are politically motivated?

A. We are not afraid of those political forces; they do not have much power. It is very easy to organize protests in a close environment such as a university, and these students have very little social responsibility, so they are up for a protest.

But the students do have a concern, and that is to protect free education, and we are doing that.

We are now in touch with the students and are talking to them, but we will not tolerate any unlawful activity.