Wednesday, May 22, 2013
English language instruction in public schools: A good idea
The following opinion piece was published in Republica today, 22 May 2013, with the title "English Vinglish".
English language instruction in public schools: A good idea
My father teaches in Pokhariya Higher Secondary School, one of the many public schools in Biratnagar. Beginning this academic session, the school is planning to have separate sections in which all subjects, except Nepali of course, will be instructed in English. Those who wish to be instructed in English are being encouraged to join, with additional fees charged for the luxury. This novel approach is being tried out not only in Pokhariya but in many government-run public schools across the country.
The obvious question, then, is whether this is necessary. Government run public schools have always used Nepali language as the medium of instruction. Is instruction in English going to change anything, for better or worse? Will learning everything in English improve the grades of public school students? Or is this only a fad that will fizzle out over the next few years? There are questions aplenty, but no precedent to fall back on for answers. I do not know what the result of this experimentation is going to be. However, I believe this is an excellent idea that will revolutionize our education system.
Many of us still remember how the world panicked over Y2K crisis as the year 2000 approached. In order to avert the crisis, all computer programs in the world would have to be fixed to make sure important financial and economic software installed in those computers did not go haywire once the year 2000 started. So, the world needed computer engineers and programmers on a massive scale. Both China and India had those in large numbers, but most companies and businesses in the world used Indian computer firms and engineers to get their problems fixed. Was that because Chinese software engineers and programmers were less adept? No. The world came to India because Indian engineers had an advantage over Chinese engineers: English language, in which the Indians were fluent and the Chinese were not.
We sit between those two economic powerhouses—China and India. By 2020, around 40 percent Chinese are expected to be in the middle-class, and over 700 million have been lifted out of poverty so far. India still has some way to go to attain the level of growth that China has experienced. But it has also grown spectacularly since liberalizing its economy in the 1990s. Millions have been lifted out of poverty, and India’s middle-class today boasts a population larger than the entire population of the United States.
China has grown on the basis of its manufacturing prowess because of an abundance of cheap labor and great economic leadership of its rulers, especially that of Deng Xiaoping. However, the history of previous economic powerhouses of North America and Europe shows us that manufacturing growth does not last long. In order to create a sustainable economy that keeps growing, it is important to make sure that the workforce transforms itself from low-skilled to high-skilled. That looks more likely in India than in China. India’s economic growth has been led by high-skilled sectors like IT and R&D. A workforce with good English skills has meant that demand for high-skilled work has kept coming to India.
It would be naïve to imagine Nepal growing as fast and as far as India if we can somehow become more fluent in English. That is not my contention. However, the world has become smaller with the workforce of today not constrained within a nation’s boundaries. We need not look far. Hundreds of thousands of Nepalis leave each year to work overseas. We have migrated to work in Dubai, Qatar, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, India and many other countries. None of these countries speak the same language, but most understand English.
However, most Nepalis who go to work in these countries know neither English nor the local language of the host country. This creates problems for Nepali workers ranging from something as harmless as miscommunication to as serious as outright exploitation. A lot of the problems that Nepali workers face overseas could be reduced if we knew English. We need to realize that English is not just another language we can learn, but an important tool that can empower Nepali workers in the global job market.
Because of their British legacy, and because their natives speak thousands of languages, Indians have resorted to English as a means of communication even among themselves. This knowledge of English language has helped Indian workers go everywhere, from North America to Europe to Africa, and succeed as laborers or businesspeople. Other countries such as Poland and Ireland, where a significant population has command over English, have been able to grow not only because of their own domestic economic demand but also because of outsourcing of jobs and demand from other English speaking countries. Even in Nepal, most students from English-medium schools find better opportunities, whether in going abroad for studies or in getting a job within Nepal. English is no longer a language but a required ‘qualification’ in getting good jobs in today’s Nepal.
The experiment that has started in public schools is in the best interest of the country. I do not believe that instructions in English will make students any smarter than if they are instructed in Nepali language. However, English is a dominant language spoken and understood in almost every country in the world. Nepali workers of today have been competing in the world marketplace for jobs. English language instruction in all our schools—public and private—is a worthy cause because being able to read, write and speak English has become a very important skill that a ‘global worker’ of today and the future needs to possess.
Labels: English, instruction, nepal, public schools
Friday, May 10, 2013
Does Nepali bureaucracy not want elections?
On March 25, 2013 Republica's opinion columnist CK Lal wrote an opinion piece titled "The system triumphs (click for direct link to the piece)" in which he accused the Nepali bureaucracy of not wanting elections. I disagreed with Mr Lal's views, and wrote the following opinion piece published in Republica on May 2, 2013. The direct link is here.
Critics of the newly formed interim council were quick to attack the council for being slow and not striving harder to hold elections in June. The current state of discussions suggests that it will most likely happen in November. In addition, some opinion makers were quick to blame state bureaucrats of being happy with current status quo, and accused them of trying to postpone elections for as long as they can. The implicit suggestion was that local bureaucrats tend to benefit significantly in absence of elected officials. The dread created amongst political activists in Tarai-Madhesh has been cited as an example of how this bureaucratic status quo results in despondency in the system. However, not many have actually bothered to ask the bureaucrats how they feel.
The fact that a status quo situation with no elections stands to benefit a handful of corrupt bureaucrats does not mean the entire bureaucracy is hell-bent on ensuring the postponement of elections. In the past few months, I have had opportunities to observe local and national level bureaucrats speak their opinions on popular public and political perception of Nepali bureaucracy. Contrary to popular belief, the bureaucrats stressed that they want elections just as badly as everyone else. They want local elections to be held before national elections. And many of us thought that they were happy with their current hold on power—handling local level duties of 22 different ministries and 58 different elected officials.
The perception of local bureaucracy being mired in corruption stems from a number of instances of corruption that have occurred and been reported. However, local bureaucrats suggest that transparency and accountability in municipal or VDC level governments is much higher when compared to other line agencies of Nepali government. Therefore, when local bureaucracy honestly reports and disseminates its transparency and accountability findings, Nepali media is quick to pounce on the few ‘negative’ instances in the overall transparent and accountable governance scenario. In other words, much of the perception about corruption in local bureaucracy is a creation of the media, according to local bureaucrats.
Although Nepali bureaucracy, especially VDCs and municipalities, get bad press for occasional instances of corruption, their role in keeping the country functioning during the absence of stable political government has to be lauded. Local elections have not happened in over 14 years, and elected representatives in local bodies have been absent for over 10 years now. In this entire duration, the fact that Nepali state has been functioning, and Nepal has not become a failed state, is a miracle with much credit going to our well oiled bureaucracy.
While accusing the local bureaucracy of mismanagement in decision-making, we have to take into account three kinds of pressures that local bureaucrats have to bear. First, decision-making in local level has to be done in a manner that appeases all sections of local society. Therefore, whether a VDC secretary or municipal executive officer likes it or not, he/she has to seek suggestions from local political actors while making decisions on complex problems. Any complex decision has to be taken with a political buy-in from all local political actors from all parties to ensure that they help in containing any possible public outburst against such decisions.
Second, although all party mechanism (APM) has been officially disbanded by the Nepali government, it still operates as the de-facto decision-making body in the local level. Earlier, when the APMs were created, they only had members from seven different political parties. Therefore, it was easier to come to a consensus in decision-making. However, the de-facto APMs of today consist of dozens of political parties—large and small—which has made decision-making very difficult in local government. Since each party wants a share of the pie, decision-making at local level has been obstructed incessantly in recent times, and productivity of local bureaucrats has fallen due to this obstruction.
Third, when the de-facto APM comes to a consensus and takes a decision, it is the local bureaucrat who has to take ‘ownership’ of that decision and abide by it, because the APM does not ‘technically’ exist in the eye of the law or national government. When questions are raised by activists and media about how budgets are allocated and how projects are undertaken, VDC secretaries and municipal executive officers are thrown under the bus by these de-facto APMs who do not come to the bureaucrats’ assistance in defending those allocations and undertakings.
It is very easy to accuse the entire bureaucracy of being corrupt and opposed to elections. However, the ground realities and interactions with local and national level bureaucrats provide a different understanding. Contrary to popular belief, local bureaucrats recognize that politics of opposition is necessary to make local decision-making process more transparent and accountable. They also realize that bureaucracy is an apolitical mechanism, and that is how it should be. Therefore, they demand local elections as much as the public. It’s just that nobody has been listening to what they have to say, because opinion makers are preoccupied with their own biases and opinions on how much the Nepali bureaucracy opposes elections.
Clearing the air
by: Mukesh Khanal
Critics of the newly formed interim council were quick to attack the council for being slow and not striving harder to hold elections in June. The current state of discussions suggests that it will most likely happen in November. In addition, some opinion makers were quick to blame state bureaucrats of being happy with current status quo, and accused them of trying to postpone elections for as long as they can. The implicit suggestion was that local bureaucrats tend to benefit significantly in absence of elected officials. The dread created amongst political activists in Tarai-Madhesh has been cited as an example of how this bureaucratic status quo results in despondency in the system. However, not many have actually bothered to ask the bureaucrats how they feel.
The fact that a status quo situation with no elections stands to benefit a handful of corrupt bureaucrats does not mean the entire bureaucracy is hell-bent on ensuring the postponement of elections. In the past few months, I have had opportunities to observe local and national level bureaucrats speak their opinions on popular public and political perception of Nepali bureaucracy. Contrary to popular belief, the bureaucrats stressed that they want elections just as badly as everyone else. They want local elections to be held before national elections. And many of us thought that they were happy with their current hold on power—handling local level duties of 22 different ministries and 58 different elected officials.
The perception of local bureaucracy being mired in corruption stems from a number of instances of corruption that have occurred and been reported. However, local bureaucrats suggest that transparency and accountability in municipal or VDC level governments is much higher when compared to other line agencies of Nepali government. Therefore, when local bureaucracy honestly reports and disseminates its transparency and accountability findings, Nepali media is quick to pounce on the few ‘negative’ instances in the overall transparent and accountable governance scenario. In other words, much of the perception about corruption in local bureaucracy is a creation of the media, according to local bureaucrats.
Although Nepali bureaucracy, especially VDCs and municipalities, get bad press for occasional instances of corruption, their role in keeping the country functioning during the absence of stable political government has to be lauded. Local elections have not happened in over 14 years, and elected representatives in local bodies have been absent for over 10 years now. In this entire duration, the fact that Nepali state has been functioning, and Nepal has not become a failed state, is a miracle with much credit going to our well oiled bureaucracy.
While accusing the local bureaucracy of mismanagement in decision-making, we have to take into account three kinds of pressures that local bureaucrats have to bear. First, decision-making in local level has to be done in a manner that appeases all sections of local society. Therefore, whether a VDC secretary or municipal executive officer likes it or not, he/she has to seek suggestions from local political actors while making decisions on complex problems. Any complex decision has to be taken with a political buy-in from all local political actors from all parties to ensure that they help in containing any possible public outburst against such decisions.
Second, although all party mechanism (APM) has been officially disbanded by the Nepali government, it still operates as the de-facto decision-making body in the local level. Earlier, when the APMs were created, they only had members from seven different political parties. Therefore, it was easier to come to a consensus in decision-making. However, the de-facto APMs of today consist of dozens of political parties—large and small—which has made decision-making very difficult in local government. Since each party wants a share of the pie, decision-making at local level has been obstructed incessantly in recent times, and productivity of local bureaucrats has fallen due to this obstruction.
Third, when the de-facto APM comes to a consensus and takes a decision, it is the local bureaucrat who has to take ‘ownership’ of that decision and abide by it, because the APM does not ‘technically’ exist in the eye of the law or national government. When questions are raised by activists and media about how budgets are allocated and how projects are undertaken, VDC secretaries and municipal executive officers are thrown under the bus by these de-facto APMs who do not come to the bureaucrats’ assistance in defending those allocations and undertakings.
It is very easy to accuse the entire bureaucracy of being corrupt and opposed to elections. However, the ground realities and interactions with local and national level bureaucrats provide a different understanding. Contrary to popular belief, local bureaucrats recognize that politics of opposition is necessary to make local decision-making process more transparent and accountable. They also realize that bureaucracy is an apolitical mechanism, and that is how it should be. Therefore, they demand local elections as much as the public. It’s just that nobody has been listening to what they have to say, because opinion makers are preoccupied with their own biases and opinions on how much the Nepali bureaucracy opposes elections.
Labels: bureaucracy, election, local government, nepal
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
