|
Students’ loans: Are we building a culture of solving problems by crisis?
2006-09-25 08:47:21
By Rayner Ngonji
First year students of the University of Dar es Salaam last week staged a class boycott in protest at hicked food prices against the University cafeteria and what they termed as a discriminatory system of granting loans to students at higher learning institutions.
This is not the first time students are demonstrating to demand their rights.
There have been similar incidents virtually at the start of each academic year.
Ordinarily a child is nurtured in a loving atmosphere in expectation that the same attitude will be cultivated in the young mind, laying the foundation for one to become a good citizen in future.
It’s against this background that when one is well cared for, comforted and whatever is demanded for genuine need is affectionately given, the young mind develps in a balanced way.
But we don’t really know at what point one ends being a child and ceases to require affection in order to know what is right and what is wrong.
We remain children all the time for certain things, but otherwise we become adults at some age, to be allowed to marry or to vote, etc.
Whereas in some cases a child is regarded as having become an adult at the age of 18, some legal statutes state that a girl aged 16 is allowed to marry provided she gets the cansent of her parents.
Whatever the situation a child remains a child until he reaches an age to fend for himself. So he deserves to obtain from society or parents all rights relating to the state of being a child.
When you treat a child differently the society not only won’t understand your action but also you will be creating hard feelings that tend to also, in the mind of the child.
Child behaviour experts say that children’s memory is intense and continually active. It has an ability to capture and store up an event for as long as five years.
Recent incidents at the University of Dar es Salaam where students were treated contrary to their rights were deplorable.
First year students at the Main campus staged a class boycott in protest against their colleagues being dropped from the Higher Learning Students Loarn Board (HLSB) list of beneficiaries.
They were joined by all others the following day who in solidarity came out to support their colleagues, adding fresh demands for an improvement in the provision of key social amenities via the loans.
The government turned down those demands, in which case some students left the campus for failure to raise tuition fees and other expenses, taking account notably of hiked prices of food at the Hill cafeteria.
The students described the system of granting loans to higher learning students as discriminatory, and it favours the rich.
That students are supposed to be attended to in the right manner and get their problems solved in the most appropriate way possible is clear to all.
Officials responsible to solve those problems are paid for by public revenue, poor people\’s taxes. The students\’ complaints in relation to their being able to study at the Hill are supposed to be solved, that solutions are sought.
Applying threats and dismissing basic complaints doesn\’t solve the problems but worsens the situation.
The students are not employed persons. The meagre allowances they get through the loans are mostly inadequate to meet all the costs each of them must incur.
Yet, somebody somewhere who has managed to secure a tender to prepare meals for students decides to raise prices once there is a chance that amounts disbursed are being raised. To many people it sounds incredible.
In whose interest is that kind of move effected? Since the students are penniless, they depend for everything on their sponsors’ contribution which doesn’t suffice the needs. From where will they get the money for the overpriced food and other items?
By raising prices and making food out of reach for many, or irregular, are we supporting them in their quest for education or ’fixing’ them for personal gain by those who hold the tender?
Some of the issues raised by the students during their two-day strike seem to be genuine. Reports have it that there is an acute shortage of accommodation, lecture rooms and what have you.
Lecturers who accepted to comment on the issue on condition of anonymity were quoted describing the situation as ’horrible.’
A lecture room meant to accommodate 150 students now serves 600. Students have mostly to follow the lecturer from windows, without a chance even to enter the lecture room and stand up during the lecture.
What is supposed to be worked out here is to look for possible solutions and not offer threats and excuses.
The students decided to carry out the strike not just because they liked it but as a way of making the point plain and clear that the government wasn’t doing enough to solve those problems.
Experience shows that taking to to the streets in demand of something helps, for it puts responsible authorities in need of reinforcing their legitimacy to the public.
Even stripping naked is permissible under acute circumstances, like a group of NCCR-Mageuzi once did when the party was in a crisis, and faced the police.
However, the bad side of the practice is that we will reach a point where it is taken as normal to have to take to the streets, or strip naked, so that some official wakes up and act.
Making public complaints the only way to make officials move means that public administration has by and large failed in its objectives.
I think it’s time our leaders changed and worked on genuine problems instead of dragging them endlessly.
My concern is that if such attitude is left unchecked, we might end up building a culture of solving problems by crisis.
|
