"Academics should not be intimidated by Dr Reddy's narrow and outdated notion that they should restrict themselves to what they are qualified in, or to their research areas. There is no evidence from reading the Reform of the Sugar Cane Industry Bills currently before Parliament that Dr Reddy has had any influence on them with his research background on the economics of the industry." - Dakuvula
Dakuvula I disagree with Dr Mahendra Reddy's narrow idea of "intellectual" (FT 5/6) and allegation of the lack of critical academic analysis of government policies at our universities.
I believe most academics at universities fear losing their jobs if they comment in the news media on contentious issues.
Maybe Dr Reddy should consider the political environment his Government has created since 2009 and what it could do to encourage the publication of more informed and critical comments on current issues from our universities.
Academics will not comment on domestic issues because they believe it will not lead to any positive changes in government policies.
Professor Biman Prasad's usually well-informed speeches in Parliament are never accepted by the Government.
Dr Reddy thinks academic economists should not write about political institutions and theories. I have appreciated articles by economists such as Prof Narsey and a few others in The Fiji Times that link politics, economics and social issues because they have been informative.
Intellectuals should range widely if they comment in the news media.
Academics should not be intimidated by Dr Reddy's narrow and outdated notion that they should restrict themselves to what they are qualified in, or to their research areas.
Dr Reddy, in early 2000 as an academic economist and researcher at USP, published some very informative papers on the sugar industry with Dr Padma Lal.
I learnt a lot from these papers and considered them useful information for policymakers. Unfortunately, I do not think policymakers ever read them.
There is no evidence from reading the Reform of the Sugar Cane Industry Bills currently before Parliament that Dr Reddy has had any influence on them with his research background on the economics of the industry.
Given that, he should not be telling academics to stick to their specialist areas.
All issues are inter-related nowadays and being able to comment intelligently on any subject is the mark of a genuinely free society. Source: Letters to the Editor, Fiji Times, 12 June 2016
I believe most academics at universities fear losing their jobs if they comment in the news media on contentious issues.
Maybe Dr Reddy should consider the political environment his Government has created since 2009 and what it could do to encourage the publication of more informed and critical comments on current issues from our universities.
Academics will not comment on domestic issues because they believe it will not lead to any positive changes in government policies.
Professor Biman Prasad's usually well-informed speeches in Parliament are never accepted by the Government.
Dr Reddy thinks academic economists should not write about political institutions and theories. I have appreciated articles by economists such as Prof Narsey and a few others in The Fiji Times that link politics, economics and social issues because they have been informative.
Intellectuals should range widely if they comment in the news media.
Academics should not be intimidated by Dr Reddy's narrow and outdated notion that they should restrict themselves to what they are qualified in, or to their research areas.
Dr Reddy, in early 2000 as an academic economist and researcher at USP, published some very informative papers on the sugar industry with Dr Padma Lal.
I learnt a lot from these papers and considered them useful information for policymakers. Unfortunately, I do not think policymakers ever read them.
There is no evidence from reading the Reform of the Sugar Cane Industry Bills currently before Parliament that Dr Reddy has had any influence on them with his research background on the economics of the industry.
Given that, he should not be telling academics to stick to their specialist areas.
All issues are inter-related nowadays and being able to comment intelligently on any subject is the mark of a genuinely free society. Source: Letters to the Editor, Fiji Times, 12 June 2016
Mahendra Reddy followed Mahendra Chaudhry's footprints; joined Bainimarama regime and is now his FijiFirst Party Cabinet Minister - forgets what he and Biman Prasad warned FLP leader before the coup:
"One of the mystifying aspects of Commander Bainimarama is his strong advocacy of the rule of law when it comes to prosecuting those who instigated the 2000 coups, but his apparent willingness to contemplate RFMF illegal action to remove the current government if it fails to meet his expectations. Leadership of the opposition FLP seems to have a similarly relativist approach. The FLP President, Mrs. Koroi, openly admitted to Fiji TV during the civil-military crisis in January that she would find it acceptable for the RFMF to remove the Qarase government and replace it with the pre-2000 Chaudhry government, to restore the previous status quo. Chaudhry publicly backed away from Mrs. Koroi's statement at the time; but privately he seemed to imply to the Ambassador and Krawitz that it might be justifiable for the RFMF to remove the Qarase government and install an interim replacement, pending fair elections." US ambassador Larry Dinger to Washington, Wikileaks
 |  |
 |  |
