In the 70s, two measures of rice were given free to every household every fortnight, and there was a ration book that enabled this practice. People expected these two measures of rice as a right, and nobody thought there would be an end to this practice, as there was a strong sense of entitlement that free rice is god-given.
But such entitlements were justified on the basis that there were people who languished in poverty. Nobody ventured to ask why everybody including those in the relatively well off middle class expected these two measures as a right. They were happy about this ‘entitlement’ as the rest of their poorer brethren were.
Politics was rice-politics those days. It was about whether the two measures policy was to be discontinued or strengthened. But one fact was certain. People had got used to this freebie.
When J.R. Jayewardene promised to discontinue this freebie he had to promise that he would give the people eight varieties of grains instead. Such was the sense of entitlement that drove this desire for people to be fed by the Government of the day.
accomplishments
It was one of the most important accomplishments of J. R. Jayewardene that he managed to convince his Parliamentary group that the free rice policy should be discontinued.
He got rid of the pathetic looking ration books that were given to householders. But, importantly, there has been no demand for free rice ever since Jayewardene got rid of this odious freebie policy that fostered a ridiculous sense of entitlement.
There is no rice politics today, though occasionally there may be a joust among opponents about the price of rice in the open market. Nobody asks for free rice, and there is absolutely no sense of entitlement about receiving free food courtesy the Government.
Then, why is there a sense of entitlement about Government jobs — essentially freebie jobs — for striking undergraduates? Why is there a sense of entitlement about a university degree (also granted free) being the free-ticket to a Government job, with all its perks and fringe benefits that are taxpayer-funded?
Why has no Government done a J. R. and got rid of this policy of guaranteed Government jobs for undergraduates, including those who have degrees in so-called liberal Arts subjects that don’t equip them for productive employment in State or private establishments engaging in trade and commerce?
Governments have fostered a sense of entitlement to begin with, making free education seem a guaranteed cradle-to-grave entitlement to begin with. Come to think of it, there is no ‘seem’ about it as free education is an entitlement in this country.
But free education carries with it an entire sub-stratum of entitlement culture that begins and ends with politics. Students are trained to think that they are the crème de la creme because they get admission to a university, and then, they get through their campus years being told by politicians that they would be the backbone of the country’s economic growth.
If this is not a sense of entitlement, what is? On top of it, these students know that they are entitled to free healthcare courtesy the Government, and would be given priority when it comes to Government dwellings and others.
They are also used to this sense of entitlement passed down from generation to generation. These University students absolutely do believe that they are entitled to Government jobs that make them beneficiaries to a better than average salary, with perks and fringe benefits added in.
Having fostered this entitlement mentality, people in this country including the taxpayers wonder why there is no progress and economic growth despite the high educational standards.
The students have now taken to saying that if liberal Arts courses are useless degrees when it comes to trade, commerce and modern day requirements in the private or public sector, they should not have been enrolled for such degrees in the first place.
This writer doesn’t remember that there is any agreement signed at the point of enrollment to any university, for any degree program, promising a job once the student passes out with the requisite qualification. But unreasonable expectations are part of the narrative of entitlement. Of course, there ought to be a restructuring of university curricula.
But more than ever, there is a need to be firm about the fact that no jobs are guaranteed to undergraduates. As J. R. Jayewardene got rid of the free-rice expectation, this can be accomplished in a similar vein.
Part of the problem is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the unemployed undergraduates to acknowledge they have to acquire marketable skills. It is granted that some of them don’t have the means, and are disadvantaged to that extent.
skills
But in this age of the internet, of YouTube videos that impart ready instructions to anyone who wants to acquire any skill on any subject, there is no excuse for students to eschew acquiring additional valuable skills, such as coding, internet and marketing that can be useful in today’s intensely combative commercial climate.
This writer believes that most of these employable undergraduates who have Arts related degrees don’t have the motivation or inclination to acquire such skills. They have been fed on the story that they are ‘educated undergraduates, better than the rest who have to settle for ‘lesser’ private sector jobs.
These mindsets are insidious. Besides that, there are avenues of self-employment that are open to Arts graduates. They can get into areas such as educational counselling, or advertising or pubic relations, if they are willing to start small and explore the opportunities. It is particularly startling that in this age of connectivity, they don’t make the effort to be self-employed. There are less learned contemporaries of theirs who make good use of the internet, create their own opportunities, and paddle their own canoes.
But being a graduate seems like some Albatross strung around the neck of the Arts graduates in particular, albeit an Albatross they have hanging there of their own accord, and one that they insist on keeping there permanently. This retrogressive mindset of expecting the Government to provide employment is, however, not at all in keeping with a culture of entrepreneurship and daring. What contributed to this culture of diyavu diyavu, or gimme, gimme?
It is somewhat like the ragging mindset, which is so hard to explain in a culture that ostensibly celebrates comradeship among students. Perhaps the mindset of entitlement comes out of pure laziness, and the laziness comes out of years of conditioning in which the Government was seen as the provider.
Patronage politics and corruption is the root of all these evils because politicians gave freebies in exchange of the vote. This had made the culture of dependency a part of the general condition.
That’s something that has to be taken down, root and branch, with some brutal intent. There can be no further mollycoddling of dependent and shamelessly demanding youth. If the Government can help young unemployed undergraduates embark on new ventures, they should be given a leg up to do so.
But in most instances, Arts graduates think this ‘hustle’ is beneath them. They think it is their absolute birthright to have a Government job, as that’s the ticket to everything including marriage.
Perhaps one answer would be to discontinue the number of liberal Arts degrees that are granted i.e curtail the enrollment numbers for liberal Arts disciplines.
The liberal Arts disciplines are supposed to inculcate good values, and produce sensitive graduates who are enriched and made more humane than the others, who are supposed to be less idealistic because of their exposure to non-technical disciplines.
But the effect of these degree programs is the opposite. Call it an ivory tower mentality, but liberal Arts disciplines seem to create persons that are prissy, opinionated and absurdly entitled. The country cannot put up with these attitudes, and though it can be the subject of intense focus as to why some of our youth are this much entitled, such research is unnecessary. This sense of entitlement has to end.