Docs, Speakers and Profs

A current diversion that absorbs us is the question of the Speaker of Parliament, who in some way or another, is alleged to have flaunted the prefix of “Doctor,” by mistake or by deceit, and thus compromised the austere position he holds.

Apart from the constantly bemoaned fact, that our Parliament suffers from a deficit of adequately qualified Members, and thus has contributed towards the poor image that it projects, is not quite tenable. There are many outstanding legislators, who, though limited in formal schooling, have excelled, while there are those with stellar academic qualifications, who have dismally failed. However, the current discourse does raise some interesting points.

(1) In this context, during the tenure of the last Parliament, there was a deluge of “doctors”, sprouting much like mushrooms (or toadstools), after a rainstorm. None of them were challenged in like manner as the Speaker is now.

(2) It is the convention that only those who have abbreviations with the letter “D” in their degrees, are strictly entitled to be referred to as “Doctor.” For example, D.Sc (Doctor of Science), Ph.D (Philosophy), D.Litt (Letters), or D.D (Divinity). “Diplomas” do not qualify.

Of course, there are limits to literal interpretation. For example, there are many “Bachelors of Science and Arts”, who are married. Also, why “bachelors” only, and no “spinsters”?

(3) In the field of Medicine, it is only those with an M.D, who are strictly entitled to reference as “Doctor”. The MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery) and even an FRCS (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons), are properly excluded. Those old enough would recall that the Viennese specialists who had volunteered for service here, rigidly observed this. Consequently, the highly qualified ENT Surgeon, was merely “Mr Grillmayr.” Mere titles do not necessarily indicate competence.

In our Parliament, they are all “Honourables” and even some “Venerables,” who are decidedly not so. Recent disclosures have shown that even in the diplomatic service, some of our representatives have been anything but “Excellent.”

(4) It could be argued that the word “Doctor” is justifiably used as the description of their vocation as “healing sick patients.” This would be problematic, as it implies equivalence with “Plumber, Mason, Carpenter or Electrician.” One notices that of late, those in their respective professions, are referred to as “Engineer” or ‘Architect’ … so and so.

According to the dictionary, when used as a verb, “To doctor” means “to heal or treat the sick”, but also less respectably, “to patch up, falsify, adulterate or even to castrate!”

In order perhaps to overcome institutional inequalities, UN agencies customarily avoid using such academic titles by their staff.

(5) By the way, there also seem to be several “Professors,” in the ranks of Parliament. Is it not logical to also examine what they do actually “profess”, and their institutional details?

It seems an anomaly that “The Speaker” is one who speaks the least in Parliament. But this will sadly not authorise him to remain so in the present instance. The stakes are simply too high to be ignored.

Dr. Upatissa. Pethiyagoda