Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Parents know best; the days when the government knows best are over
- Can there be a SPM trial exam question: Is it appropriate for police to use tear gas, water ...
- Pakatan, where will the money come from?
- 10 Big Questions To Ask About Pengerang
| Parents know best; the days when the government knows best are over Posted: 29 Sep 2012 11:31 AM PDT How can education not be politicized when it's politicians helming the ministry? How dare you lie into our faces when you say there will be equal opportunities for all when your own children don't go to national schools? May Chee
The first part of the topic above is my belief; the second is espoused by our honourable Prime Minister himself. I mean what I say and I hope he does, too. The Malaysian New Education Blueprint unveiled recently has promised to depoliticize the education system, vowing equal opportunities for all. Hmmm…I like how it sounds. Now, I've nothing against those who support the MBMMBI. I do understand that our national language is important to us Malaysians, being the medium of communication that unites. In fact, being an advocate of PPMSI does not bring one in direct conflict with MBMMBI. I believe PPMSI can aid the noble aim of MBMMBI. Though English is the dominant global language, it should not dominate every sphere of our lives. That's why both PPMSI and MBMMBI can complement each other. We know for a fact that those who want to write for a world audience, e.g. to gain international recognition; need to have their efforts published in English. Though these works have a better chance of being published in their mother tongue in their homeland, but for a global audience, these efforts have to be translated into English. I can see how for the Arts, e.g. Literature, language is not just a means to communicate content. It, itself, is an essential source of enjoyment and once translated, certain if not most aspects like the sounds, rhythms, images, allusions and evocations of the original can only be approximated and thus, the beauty of these efforts sorely diluted. So, yes, certain aspects of education must be retained in our However, I do see the need for PPMSI. The fields of the sciences can be rendered more efficient when their knowledge are transmitted in a common language. Those against PPMSI have lamely and "falsely" argued that interest in the sciences have waned because of PPMSI. One can only have one's interest heightened when one can lay one's hands on materials pertaining to it. And that, we know, most findings in the sciences are published in English. How can one advance one's interest and competence in a particular field of science if one has to depend only on works published in Bahasa Malaysia? If one cannot even begin to comprehend the medium in which these works are published in? We know how "potent" knowledge can be when taken out of context, don't we? Or, is it "impotent" where the sciences are concerned? How can our homegrown bright sparks make a mark in their chosen disciplines if they cannot publish their works in English? By and large, those who stick to their mother tongue except English, of course, have lower ambitions and do less significant work. In this context, I humbly think, we are doing our homegrown Einsteins a great disservice by not giving PPMSI a chance in Malaysia. Let's revisit our Education Act of 1996. It says that "the purpose of education is to enable the Malaysian society to have a command of knowledge, skills and values necessary in a world that is highly competitive and globalised, arising from the impact of rapid development in science, technology and information." Can we be global players or just "Jaguh Kampungs"? PPMSI will enable our very own Malaysian Einsteins to take on the world for PPMSI will render them competitive and globally employable and recognized. The Education Act of 1996 also reiterates this: "AND WHEREAS it is considered desirable that regard shall be had, so far as is compatible with that policy, with the provision of efficient instruction and with the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents." If PPMSI has failed certain sectors of the population, I can only say its implementation left much to be desired. That's definitely not efficient instruction. We have to train our teachers a lot, lot better. Since 2003, some Rm 5 billion has been allocated and spent in the implementation of PPMSI. Abandoning it now, surely would mean RM 5 billion of public expenditure down the drain! And what about our rights as parents to educate our children according to our wishes? PAGE has done their homework. A majority of parents, both in the rural and urban areas, would like to have PPMSI continued. Now PAGE is not asking for PPMSI to be implemented nationally. Datin Noor Asimah, chairman of PAGE, recognizes the fact that not one size fits all. So, for PPMSI to be implemented in certain schools, according to the wishes of the majority of the parents there, is plain democratic, realistic and what's more, rather do-able. For the minister to say that having 2 different streams for the teaching of Mathematics and Science is confusing, is akin to saying. "Malas-lah!" Hey, Mr Minister, our children are everything to us. What about yours, to you? (Where are they studying, by the way?) The New Education Blueprint does not set out to politicize education, so it says. Good, I'm counting on that. I'm hoping that the 11 shifts do not shift our focus away from education per se and the 3 waves, do not wave our concerns away. As parents, we want what's best for our children's future and that includes a relevant and effective education that will equip them to compete in today's challenging world. So, we are telling you now, the powers-that-be, it's our right to choose how our children should be educated. Since English is the working language of the day, globally, we would like our children to be educated in the English language, especially when it comes to Mathematics and Science. The New Education Blueprint vows that equal opportunities will be given to all. Fair, wonderful, even. Since many ministers' children are educated in international schools with English as the medium of instruction, Mr Minister, please reintroduce schools, using English as the medium of instruction. We are not asking for all schools. Let the parents decide. Please do not allow principals to rig decisions concerning the choice of the parents. I know, for sure, in a particular premier school, the parents said "aye" to PPMSI, but the principal went to the education department and said, "nay"! You know what's my beef with education in Malaysia, today? It discriminates! How the policy makers know so well that an education in the English medium, gives an advantage to their children who are not in national schools, yet they deny the masses from one. Young parents wanting to give their children the best they can, work day and night, to enable their children to go to international schools. How can education not be politicized when it's politicians helming the ministry? How dare you lie into our faces when you say there will be equal opportunities for all when your own children don't go to national schools? Have you forgotten we parents have the right to determine the kind of education we want for our kids? Or what we want or need don't matter to you? Do our votes matter? In case you forgot, Mr Education Minister, the days when the government knows best are over. Now, we parents know best. We always, have. |
| Can there be a SPM trial exam question: Is it appropriate for police to use tear gas, water ... Posted: 27 Sep 2012 02:46 PM PDT
Lim Kit Siang Would the Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his two deputies, Puad Zarkashi and Datuk Wee Ka Siong give their tacit approval or close their eyes and shut their ears if any of the following questions had appeared in a SPM trial examination paper for Moral Education: * Is it appropriate for the police to use tear-gas or chemically-laced water cannon or used physical violence against peaceful demonstrators comprising all races, religions, age and gender who merely wanted to send a clear and unmistakable to the government that they want free, fair and clean elections?* Is it appropriate for any government to misuse public funds for political party purposes especially in the run-up to a general election? * Is it appropriate for voters in a general election to support candidates from a political coalition which is responsible for Malaysia having the lowest Transparency International Corruption Perception Index ranking of No. 60 as well as lowest CPI score of 4.3 in 2012? * Is it appropriate for any Minister or MP to go against national unity efforts as publicly dissociating from the 1Malaysia policy, declaring that he or she is Malay first and Malaysian second? Of course not. There can be no shadow of doubt that if such questions had appeared in any school SPM trial examination paper, there would be an orchestrated howl of protest and condemnation in the mainstream mass media of Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and the Star as well as on government/Barisan Nasional radio and television channels, followed by a witch-hunt to expose, penalise and even criminalise those responsible for setting the questions. Surely, Puad would not say: "As long as it does not affect the racial or religious sensitivities or malign any individual, I feel (the question) is not a problem…It is up to the rakyat to decide". This is what Puad said when commenting on a question in a school SPM trial examination on Moral Education in Johore Baru, which featured two photographs of the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, and asked: "Is it appropriate for a citizen to participate in an illegal assembly?" A photograph of the question referring to the Bersih 3.0 rally from a an SPM trial examination paper at a school in Johore Baru appeared on Facebook, which showed that the answer given by the student - "tidak wajar (not appropriate)" - was ticked as correct.
Would Muhyiddin, Puad and Wee take the position that there is nothing wrong with the setting of questions like the four above for students, just as they now strike the posture that its "not a problem" for such a Bersih question to be posed in the SPM school trial examination? In fact, in another trial examination for STPM General Paper in a school in Johore Baru, there is a clear insinuation that those who supported the Opposition could have their citizenship revoked? Would Muhyiddin, Puad and Wee agree and approve if STPM General Paper school trial examination poses the question whether a person who supported corrupt political leaders have failed their citizenship responsibilities? Clearly the politicisation of education has reached a new low with the Education Minister and his two deputy Ministers failing to condemn in the strongest possible terms the setting of these tendentious and misguided questions – which amounts no less to an irresponsible attempt to indoctrinate and brainwash schoolchildren to parrot the views of the ruling coalition. With such continued politicisation of education, there can be very little public confidence that under continued UMNO/Barisan Nasional government, the education system could unite rather than divide Malaysians or that the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 recently launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak would be able to make any fundamental difference to the problems of politicisation and deterioration of educational standards in Malaysia.
|
| Pakatan, where will the money come from? Posted: 27 Sep 2012 01:43 PM PDT
From Arul K Muthiah, via e-mail In anticipation of the general election, we have seen the Opposition trying to introduce more policy proposals to sway key voting segments. In particular, it has targeted young, first-time voters, who make up the bulk of the more than two million newly registered Malaysian voters, and the middle class in general. Two of Pakatan's policy proposals announced this year are designed to strike at these two voter demographics directly. The first was a promise to write off all National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN) loans and provide free university education, and the latest, a policy that will see a reduction in passenger car prices. Both policies have clear political objectives in mind. The student loan write-off is an attractive promise for young voters still stuck with their PTPTN debt in addition to dealing with higher living costs. The promise of lower car prices casts a wider appeal as most Malaysian car owners bemoan having to pay more for the same car than people in other countries, which results in a bigger chunk of the salary being used to service their monthly car loans. By selling these promises, the federal opposition is saying that it can assist with increasing your disposable income because you will have more to spend on other things and also save because these two expenditure items will either disappear (PTPTN loans written off) or be reduced (cheaper car prices). The purpose of this article is not to examine the two proposals directly but to discuss one fundamental question that arises when political parties – especially those not in power – make electoral promises: How do they hope to pay for these promises? If this question does not require answering, then politics would be an easy game. Promise people everything under the sun, sit back and enjoy watching voters swing your way. But we do not live in a world where the electorate believes they can get everything for free. Politicians cannot assume people are stupid, as they seem to do particularly when elections are approaching. Apart from subsidies which many Malaysians still hold dear, most Malaysians do generally believe that the government should not increase the budget deficit and borrow more money. Most Malaysians also feel a sense of responsibility and that people should pay back whatever they borrowed and not have the government write off those loans. Also, importantly, international investors and credit rating agencies are watching to see whether we live within our means. In an age of sovereign defaults and bailouts, fiscal responsibility is a key measure of sound public administration that will have an impact on our attractiveness as an investment destination and on our credit ratings. As far as the federal opposition is concerned, it is doubtful that balancing the books high is on its agenda. It has not really explained how it is going to pay for its electoral promises. And just to put it on the record once again – its electoral promises amount to a very very high RM206.5 billion in the first year alone. And this doesn't even include Pakatan's standard promise of an immediate reduction in the price of petrol should it take over the Government. Depending on the reduction, this could cost billions on top of whatever has already been promised. Multi-billion ringgit promises Let's just put the cost of the opposition's promises into context. The federal government development budget for 2012 was RM51.2 billion. Pakatan's electoral promises costs 400% or four times more than the current 2012 Government's development budget. So if it were to fulfil its promises in the first year of office, a Pakatan federal Government would not have enough money to pay the salaries of teachers, doctors, nurses, police and army personnel, let alone have the funds for building roads, schools, hospitals or providing welfare assistance to the poor. Most of the money would have been used to deliver on its Jingga promises. If this happens, essential services would grind to a halt and the country would cease to function. If it decides to borrow more money to fund its promises and keep the government going, the fiscal deficit would balloon from 4.7%, which it is now, to more than 25% of GDP and Malaysia would effectively be bankrupt within the first two years of Pakatan ruling Putrajaya. Pakatan's standard response to this is that it will "get rid of the corruption" to pay for its promises. But the question is can getting rid of corruption pay for the Oppositions RM206.5 billion promises?
|
| 10 Big Questions To Ask About Pengerang Posted: 25 Sep 2012 12:20 PM PDT
Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar and Datuk Seri Najib Razak (third from left) looking at the model of the Petronas Refinery and Petrochemical Integrated Development (Rapid) project in Pengerang. Pic by Hairul Anuar Rahim The total value is now RM120bil, with expected investments from Taiwanese and German petrochemical companies, easily making this Pengerang project the biggest-ever in the history of this nation. Thomas Fann On May 13 2011, PM Najib announced that Petronas will invest RM60bil in a major integrated refinery and petrochemical complex in Pengerang, Johor. The Refinery and Petrochemicals Integrated Development (RAPID) project by Petronas, as it is known, is expected to be commissioned by the end of 2016, as part of the national oil company's efforts to expand its downstream production. Exactly a year later on May 13 2012, when the RAPID project was officially launched, the total value is now RM120bil, with expected investments from Taiwanese and German petrochemical companies, easily making this Pengerang project the biggest-ever in the history of this nation. In the midst of all the excitement and promises of economic benefits to the state of Johor and the nation, there has been some disquiet amongst the Pengerang community. Local NGOs were formed and has submitted memorandums to various authorities and several protests were organised this year. It would be wrong to say that these NGOs and the people they represent are against any form of development in Pengerang but what many are concerned about is that it has to be sustainable. These local NGOs have adopted a unifying theme - Kekalkan Pengerang Lestari, or Maintain the Sustainability of Pengerang. Development of such scale must be embarked upon with regards for the people affected by it and be done responsibly to minimise its impact on the environment. We have to ask honest questions and hear honest answers to these questions so that the concerns of not just the Pengerangites but also Malaysians are allayed. There are many issues and questions to ask but I want to list down 10 big questions to ask the government about this massive project. Question 1 - The RAPID Project requires 6,424 acres of land but why is the Johor government using the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire 22,500 acres of land? We hope a plausible and detailed explanation for its justification is forthcoming so that the government would not be accused of using Rapid as an excuse to grab land from the ordinary people of Pengerang. Question 2 – What is going to happen to the fishermen and smallholders who would have lost their means of livelihood? There are about 3,100 residents within the seven villages affected, who earned a living as fishermen and smallholders. Though some argued that 40,000 jobs would be created during the construction phase and 4,000 by the time the projects are completed in 2016, the reality are for many of these affected fishermen and farmers, it would be difficult for them to work in these new jobs because their skills are different. Question 3 - It has been reported that licensed fishermen are being offered RM30,000 compensation whilst unlicensed ones are offered half that amount. Smallholders with 1-2 acres land are offered between RM65,000 to RM105,000 for their land. As a "sweetener", the Johor government is offering "subsidized" alternative housing on 6,000 sq.ft. of land with built-up area between 750 to 1,600 sq.ft. The discounted prices the villagers would have to pay for these houses range from RM35,000 to RM105,000. In short, they would have given up their 1-2 acres of land and houses in exchange for 6,000 sq.ft. of land with a house on it, some 15-20km away, with little or no money in their pocket and no land to earn a living. I am told many of these lands are shared between several siblings in the first place, thus, after dividing the compensation they won't even be able to afford the "subsidized" housing. Is this a fair deal? Question 4 - Why is our government so keen to welcome KuoKuang Petrochemical of Taiwan when they have been rejected by their own country? Again, like the Lynas case, is our government telling us that Malaysian lives are worth not only less than the Australian but also now, less than the Taiwanese? We have to understand why the Taiwanese people were so against KuoKuang before we welcome them into our land. Question 5 - Is it true that a petrochemical plant the scale of Rapid would need massive amount of processed water a day to operate, almost 75% of Johor's current daily consumption? If this is true, wouldn't it cause acute water shortages in Johor? Have the government foresaw this and made plans to increase the supply of processed water for the state? Question 6 - Apart from consuming large quantity of water, it would also need large quantity of electrical energy? If not, has the government made plans to increase the energy output in Johor? Has this got anything to do with the rumoured nuclear power plants to be setup in Pengerang? What would our neighbour across the straits have to say about this, especially in the light of the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster? Question 7 - In May 2009, during a visit to Singapore, PM Najib proposed to his counterpart PM Lee that a third link be built linking Pengerang to Singapore. When would this proposal be followed-up with another announcement? Would it be after all the land near this third link has been acquired and parceled to third party companies so that they can make a killing? Question 8 – Currently the Department of Environment (DOE) requires developers to submit the EIA report. This report is paid for by the developers, in this case Petronas. Can we trust the glowing DEIA (Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment) report by Integrated Envirotect Sdn Bhd? Isn't it a case of "he who pays the piper calls the tune"? Shouldn't an independent panel of local and international Question 9 – It is oppression to the local communities when you unilaterally announce a major development without consultation. That was what happened in Pengerang. When PM Najib made the announcement in May 2011, it was said that even the local state assemblyman was clueless, let alone the villagers. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is an approach outlined in international human Question 10 – For all the claims of huge economic benefits these petrochemical projects would bring to this country, we hear that the Taiwanese company, KuoKuang Petrochemical will be given a tax holiday of 10-years! Their government rejected them and ours give them this incentive to move here. While we, the taxpayer pay our government to look after us, hazardous foreign companies are invited into our country to pollute us tax-free, denying us probably billions in taxes which could have bee used to clean up the environment and improve health care here. What is going on here? In Conclusion... As Malaysians, we are concern with what is happening in Pengerang not because it could directly impact us but because it could be our homes and livelihood that would be taken next. What we are confronting is not an isolated situation but a systemic problem of lack of transparency, disregards for the people's rights and the environment. These are honest questions that are in need of answers from the only people who can answer them - the government. We hope that honest answers will be forthcoming in the days to come. We hope that the declaration "Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan" (People first, Performance now) is more than an empty slogan when it comes to Pengerang. But for now, myself and thousand others will be attending Himpunan Hijau Lestari Pengerang on 30th September because we are seeking answers and standing in solidarity with our fellow Malaysians in Pengerang. For more information, you can visit www.hijau.info |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan