Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Where are the Malaysian universities in Times Higher Education 2012-2013 rankings?
- PKR's grand strategy?
- Ho Chi Minh
- The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 3 of 5)
- The day after the 1 night stand before: the aftermath of 2013 budget
- Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The threat of foreign funding
| Where are the Malaysian universities in Times Higher Education 2012-2013 rankings? Posted: 03 Oct 2012 01:52 PM PDT The top three Asian universities as ranked by THE are University of Tokyo, National University of Singapore and University of Hong Kong. Read more at: http://anilnetto.com/democracy/education-and-students-rights/where-are-the-malaysian-unis-in-latest-the-rankings/
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2012 08:37 PM PDT Many suspect Azmin Ali wants to be MB Selangor. I have to say I have my doubts in this regard, not that he doesn't (he actually does), but he can't be MB Selangor if he wants to be near the PM spot, starting perhaps with the Home Ministry, no doubt to control the Police and its dreaded SB, wakakaka. Yes, we may assume that our dearest Blue-eyed Boy wants to be in the federal cabinet of a Pakatan federal government and to head a very powerful ministry, Home Affairs, before he becomes the PM (as he may be fantasizing, wakakaka). Thus he has to make some sacrifices, to wit, forego the position of MB of Selangor, because Article 43 of the Malaysian Constitution won't allow him to be both, ie. MB Selangor and PM Home Minister. And how do I know he wants to take over Hishamuddin's place? Read on, wakakaka.
That's right, ADUNs who are also MP cannot have it both ways, that is, by continuing to be ADUNs and at the same time, federal ministers or deputy ministers. They have to choose between being a federal minister (or deputy minister) or an ADUN. Obviously, senior party leaders who want to be MBs or CMs or State Exco members have to be ADUNs in the first place. And if they are federal ministers they won't be allowed to hold on to their ADUN positions, and consequently no MB or CM hat to wear. Thus, as I mentioned previously, if Lim Guan Eng wants to continue being CM of Penang, and most Penangites want him to, then he can't be a federal minister, full stop!
But of course he can be ADUN/CM of Penang as well as an ordinary federal MP in which case he can serve in both State and Federal Parliaments. But in participating as both a state and also a federal representative, he cannot be a federal minister. Thus if Lim GE wants to be a federal minister, he can kiss goodbye to his CM job and Ayer Putih ADUN position ... ... which I suspect is a situation 'someone' wakakaka is hoping and hinting/pushing for. According to sweetie Selena Tay in her Free Malaysia Today article titled Pakatan's 'shadow cabinet' list, a so-called (non-existent*) 'shadow minister' could/might have 'hinted' to Sweetie that under a new Pakatan federal government, the proposed Foreign Minister(s) would probably be Kamarudin Jaffar (PAS) or Lim Guan Eng (DAP) or Elizabeth Wong (PKR), with a couple (of the trio) becoming deputies. * ta'ada shadow cabinet maka mana ada shadow minister - real bayang adalah wakakaka
It's a joke of a suggestion, and you may guess where or who that so-called self-appointed 'shadow minister' had been. For a start, none of the trio proposed has shown any specific inclination towards foreign affairs, though of course there's no denying they can play the role. Secondly, Eli Wong is more into environmental affairs and therefore should be provided a ministerial position in the appropriate sector, Environment.
Kamaruddin Jaafar, OTOH, is a very close buddy of The Great One - you know, MCKK, UMNO (wakakaka), ISA-ed together, then left UMNO in 1999 (not sure whether he left voluntarily or was ejected out like Anwar?), had in his UMNO days stuck really close to Anwar when the latter was the DPM, and was said to have been assigned by Anwar to some business roles, the lot! While Anwar's devotees prepared a party (KeADILan, then PKR) as a platform to fight for his release from prison, Kamaruddin joined PAS in (I think) 1999 and stood successfully as a PAS MP in Tumpat in 1999, 2004 and 2008. I believe he was the UMNO MP in that same constituency. Since then, he had a meteoric rise in PAS and even became the Party's Sec-Gen in 2004.
|
| Posted: 30 Sep 2012 03:24 PM PDT At that time the US was bombing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age. It was called the Vietnam War. I clearly remember watching the 'Dunia Di Sana Sini' program on Television Malaysia (no RTM yet at that time) which would show black and white footage of American GIs using flamethrowers to burn attap huts belonging to Vietnamese villagers. Till today I cannot figure out how attap huts in Vietnam were a threat to the security and vital interests of the 'Yewnited States of Americky' That is one evil and adulterous generation (Matthew 14:6-8) which is still dancing around the fire in the Yewnited States. At that time the Americans successfully brainwashed all of us into believing that the Vietnamese were bad people led by an ugly monster called Ho Chi Minh. So like the simple, Third World, Mat Salleh wannabe bumpkins that we were (and many many still are) we all chorused the American line that our own neighbors were monsters. The French colonials started taking control of Vietnam in the 1860s. By 1883 the entire country was a full fledged French colony. Under French colonial rule Vietnamese were prohibited from travelling outside their districts without identity papers. Freedom of expression and organisation were restricted. Land was alienated to French companies and the number of landless peasants grew. So people like Ho Chi Minh started fighting back. Fastforward (because this is a short story), Ho Chi Minh kicked the butt of the French in Dien Bien Phu in 1952 and sent them home in crates. Way before that on 2 September 1945, half a million Vietnamese people gathered in Hanoi to hear Ho Chi Minh read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. The Vietnamese had thrown off the foreign invader. One of the first things that Ho Chi Minh did as the leader of a free and independent Vietnam was to REPUDIATE ALL TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS which had been entered into by Vietnam under French Colonial Rule. Not only Ho Chi Minh but in many newly independent countries (usually non British Commonwealth) an independent people refused to recognize treaties and agreements which the colonials had forced them to sign at the point of a gun or without the consent of the people. So whatever the French colonial power had signed on behalf of Vietnam was not recognized by the Vietnamese people. Why? Apa pasal? Because those treaties were NOT signed by a free and independent people. I wanted to Blog about this because just a few days ago I was having breakfast with some friends who started quoting the terms of the Pangkor Treaty (! ! !) to support their side of the argument about the Perak issues. At the time of our Independence, we should have taken a leaf out of Ho's book (it is really not too late) and repudiated all the treaties and agreements which were signed under the British. For example, Stamford Raffles found disgruntled seafarers from the Riau Islands, played politics with the Dutch and got "a" Sultan to rent space on Temasek Island to the British East India Company (NOT TO THE BRITISH SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OK). Raffles did not work for the British Government but he worked for the British East India Company, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Stamford Raffles was just like an earlier version of a Somali pirate. And at the time of our "Independence" in 1957, all this had happened just over 100 years before. (Much less time than Nga and Ngeh's 999 year leasehold titles granted recently in Perak). Then later this slick little piece of piracy by Raffles was 'formalised' by the British Sovereign through the Colonial Office. And many people think that Stamford Raffles braved the seas, sailed out here from England and claimed an uncivilized, uninhabited island for the British Government. Wrong. First of all Raffles was already chilling his heels in Penang. Long before he "founded" Singapore in 1819, Raffles was assistant secretary at the British East India company's "administration" in Penang in 1805. Then in 1818 Raffles became "lieutenant governor of Bencoolen" fighting the Dutch who were trying to grab the whole of South East Asia. Before that Raffles was appointed "governor general" for the British India Company in Java (1811-16). In 1818 Raffles sailed hurriedly from Bencoolen to India, and convinced Lord Hastings of the need for the British to open a port on Temasek Island. He had already identified Temasek Island. (It was NOT some unknown, uninhabited, alien island that fell out of the Matrix movie). But more importantly why did Raffles suddenly panic in 1818? He was the East India Company's "secretary" in Penang in 1805, made it to Company "governor" in Java in 1811, became Company "lieutenant governor" for Bencoolen in 1816-1818. Why panic in 1818 to open another port?
|
| The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Part 3 of 5) Posted: 30 Sep 2012 02:01 PM PDT The one diagram in the Blueprint that best captures what's wrong with the Malaysian education system is Exhibit 6-4, the ministry's organizational staff structure. The diagram is described as rectangular; it's more fat Grecian column. Incidentally, that diagram is the best graphic representation of data in the entire document; it captures and demonstrates well two salient points. One, there are as many Indians as there are chiefs in the organization, and two, the overwhelming burden of administrative staff at all levels. "Malaysia arguably has one of the largest central (federal) administrations in the world, relative to the number of schools," says the Blueprint, quoting a UNESCO report. We do not need those highly-paid international consultants to remind us of the bloat. The gleaming tower that is the Ministry of Higher Education in Putrajaya is emblematic of that. It reveals the government's perverted priorities. That edifice shames that of the Department of Education of the US, or any First World country. By any measure, relative to the economy, population, or total budget, Malaysia funds its education system generously, much more so than countries like Finland and South Korea. Yet our students and schools lag far behind. The answer lies in Exhibit 6-4. The bulk of the resources expended do not end up in the classrooms. It reflects the panel's commitment (or lack of it) to enhancing the system's efficiency that the post-reform chart looks only slightly tapered at the top. It needs to be sharply pyramidal to tackle the current bloated rectangle. Efficiency is one of the Blueprint's six goals. Briefly though not inaccurately defined, efficiency is output relative to input. If I expend "x" amount of resources (time, money, effort) and produce "y" amount of intended results, while my colleague expends twice as much, then I am twice as efficient. However, if he produces other than the intended results, then he is not being efficacious quite apart from being not efficient. His producing all those unintended and unwanted products reduces or interferes with his output of the desired ones. Efficiency is doing things right; efficacy, doing the right thing. Our system of education is both inefficient and inefficacious. We are not efficient because despite the vast resources expended we produce far too few graduates who are bilingual, science literate, mathematically competent, and capable of critical thinking. We are not being efficacious because the graduates we produce are not the types we desire, meaning, they are unilingual, unable to think critically, and good only at regurgitating what has been spoon-fed into them. A more tangible manifestation of our inefficiency is this. Rwanda could provide each child with a laptop at a fraction of the Malaysian price. We are not being as efficacious as Rwanda where its laptop program teaches not only the children but also spills over to their families. In Malaysia those laptops end up either being "lost" or gathering dust in the school's storerooms. Our teachers have not been adequately trained to use them; besides those computers belong to the school and not given to individual teachers. Thus there is no pride of ownership, and opportunities for them to learn are that much reduced. Pursuing efficiency, we have two ministries (one for higher education), each with its own overpaid minister, deputy ministers, KSUs, DGs, Deputy KSUs, Assistant Deputy KSUs, and hordes of directors. With the government's stated goal of autonomy to universities, all you need is one person to write the checks perhaps once a semester. You do not need a ministry, much less a grand one. That expensive edifice and bloated administrative staff divert resources that otherwise could have been diverted to the classrooms and teachers. Peruse the organizational structure of the Ministry of Education (MOE); dozens of divisions could be chopped off. Why do we need a separate division for matrikulasi; it is nothing more than Sixth Form; likewise with residential schools. The purpose of decentralization and devolution of authority to the periphery is, among others, to reduce the central bureaucracy, not to lighten the load of those already under-worked civil servants at headquarters. If schools truly have autonomy then all you need is one person at headquarters to write the big check every month, term, or year. Bureaus like Textbook, Translation, and Dewan Bahasa could be privatized and the resources saved diverted directly to pay writers, translators, and publishers, the actual producers of goods and services. Then there are the corporate and international relations offices. Get rid of both. The only important relationship MOE should cultivate is with parents and teachers. I would also spin off the Examination Syndicate. Such bodies in America like the College Board (responsible for the Scholastic Assessment Test, SAT) and American College Testing (ACT), as well as those responsible for graduate and professional studies like GMAT (business school) and MCAT (medical school) are private. Yet there is not a word in the Blueprint on streamlining the ministry, reducing the bloat, and getting rid or at least privatizing those peripheral services. Malaysians, individually and as a society, value and respect education. We willingly expend resources on it but are unwilling to expend the extra effort to make sure that that those funds are spent wisely. MOE's budget escapes critical scrutiny. MOE, being part and parcel of the massive Malaysian bureaucracy, is also afflicted with rampant corruption, blatant cronyism, embarrassing incompetence, naked nepotism, and a distorted sense of meritocracy. The last scandal (at least one that was exposed) was in 1960 under Rahman Talib when RM100 million in school construction funds were "unaccounted for," the euphemism for "missing." That may seem small change by current standard of greed, but after factoring for inflation and devaluation, it would be a billion in today's currency. The Blueprint completely ignores this blight of administration in MOE. In an earlier book I cited the example of the bloated cost of a MARA residential college where through competitive bidding we could get three such schools for the price of two. If competitive bidding were to be standard practice, then not only would we get more for our money but also our schools would have roofs that would not collapse, thus endangering our children. Najib and Muhyyiddin have not demonstrated their ability to take on local UMNO warlords. On the contrary, both are central to the corrupt political patronage system that plagues Malaysia. So expect the bloat and inefficiency in MOE (and the rest of the government) to continue. As for efficacy, the Blueprint does not even comment on whether the recent rescinding of teaching science and mathematics in English advances the goal of producing bilingual and science literate graduates. There is no recommendation for increasing the number of hours of instruction in English or mandating a pass in the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). The more hours and the younger you are exposed to a language, the more proficient you would be, and faster. Making students pass a test definitely motivates them to study for it. In the 1950s the government mandated all civil servants to pass a test in Malay to impress upon them its importance. That prompted many to take private lessons lest they would be bypassed in promotions. This Blueprint does not mandate teachers and headmasters demonstrate their competence in English.
|
| The day after the 1 night stand before: the aftermath of 2013 budget Posted: 30 Sep 2012 01:16 PM PDT The 2013 spend and feel good budget has been read for the nation's attention and parliament's debate. The debate is probably useless, for the Janji Ditepati administration, chronic, habitual spending above budget is a given. This habit is well documented  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/litee/print/malaysia/putrajaya-asks-for-rm14b-more-to-spend/ Malaysia Putrajaya asks for RM14b more to spend UPDATED @ 12:04:39 14-06-2012 By Shannon Teoh Jun 14, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 — The federal government tabled a supplementary supply Bill today, asking for RM13.8 billion more to spend this year, fuelling fears the Najib administration will not be able to rein in the deficit and breach the statutory debt ceiling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, rather than dwelling too much in detail into a current and soon to be derailed budget, let's project into the future base on the path Malaysians been dragged down unto for the past decade. As reported by the Star: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Individual income tax rate to be reduced by 1 percentage point for each grouped annual income tax exceeding RM2,500 to RM50,000. The measure will remove 170,000 taxpayers from paying tax as well as provide savings on their tax payment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a sure sign of GST coming upon us because cut in personal income tax (a.k.a. direct tax) goes hand in hand for imposing GST. Let's look at Singapore for example: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GST was implemented at a single rate of 3% on 1 April 1994, with an assurance that it would not be raised for at least five years. To cushion the impact of GST on Singaporean households, an offset package was also introduced. Simultaneously, corporate tax rate was cut by 3% to 27%, and the top marginal personal income tax rate was cut by 3% to 30%. The initial GST rate of 3% was among the lowest in the world, as the focus was not to generate substantial revenue, but to allow people to get adjusted to the tax.[4] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, Malaysians are not ready to switch to GST because most of Malaysians can't even afford personal income tax!. Also, the reasons for Singapore and Malaysia to introduce GST are not the same. With this 2013 gula and then GST, while you save 1% on your income, almost every Ringgit and Sen you spend will be taxed at 4% or whatever eventual rate that will be levied on us hence for people living on debts, you may probably end up paying more taxes. This blogger is not part of the BN administration but his/her speculation is base on sources from within: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BN and PR should agree to GST after polls says Idris Jala By Lee Wei Lian March 27, 2012 KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — The country's two rival political coalitions should cooperate on tax reforms once the political temperature has simmered down after the upcoming general elections said Datuk Seri Idris Jala today In Chinese, there is a saying "秋後算帳" i.e. letting someone or something off for the moment only to come back later; invoke the past and punish as such. BN administration already done that with Suqiu pleaders (whose list of request is quite in line with Wawasan 2020 and 1Malaysia, and less vocal compared to the current Chinese educationists' voices which are deemed by Nazri to be reasonable) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm no hypocrite, Nazri tells MCA Minister in the Prime Minister Department Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has brushed aside the claim by MCA leaders that his support for Dong Zong's eight-point demand for Chinese education is mere diplomatic manoeuvring. "Of course we have to be diplomatic, we are politicians – but not in the sense that I am a hypocrite… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (er…notice the get out clause?) For people living in vibrant night light circle, this could be called the morning after the night before situation. Once the passionate objective is achieved, time for cold showers, breakfast and business as usual. Only this time the business as usual will be back in with a greater vengeance because this time, the cost of procurement is very much higher than before and the expected and desired returns, will have to be even greater. The existing cosy political-economic union calls for GLC and Government initiatives to dominate economic activities. When the federal government dishes out some much, it needs to recoup. The ubiquitous quote nowadays "GST is a mean to widen tax base" is a , borrowing Nazri's words, diplomatic way of saying in Malaysian BN context, money collected from the people and god's gift to Malaysia has been squandered big time and there is a great need to ask for more. Bailout with tax payers' money, i.e. future and security. Therefore, there is an unmistakable trend of awarding of major contracts and new government measures that ask the rakyat to contribute even more than we have already. Apart from GST, there is 1Care scheme which should resurface after its disappearance before GE |
| Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The threat of foreign funding Posted: 30 Sep 2012 01:11 PM PDT WHY don't civil society organisations register as societies in Malaysia, resorting instead to being listed as companies? And don't Malaysians deserve to be suspicious of groups which are highly critical of the government and which are propped up by foreign funding? According to both the state and the national media, Malaysians should be wary. A 21 Sept 2012 New Straits Times front-page story said it all — there is a "Plot to destabilise govt". And those behind this plot are human rights groups — with Suaram in the forefront — , civil society organisations, and news portal Malaysiakini by virtue of the fact, it seems, that they receive foreign funding, among others, from no less than George Soros. Don't the government and the media have every right to hold these groups accountable in the same way that these groups often hold the state accountable? The Nut Graph speaks to political scientist Wong Chin Huat on the still-unfolding issue of Malaysian groups and their foreign funding, and the threats they potentially pose to the nation. TNG: Why shouldn't Suaram be investigated? If it's registered as a company, shouldn't it be treated under company law like any other company? Just because it works on human rights issues, should it be given special treatment?  Suaram logo (source: Wiki Commons) The question we should first ask is: why did an NGO register as a company? A company may avoid tax if it is registered as an NGO. But what can an NGO gain by registering as a company? Nothing except for being registered! The fact is registering an NGO under the Societies Act is made difficult and nearly impossible for civil society groups. Why? Because, to me, the Registrar of Societies (ROS) is loyal not to the country, its citizenry and the federal constitution which guarantees us freedom of association, but to the ruling parties. Groups — whether NGOs or political parties — deemed unfriendly to the federal ruling parties are often denied registration. For example, Parti Sosialis Malaysia was denied registration for years but the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP)'s registration was approved in days. If Suaram should be on trial for using a roundabout way to register itself with the state, then the ROS and their political master, the home minister, should be in the dock for insulting the Federal Constitution and betraying citizens. Yes, Suaram should certainly not enjoy any special discrimination. At the same time, if we want to talk about fair treatment all around, NGOs promoting human rights should enjoy as much freedom of association as those groups opposing human rights. Is that too much to ask of our prime minister, Najib the Moderate? We often complain about government inefficiency. In the case of the ongoing investigation into Suaram, shouldn't we applaud the government's multi-agency efficiency? I beg to differ about this allegation of general government inefficiency in Malaysia. This is slander by people who are jealous of our country's achievement! I apologise if I, too, have unwittingly contributed to this misperception in the past. Our government is certainly quite efficient when it wants to be. For example, in compromising justice; inciting hatred; acquiring lands; destroying forests; serving foreign interests; enriching cronies; violating human rights and finally; covering up all these acts through censoring the media and witch-hunting whistle-blowers. They are really very good in these core competencies. Why can't groups like Suaram, the Centre for Independent Journalism, and LoyarBurok, and movements like Bersih 2.0 source for funds locally? Why do they need to get foreign funding? If you are deemed as friendly to the government, then you get easy donations from big businesses and of course, the government itself. If you are deemed as anti-establishment, you may get donations from some other Malaysians but only if you grow big enough to be seen as a threat to the government. In that sense, large opposition parties and vocal ethno-religious NGOs generally have no big problems securing funding. Funding problems are also solved when one is the target of a government witch-hunt. For example, Bersih 2.0 raised the money needed to organise the Bersih 2.0 and 3.0 rallies completely through public donations from Malaysians at home and abroad. So, what kind of NGO work needs foreign funding? Those deemed threatening to the regime but which are not "sexy" enough to draw in pro-change public donations. For example, the funds Bersih 2.0 received from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) was for a study on constituency re-delineation. At that time, Bersih 2.0 was still in its infancy and received little public attention.  Annual human rights reports: not as sexy as seeing Najib in a French courtroom (source: suaram.net) Another good example of important NGO work that is not so appealing in the public's eyes is Suaram's annual human rights report, arguably one of the most important documentations of political development in Malaysia. How many of those who donated to Suaram for the Scorpene suit just to see Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak being dragged to a French court, forked out the same amount of money for the NGO's annual publication? Read more at: http://www.thenutgraph.com/uncommon-sense-with-wong-chin-huat-the-threat-of-foreign-funding/
|
| 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