Merry X'mas !

Wishing all my Christian friends a Merry Christmas!

Multi-streams education system is protected by Malaysia's Constitution

YBhg Professor Emeritus Dato’ Dr Khoo Kay Kim, a well known historian in Malaysia, proposed that Malaysia, for the sake of national unity, should consider abolishing the present multi-streams education system and to adopt a uni-stream education system instead recently. This proposal has drawn harsh criticisms from the Chinese community, and reminded Dr Khoo that the multi-streams education system is protected by Malaysia's Constitution, and no one should ever try to abolish it. The critics said Dr Khoo is obviously only well verse with Malays historic events but not of the other races. They suspected he knew very little about Chinese history in Malaysia for, even as a Chinese, he is not educated in Chinese hence not able to study Chinese history in depth. If he did, he should realize that education is the core concern of the Chinese community and the only one thing they are very sensitive about, their struggles in the past all centred around the education system. In the eyes of the Chinese community, Dr. Khoo is not a true Chinese, he is just a person who happens to have a Chinese name, and who has sold himself to the government for the glamorous title and positions he is holding now. The naive argument that multi-lingual and multi-cultural are the stumbling stones to nation unity holds no water. If this is true, countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Korea and Philipines where uni-stream education system is adopted should be very united and peaceful. But are they? My advice to Dr. Khoo is to start learning Chinese, then study the history of the Chinese community in Malaysia in depth.

MCA main masak-masak?

What, the warring leaders of the MCA sat down and smoked the peace pipe suddenly? What an anti-climax! You all "main masak-masak" kah?

Ong Tee Keat fights back

The President of Malaysia Chinese Association (MCA),Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, found his old form back again. Ever since he was elected as the President during the party election in 2008, he has been stumbling along losing his directions in his fights to consolidate his position in the party. Being at the top, he was out of his comfort zone because he was not used to handle a fight where he has the upper hand. He fights best as an under dog in all his previous struggles within or outside the party. In his fight against his deputy, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek, he oddly discarded the power and resources available to him as President of the party and instead adopted a stance of an under dog. He accused his opponent of receiving outside helps and he has been isolated from the Barisan Nasional (BN) main stream. He even warned that MCA will be replaced by a Chinese based party from East Malaysia! In the eyes of the others he has become a "cry-baby" and not a capable leader. While Ong was trying hard to pose as an under dog, but he made his arch rival Chua a bigger under dog by expelling him by using an old issue (the sex CD scandal) as an excuse. But after the October 10 EGM, Ong has become a true under dog again. See how fiercely he fights back back now. I am eager to see how he wins again under adverse situation. Should be interesting to watch. But how about the future of MCA, am I not a bit concerned? That never cross my mind, hahahaha...

The sorry state of MCA

What is happening? Not that there was no in-fighting within MCA before, but this time is different. The EGM which was the hope of bringing an end to the quarrel has strangely being seen as just the beginning of a new round of fighting. A fresh EGM has been scheduled, how many EGMs can a party host in a year? What is the objective of calling yet another EGM if it serves no purpose, because nobody takes note of the message conveyed in the results of the EGM? Let MCA split into 3, each with its own happy leader and loyal supporters. Won't you agree?

Science and maths subjects will be taught in mother tongue

Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister announced that science and mathematics subjects will use the mother tongue of the students as medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools starting from the year 2012.Currently the two subjects are taught in English since 2003 in a move to enhance the standard of English language.After implementing this policy for 6 years the English language standard does not show any significant improvement,while the performance of the students in the Science & Mathematics subjects had seen a drastic drop. Faced with the growing criticism from the public,the Government decided to revert back to using mother tongue as medium of instruction for these 2 subjects. Of course,there are also people supporting the use of English as medium of instruction, notably the so called "banana people" who speak English at home.Their children naturally have a very clear advantage over the children who speak their own mother tongue at home.With the abolishing of this policy they will lose the advantage over other children. Another group of people who supported teaching science and maths in English are those who give English language tuition classes. They are worried that their market will be affected if the English language is not given the same importance as before. The Government's aim to improve the standard of English language in schools is right,but I feel they moved too hasty and the action too drastic. They could have asked the teachers concerned to learn the proper technical terms (scientific names and mathematical terms)in English for the respective subjects then pass on to the students.This way,the sudents will grasp the principles of the subjects taught and also master the "jargons" at the same time. The teachers themselves will be less burdened because they need not learn a whole new language (for many of them I guess) but only need to memorise some short phrases.This would be much easier. A little joke here: A maths teacher told the class,"ten push seven equals three".Got it?

"Selema babi" = tactics of fear?

Information,Communication and culture Minister,Datuk Rais Yatim advised the media to use the name "selema babi" (swine flu) instead of A(H1N1) influenza. He explained that it is because he worried that the RTM news readers may find difficulty in reading A(H1N1) influenza accurately hence conveying the wrong message to the public. Since when it is misleading to use the right name and since when it is accurate to use a misleading name? I wonder based on what study and statistics Datuk Rais concludes that the news readers are more proficient in saying babi than saying A(H1N1)? As a minister he has the power and responsibility to send any staff in his ministry to go for retraining if he thinks that his performance is questionable, not by insulting them in the public. He further added that,by simply saying the word "babi" it will instill fears in the public and they will be more careful. What kind of logic is that? Is pig so fearful in the eyes of the Malaysians? Why must he involve the poor animal in the first place? What will happen if the public is made to believe that A(H1N1) influenza is connected to pigs, everybody will stop eating pork (poor pork hawkers!) then feel very safe and hence do not take the proper precautions laid down by the health authority? Chaos will reign man!

Adding this blod to MyBlogLog

If you are a member of MyBlogLog,you can read this blog there direct at this link: Undergoing MyBlogLog Verification

Public Service Department Scholarships

Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong said 280 Chinese students who scored straight 1As in the 2008 SPM examinations and are refused scholarships by the Public Service Department(PSD), had submitted their appeals to the MCA. Dr Wee is also the MCA Youth chief and party national education bureau chairman had been handling education and scholarship issues since 2001. This really proves what I claimed in my previous post just last month. This is a classic case of the policy implementers abusing their powers,these are what being called the "little Napoleons" in the government departments. The Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister of Malaysia,Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, tries to side track the issue by saying that it is due to some schools limit their students to sit for maximum 10 subjects only,therefore can not compare with those who sit for 14 subjects or more.To be fair these students should be considered for scholarships too. On the surface it sounds fair, but when think deeper,one realizes it is pure b.s.,it is blatant insult to the intelligence of the Chinese community.Even if you take away the extra subjects from the students who obtained 13A1s,they still definitely have 10A1s, still on par with those who are limited to sit for 10 subjects.Why are those who sit for less subjects are awarded the scholarships and not those who sit for more subjects? Be honest,be frank, admit that it is discrimination,period. If this is the idea of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's "1Malaysia", it is only good for a laugh.

Removal of the 30% bumiputra equity policy

The new Prime Minister of Malaysia,Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, announced on 22 April 2009 that the 30% bumiputra equity policy will be removed from 27 sectors in the service sector with immediate effect. Datuk Seri is also the Finance Minister of Malaysia. It shocked more than cheered people because it was such a bold move that it already treads on the baseline of the bumiputra supremacy. No Prime Minister has dared to do it before, not even a leader as powerful as Tun Dr. Mahathir himself. Although Tun Dr. Mahathir had pleaded with his followers to discard the "tongkat(walking stick)" many times and even shed tears in some occasions while doing so. But he stopped there , that is as far as he would go. Not only that,Datuk Seri Najib further liberalized the financial sector 2 days ago. What is the underlying reason that drives him to take such drastic measures immediately after he took over from his predecessor, Tun Abudlla Badawi? Is because the sound of the footsteps of globalization drawing near and wake him up? Is he feeling the heat of the financial crisis already? Is it because it is evident that the 30% equity policy (NEP)is ridden with ills? I really want to know. Actually,non bumiputras in Malaysia would not be as resentful towards the NEP as they are now if it was implemented properly. The greatest ills in the NEP is the huge disceptpencies between the implementation and the original definitions of the NEP. The NEP policy implementers calculated in a strange way,either due to their lack of mathematical ability or they did on purpose.They stick to the policy of 30% faithfully during recruitment of public service staff(civil servants), intake of students to public universities, allocation of low cost housing units, allocation of shares applications of government-owned companies,allocation of public transport permits,development projects,etc; but 30% of what? That lies the core of the problem. Take the recent intake of 1st year students into the oldest university of the nation,Universiti Malaya, as an example. It was reported that there were 27,000 students applying for the 3,500 seats available. So, how many seats should be alloacted to bumiputra students for this particular intake in accordance with the NEP's 30% policy? 5,100 seats should be allocated to the buminputra kids, therefore all 3,500 seats available should be reserved for bumiputras and still falls off target by 1,600. Why? Because 30% of 27,000 applicants is 5,100 students. Simple, right? Ok, if you protest, let's calculate another way. Supposing the total number of students in UM is 12,000. 30% is 3,600. Still there is no room for non bumiputras. Sorry lah, policy is policy. Of course if you got jalan, you still can come in. That is why you see a sprinkle of non bumiputra students as decorations inside. Anyone who has gone through primary 4 knows that 30% of 3,500 is 450, still plenty of seats left for fair competition. If this is the way they implement it, who will ever bothers about the 30% thing? Therefore, 30% is not the keyword, the keyword is 30% of WHAT?

Pakatan Rakyat shows sign of cracking

Malaysians' hope of seeing the formation of a 2-party system in Malaysia may be dashed if the barely one year old coalition called Pakatan Rakyat or People’s Alliance disbanded due to crossing over to BN by elected assemblymen. From the very beginning I had predicted this "marriage of convenience" among the 3 component parties will not last due to the following reasons: (1) The vast differences of ideology between the component parties - PAS only wants to establish an Islamic State, DAP champions for the Chinese community, PKR only exists to fulfill Anwar Ibrahm's dream of becoming next Prime Minister of Malaysia.Their only common denominator is the enmity towards Tun Dr Mahathir and BN. (2)The combined pressure of administrating a state government and maintaining smooth cooperation between member parties demands great tolerance from the party leaders. (3)Their most fatal drawback is their lack of experience of running a government because their are so used to criticize others instead of doing the tasks themselves. It is easier said than done. They have been playing the role of fire flamers for too long and find it difficult to play the role of fire douser now. (4)They are beginners in state administrative protocol and communication systems, many members are frustrated and want to leave the party as a result of this. Let's hope leaders of Pakatan will face up to their short comings and over come them in order to make it a reality for Malaysia to have a 2-party system.

Happy Chinese New Year

To all my Chinese friends: Happy Chinese New Year!