My friends and I are running a series of workshops in several cities from this month through August on the US university system and its application process. There'll be one-day sessions in Kota Kinabalu, Kuching, Penang and the Klang Valley, and a longer two-day workshop only in the Klang Valley in August.
The info sessions will give you an idea of what the US university system is like, and an overview of how to apply. They're FREE. The workshop will explain in depth how to apply, and since it lasts over two days, we'll cover a lot more material. There's more information on dates and venue at the website.
If you're a Malaysian thinking about university, or know someone who is, I can guarantee you this will be useful (it's something most of us wish we had when we were in your shoes). At the least, it'll help you learn about your options (including financial support -- the US is pretty amazing as far as scholarships go).
Even if you're not thinking about the US, it's worth attending. The UK and Australia are the default and often expensive options for most Malaysians considering a foreign university, but hardly anyone thinks about the US. There's no good reason for this to be the case. Hell, if you can get in, a lot of universities will throw money at you to convince you to attend.
All of us running the workshops are either students or alumni; no university or for-profit group is funding our activities. It's a great chance to learn about an underappreciated overseas opportunity.
Space is limited, so sign up soon! You can register on the website.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Silence of the Mahasiswas
Silence of the mahasiswas — Lee Lian Kong
May 31, 2010
There is a Bob Dylan song that goes “I used to care, but things have changed”.
Malaysian students used to care. They used to live up to their grand Malay name “mahasiswa”; fresh, spirited, inspired. Now it is a deafening silence or, worse, clueless silence. We have become frightened and leashed. We have surpassed ourselves to become shining examples of obedience. Like dogs. If the dogs bark, the owners whip and yank on their steel collars. If they are silent, they are rewarded with treats. In time, we have forgotten how to bark.
The mahasiswas of today are like those dogs.
Historically, young people were a significant force in the development of this country.
They were heady with the victory for independence. The mahasiswas debated, protested and demonstrated for pro-justice, pro-human rights, justifying their position and manifesting the education they receive in the best institutions of the country.
Back in 1974 during the Tasik Utara issue they were reckoned forceful enough that desperate villagers look towards them to help. Twenty-six years ago, a staggering 5,000 students went to demand for the eradication of poverty in Baling.
Where are they now?
In Pavilion, sipping RM15 cappucino lattes, using a Blackberry to play “Texas Hold ‘Em”. In shopping malls, stretching daddy’s credit card to buy more things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like. Apathy, ignorance, oblivion is a pandemic amongst Malaysian youths. One can give the excuse that the mahasiswas of before were spurred by the injustice they saw when they worked as teachers in the outskirts. One can continue by saying it is not our fault that we are robbed of such experience and enlightenment. One can even cite the magic word: Akta Universiti and Kolej Universiti. Such an argument is nothing but a conscience struggling to save some face.
First-class facilities did not rob the students at the University of California, Berkeley and several other universities of their conscience. For months, theirs was a persistent effort to bring together students of all race, gender and opinions to pass a Bill to divest from any investment from companies that provided financial and military support to Israel. Compared to them, we fall short miserably in terms of empowerment, independence and desire.
Sure, AUKU is a reasonable excuse. Being expelled and blacklisted, the possibility of not graduating, not getting a job or, worst of all, the dreams of owning a BMW evaporated are deterrents. However, AUKU is a blatant disregard to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which advocates freedom of speech, expression and assembly, an insult to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has successfully played a part to place us at the lowest tier in terms of human rights. We proudly proclaim ourselves university students, in complete awareness of this knowledge, yet though our inaction we blindly accept this insolent law.
Aminul Rasyid, Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, GST, subsidy cuts, economic burden on the rakyat are only a sliver of the issues insulting basic human rights. An innocent kid shot directly to the head by an irresponsible police officer. Economic terrorism leading to families not even able to have basic amenities such as water, electricity and education. We see, hear and know of all these injustices. Our awareness, if there is at all any, makes our silence all the more embarrassing when compared with our student bodies of 30 years ago, the outspoken student crowds of our neighbouring country, Indonesia, and America’s student unions divestment effort to stop Israel’s crimes towards Palestine.
Have those RM15 cappucino lattes completely numbed our conscience?
Thankfully, all is not lost. There are a few, but not enough, out there who publicly denounce AUKU and have courageously listened to their hearts and conscience, such as the recent famous four from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia caught participating in the Hulu Selangor by-election. To these brave young men and women, I salute you.
May 31, 2010
There is a Bob Dylan song that goes “I used to care, but things have changed”.
Malaysian students used to care. They used to live up to their grand Malay name “mahasiswa”; fresh, spirited, inspired. Now it is a deafening silence or, worse, clueless silence. We have become frightened and leashed. We have surpassed ourselves to become shining examples of obedience. Like dogs. If the dogs bark, the owners whip and yank on their steel collars. If they are silent, they are rewarded with treats. In time, we have forgotten how to bark.
The mahasiswas of today are like those dogs.
Historically, young people were a significant force in the development of this country.
They were heady with the victory for independence. The mahasiswas debated, protested and demonstrated for pro-justice, pro-human rights, justifying their position and manifesting the education they receive in the best institutions of the country.
Back in 1974 during the Tasik Utara issue they were reckoned forceful enough that desperate villagers look towards them to help. Twenty-six years ago, a staggering 5,000 students went to demand for the eradication of poverty in Baling.
Where are they now?
In Pavilion, sipping RM15 cappucino lattes, using a Blackberry to play “Texas Hold ‘Em”. In shopping malls, stretching daddy’s credit card to buy more things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like. Apathy, ignorance, oblivion is a pandemic amongst Malaysian youths. One can give the excuse that the mahasiswas of before were spurred by the injustice they saw when they worked as teachers in the outskirts. One can continue by saying it is not our fault that we are robbed of such experience and enlightenment. One can even cite the magic word: Akta Universiti and Kolej Universiti. Such an argument is nothing but a conscience struggling to save some face.
First-class facilities did not rob the students at the University of California, Berkeley and several other universities of their conscience. For months, theirs was a persistent effort to bring together students of all race, gender and opinions to pass a Bill to divest from any investment from companies that provided financial and military support to Israel. Compared to them, we fall short miserably in terms of empowerment, independence and desire.
Sure, AUKU is a reasonable excuse. Being expelled and blacklisted, the possibility of not graduating, not getting a job or, worst of all, the dreams of owning a BMW evaporated are deterrents. However, AUKU is a blatant disregard to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which advocates freedom of speech, expression and assembly, an insult to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has successfully played a part to place us at the lowest tier in terms of human rights. We proudly proclaim ourselves university students, in complete awareness of this knowledge, yet though our inaction we blindly accept this insolent law.
Aminul Rasyid, Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, GST, subsidy cuts, economic burden on the rakyat are only a sliver of the issues insulting basic human rights. An innocent kid shot directly to the head by an irresponsible police officer. Economic terrorism leading to families not even able to have basic amenities such as water, electricity and education. We see, hear and know of all these injustices. Our awareness, if there is at all any, makes our silence all the more embarrassing when compared with our student bodies of 30 years ago, the outspoken student crowds of our neighbouring country, Indonesia, and America’s student unions divestment effort to stop Israel’s crimes towards Palestine.
Have those RM15 cappucino lattes completely numbed our conscience?
Thankfully, all is not lost. There are a few, but not enough, out there who publicly denounce AUKU and have courageously listened to their hearts and conscience, such as the recent famous four from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia caught participating in the Hulu Selangor by-election. To these brave young men and women, I salute you.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Building a better person
We often think about schooling as simply getting good exam results; maybe at best, we regard it as a way to practice our intellectual skills. But schools are where the adults of tomorrow learn not just how to read and write, but how to live. Our schools do a good job of teaching us basic literacy (and arguably quite a poor job of helping us think about the things we read and write), but even our best schools are often only mediocre when it comes to preparing us for life outside academia.
A friend of mine, Lim Su Ann, wrote an excellent post some months back on how deeply unsatisfying the opportunities for extracurricular growth are in our schools — it's a piece I recommend highly. Most of us in school simply go through the motions of extracurricular involvement — we don't really care about what we do. Most of the extracurricular things I pursued in school had nothing to do with my school. Until our schools allow students the freedom to pursue the things which interest them outside the classroom, and encourage responsible decisionmaking instead of simply usurping all of students' autonomy, we can't say our schools are properly preparing the adults of tomorrow.
A friend of mine, Lim Su Ann, wrote an excellent post some months back on how deeply unsatisfying the opportunities for extracurricular growth are in our schools — it's a piece I recommend highly. Most of us in school simply go through the motions of extracurricular involvement — we don't really care about what we do. Most of the extracurricular things I pursued in school had nothing to do with my school. Until our schools allow students the freedom to pursue the things which interest them outside the classroom, and encourage responsible decisionmaking instead of simply usurping all of students' autonomy, we can't say our schools are properly preparing the adults of tomorrow.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The right way to study maths
Here is a fantastic presentation by a maths teacher, Dan Meyer, explaining what is wrong with virtually every maths textbook out there:
What I like about his idea is that it focuses on first understanding the concept, and only then applying the maths. It harnesses your intuition about a problem you would normally encounter in the real world to get you on the hook, so you have no choice but to learn the maths to get your answer.
He speaks as if this is a problem unique to the US, but it is not. As he says, teachers from all around the world have approached him about his ideas, because they resonate on a global basis. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman has a famous essay on the irrelevance of mathematics textbooks in a similar vein.
Notice that Meyer identifies five symptoms of bad maths teaching. I think all of us in our school system have suffered from these symptoms at some point; the aversion to word problems and the over-eagerness to harness a simple formula must ring a bell for anyone who's ever stepped into a classroom here. Now the question is, how can we bring this new philosophy of teaching into our classrooms and textbooks?
What I like about his idea is that it focuses on first understanding the concept, and only then applying the maths. It harnesses your intuition about a problem you would normally encounter in the real world to get you on the hook, so you have no choice but to learn the maths to get your answer.
He speaks as if this is a problem unique to the US, but it is not. As he says, teachers from all around the world have approached him about his ideas, because they resonate on a global basis. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman has a famous essay on the irrelevance of mathematics textbooks in a similar vein.
Notice that Meyer identifies five symptoms of bad maths teaching. I think all of us in our school system have suffered from these symptoms at some point; the aversion to word problems and the over-eagerness to harness a simple formula must ring a bell for anyone who's ever stepped into a classroom here. Now the question is, how can we bring this new philosophy of teaching into our classrooms and textbooks?
Friday, April 02, 2010
Personal Milestone (I)
It's been a while since my last post on this blog. I've been buried in my dissertation for the past six months. Thus the neglect of my blogging duties. It's been a long journey, one that has been physically, intellectually and emotionally challenging (and oftentimes exhausting) but after approximately 6 years here at Duke, I successfully defended my dissertation on Wednesday, March 31st, 2010! Later, I'll write a lengthier post on the process of obtaining my PhD but for now, I'm enjoying the feeling of having the PhD monkey off my back!
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Budget Cuts Eats In
In my "political life", one of my key themes is the fact that the Government is out of cash, and is desperately trying to raise funds via various forms of taxes, as well as sales of assets. However, the clearest indication of the shortfall of funds has to be the ridiculous nature of some of the budget tightening process at our Ministries.
It raises the question as to whether the Government knows what it is doing and whether it is just being penny wise and pound foolish. Officials appear to be concentrating on minor cost cuts eating into essential expenditure, instead of the big ticket items which are often wasteful, and are the real culprits to wasteful expenditure.
The opinion by former chief news editor of NTV7 and 8TV with regards to the cuts in our local boarding schools highlights the ridiculousness of the situation. Excerpts of his article are as follows.
Of schools, hostels and tight budget
...After the few early callers, a lady who was put on air. But instead of commenting on the topic she went on to say that her children who were studying in a boarding school have been told to go home every weekend. Reason being, the school (which she did not name) could no longer provide meals for the students during weekends.
Apparently, the days of giving hostel students meals seven days a week are gone. Why? Well the lady claimed she was told that the school’s annual budget had been slashed. Meaning the school is running on less money.
[...]
It raises the question as to whether the Government knows what it is doing and whether it is just being penny wise and pound foolish. Officials appear to be concentrating on minor cost cuts eating into essential expenditure, instead of the big ticket items which are often wasteful, and are the real culprits to wasteful expenditure.
The opinion by former chief news editor of NTV7 and 8TV with regards to the cuts in our local boarding schools highlights the ridiculousness of the situation. Excerpts of his article are as follows.
Of schools, hostels and tight budget
...After the few early callers, a lady who was put on air. But instead of commenting on the topic she went on to say that her children who were studying in a boarding school have been told to go home every weekend. Reason being, the school (which she did not name) could no longer provide meals for the students during weekends.
Apparently, the days of giving hostel students meals seven days a week are gone. Why? Well the lady claimed she was told that the school’s annual budget had been slashed. Meaning the school is running on less money.
[...]
But it did not stop there. Several calls later, another listener called in to say that at the hostel his son was staying, students now had to do group study sessions in the canteen. They used to study in classrooms but not anymore. The lights in the classrooms are now switched off. Reason? Apparently to save on electricity bills, i.e., cut costs, i.e., austerity drive.
[...]
[...]
Over the weekend I bumped into an acquaintance who happened to be a hostel warden. He is a school teacher but, as warden, he is additionally tasked with looking after the well-being and security of students staying in his school’s hostel.
I asked him if it was true that students are now required to go home on weekends.
“Yes,” he said. Initially, all students were instructed to leave for home on weekends, he added, but the ministry then decided the go-home move could not be made mandatory. So students are “advised’ to go home on weekends. Most students do so, he said. Wonder why?
“Why this ‘nasihat’?” I asked. Why has it come to this?
“No money” was his reply. Well, not exactly “no money” but, rather, limited funds. Put simply schools are operating on tight budget.
[...]
I asked him if it was true that students are now required to go home on weekends.
“Yes,” he said. Initially, all students were instructed to leave for home on weekends, he added, but the ministry then decided the go-home move could not be made mandatory. So students are “advised’ to go home on weekends. Most students do so, he said. Wonder why?
“Why this ‘nasihat’?” I asked. Why has it come to this?
“No money” was his reply. Well, not exactly “no money” but, rather, limited funds. Put simply schools are operating on tight budget.
[...]
Parents, coaches, teachers, students – many people are angry. Rightly so. The consequences of the budget cut are dire and many. We all know it, all too well. There’s no need to repeat ourselves. Suffice for me to ask again: “How come?” Why no money?
Then, there’s the 2008 Auditor General’s report highlighted by The Malay Mail recently. The AG report said the Education Ministry paid RM250 for each of six peacock flowers for a school. The market price for the plant is RM30.
The report went on to reveal the ministry had spent RM57,493 for the supply, sowing, gardening and maintenance of flowers and trees for the same school – 880 per cent higher than the most expensive quote available from local nurseries.
And it was reported also that the ministry had replaced doors in two schools at prices 56 per cent to 64 per cent higher than figures quoted by the Works Ministry.
Then there was the RM480 paid for a door when the Works Ministry quoted RM272.70.
There are more examples, of course. But enough said, lest our hearts ache further.
But I ask – why the big spending? How come there’s money to spend?
[...]
Then, there’s the 2008 Auditor General’s report highlighted by The Malay Mail recently. The AG report said the Education Ministry paid RM250 for each of six peacock flowers for a school. The market price for the plant is RM30.
The report went on to reveal the ministry had spent RM57,493 for the supply, sowing, gardening and maintenance of flowers and trees for the same school – 880 per cent higher than the most expensive quote available from local nurseries.
And it was reported also that the ministry had replaced doors in two schools at prices 56 per cent to 64 per cent higher than figures quoted by the Works Ministry.
Then there was the RM480 paid for a door when the Works Ministry quoted RM272.70.
There are more examples, of course. But enough said, lest our hearts ache further.
But I ask – why the big spending? How come there’s money to spend?
[...]
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
The tragic tale of Malaysian education
by Lee Wei Lian
(This article is first published in The Malaysian Insider)
What do Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Malaysia’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s second richest man T. Ananda Krishnan and YTL chairman Tan Sri Francis Yeoh have in common?
The answer: all four studied at once famous schools that are now glaringly absent from the list of 20 high performance schools recently announced by the government.
Victoria Institution (Ananda, Yeoh), St John’s Institution (Najib), Penang Free School (Tunku Abdul Rahman) and others like Malacca High School and St Michael’s Institution are all storied schools that have been allowed to fall behind until they are no longer counted as among the elite educational institutions in the country.
Just imagine if Eton College in the UK or Raffles Institution in Singapore was not recognised as one of the top schools in their respective countries.
That is the equivalent of what has befallen what were once the most respected schools in Malaysia. Today, they do not even rate a mention on a list of the top 20 high performance schools.
It is a crying shame as these schools produced many leaders that were influential in the development of Malaysia and to a lesser extent even in Singapore.
But what happened to these academic icons? Was it merely a case of these venerable institutions being surpassed by more ambitious upstarts? Was it merely oversight that they were left off the list? Or was it a result of deliberate attempts over the years to sideline these institutions because they were founded by the British and/or missionaries?
Or was it sheer mismanagement on the part of the government that these once most prestigious names in Malayan/Malaysian education were allowed to fade along with the general perception of the quality of education in the country? Did, like so much else that is wrong with Malaysia, politics get in the way of academic stewardship?
Just consider the contributions these schools have made to society and business. Besides Tunku, the Penang Free School also nurtured the likes of Tan Sri P. Ramlee, actor and director extraordinaire, Danny Quah, a prominent economist and head of the department of economics at the London School of Economics who also sits on the National Economic Advisory Council which is formulating Malaysia’s new economic model, and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development in the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Apart from the prime minister, St John’s groomed one of Asia’s top bankers, CIMB CEO Datuk Seri Nazir Razak, one of the world’s top central bankers Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz and the former vice-chancellor of the National University of Singapore, B.R. Sreenivasan.
Methodist Boy’s School produced the chairman of the Genting group, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, the chairman of the OCBC Bank and former CEO of Singapore Airlines, Dr Cheong Choong Kong, the vice chancellor of UKM, Professor Tan Sri Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, Tan Sri Tay Ah Lek, managing director of Public Bank, and Singapore’s former Minister of Education Ong Bang Poon.
Besides Ananda and Yeoh, Victoria Institution also educated the one of the world’s richest men, the Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, former Singapore Deputy Prime Minister S. Rajaratnam, as well as some of Malaysia’s most legendary sportsmen, footballer Mokhtar Dahari and all four Sidek brothers.
Even if there was no list of top 20 “high performance schools” there would be little disagreement that these schools are now just a shadow of their former selves and can no longer command the respect they once did.
What does it then say about a government that allowed such historic and educational gems, some that date back nearly 200 years, to slip down the ranks in less than 50?
A closer look at the list also reveals something of the government’s apparently negligent attitude towards heritage conservation. Seri Bintang Utara made it to the list as a high performance school despite having to survive the demolition of its premises in Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur where the “ginormous” Pavilion mall now stands and what appears to be attempts to wipe out its identity as it was formerly known as the Bukit Bintang Girls School, or more popularly BBGS.
To this day, while I like and enjoy the high quality of the Pavilion mall, I still feel a wave of disgust every time I set foot in it that seemingly nothing of BBGS, Kuala Lumpur’s oldest and one of its most prestigious schools, was preserved in the construction of the mall and that the government did not see fit to mandate any preservation either.
And all this is more than an academic shame as these schools are reminders of a time when students of all races grew up in school together and were taught to discard their racial lenses and be Johannians and Victorians, a truly depressing contrast to the current situation where Malays grow up in national schools, Chinese in Chinese schools and Indians in Tamil schools.
Can the Najib administration reverse the decline of these once prestigious schools? Anything can be achieved if there is sufficient will so the bigger question is, do they even want to?
* Lee Wei Lian attended the Bukit Bintang Boys School in Petaling Jaya. Nisi Dominus Frustra.
Addendum: The list of Malaysia’s 20 high performance schools are: Sekolah Tun Fatimah (Johor Baru), Sekolah Dato’ Abdul Razak (Seremban), Malay College Kuala Kangsar, Sekolah Seri Puteri (Cyberjaya), Sekolah Menengah Sultan Abdul Halim (Jitra), Kolej Tunku Kurshiah (Seremban), Kolej Islam Sultan Alam Shah (Klang), Sekolah Menengah Sains (SMS) Tuanku Syed Putra (Perlis), Sekolah Sultan Alam Shah (Putrajaya) and SMS Muzaffar Syah (Malacca), Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) (P) Sri Aman(Petaling Jaya), SMK Aminuddin Baki (Kuala Lumpur), SMK Sultanah Asma (Alor Star) and SMK (P) St George (Penang), Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Seri Bintang Utara (KL), SK Taman Tun Dr Ismail 1 (KL), SK Bukit Damansara (KL), SK Zainab (2) (Kota Baru), SK Convent Kota (Taiping), SK Bandar Baru Uda 2 (Johor Baru).
(This article is first published in The Malaysian Insider)
What do Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Malaysia’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s second richest man T. Ananda Krishnan and YTL chairman Tan Sri Francis Yeoh have in common?
The answer: all four studied at once famous schools that are now glaringly absent from the list of 20 high performance schools recently announced by the government.
Victoria Institution (Ananda, Yeoh), St John’s Institution (Najib), Penang Free School (Tunku Abdul Rahman) and others like Malacca High School and St Michael’s Institution are all storied schools that have been allowed to fall behind until they are no longer counted as among the elite educational institutions in the country.
Just imagine if Eton College in the UK or Raffles Institution in Singapore was not recognised as one of the top schools in their respective countries.
That is the equivalent of what has befallen what were once the most respected schools in Malaysia. Today, they do not even rate a mention on a list of the top 20 high performance schools.
It is a crying shame as these schools produced many leaders that were influential in the development of Malaysia and to a lesser extent even in Singapore.
But what happened to these academic icons? Was it merely a case of these venerable institutions being surpassed by more ambitious upstarts? Was it merely oversight that they were left off the list? Or was it a result of deliberate attempts over the years to sideline these institutions because they were founded by the British and/or missionaries?
Or was it sheer mismanagement on the part of the government that these once most prestigious names in Malayan/Malaysian education were allowed to fade along with the general perception of the quality of education in the country? Did, like so much else that is wrong with Malaysia, politics get in the way of academic stewardship?
Just consider the contributions these schools have made to society and business. Besides Tunku, the Penang Free School also nurtured the likes of Tan Sri P. Ramlee, actor and director extraordinaire, Danny Quah, a prominent economist and head of the department of economics at the London School of Economics who also sits on the National Economic Advisory Council which is formulating Malaysia’s new economic model, and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development in the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Apart from the prime minister, St John’s groomed one of Asia’s top bankers, CIMB CEO Datuk Seri Nazir Razak, one of the world’s top central bankers Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz and the former vice-chancellor of the National University of Singapore, B.R. Sreenivasan.
Methodist Boy’s School produced the chairman of the Genting group, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, the chairman of the OCBC Bank and former CEO of Singapore Airlines, Dr Cheong Choong Kong, the vice chancellor of UKM, Professor Tan Sri Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, Tan Sri Tay Ah Lek, managing director of Public Bank, and Singapore’s former Minister of Education Ong Bang Poon.
Besides Ananda and Yeoh, Victoria Institution also educated the one of the world’s richest men, the Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, former Singapore Deputy Prime Minister S. Rajaratnam, as well as some of Malaysia’s most legendary sportsmen, footballer Mokhtar Dahari and all four Sidek brothers.
Even if there was no list of top 20 “high performance schools” there would be little disagreement that these schools are now just a shadow of their former selves and can no longer command the respect they once did.
What does it then say about a government that allowed such historic and educational gems, some that date back nearly 200 years, to slip down the ranks in less than 50?
A closer look at the list also reveals something of the government’s apparently negligent attitude towards heritage conservation. Seri Bintang Utara made it to the list as a high performance school despite having to survive the demolition of its premises in Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur where the “ginormous” Pavilion mall now stands and what appears to be attempts to wipe out its identity as it was formerly known as the Bukit Bintang Girls School, or more popularly BBGS.
To this day, while I like and enjoy the high quality of the Pavilion mall, I still feel a wave of disgust every time I set foot in it that seemingly nothing of BBGS, Kuala Lumpur’s oldest and one of its most prestigious schools, was preserved in the construction of the mall and that the government did not see fit to mandate any preservation either.
And all this is more than an academic shame as these schools are reminders of a time when students of all races grew up in school together and were taught to discard their racial lenses and be Johannians and Victorians, a truly depressing contrast to the current situation where Malays grow up in national schools, Chinese in Chinese schools and Indians in Tamil schools.
Can the Najib administration reverse the decline of these once prestigious schools? Anything can be achieved if there is sufficient will so the bigger question is, do they even want to?
* Lee Wei Lian attended the Bukit Bintang Boys School in Petaling Jaya. Nisi Dominus Frustra.
Addendum: The list of Malaysia’s 20 high performance schools are: Sekolah Tun Fatimah (Johor Baru), Sekolah Dato’ Abdul Razak (Seremban), Malay College Kuala Kangsar, Sekolah Seri Puteri (Cyberjaya), Sekolah Menengah Sultan Abdul Halim (Jitra), Kolej Tunku Kurshiah (Seremban), Kolej Islam Sultan Alam Shah (Klang), Sekolah Menengah Sains (SMS) Tuanku Syed Putra (Perlis), Sekolah Sultan Alam Shah (Putrajaya) and SMS Muzaffar Syah (Malacca), Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) (P) Sri Aman(Petaling Jaya), SMK Aminuddin Baki (Kuala Lumpur), SMK Sultanah Asma (Alor Star) and SMK (P) St George (Penang), Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Seri Bintang Utara (KL), SK Taman Tun Dr Ismail 1 (KL), SK Bukit Damansara (KL), SK Zainab (2) (Kota Baru), SK Convent Kota (Taiping), SK Bandar Baru Uda 2 (Johor Baru).
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Elections in schools?
Apparently the Election Commission has been running elections in schools. There are two problems with this piece of news: the first is the skepticism about the value of teaching democracy, and the second is that the Election Commission is involved at all.
Basically, a primary school in Taman Tun (a suburb of KL) held an election for the post of head prefect -- supposedly the first time this has happened in the country. They had a formal nomination and campaigning process, all conducted by the Election Commission.
When contacted, the EC deputy chair said he believed that teaching democracy to primary school students is unnecessary, but that the Federal Territories EC was just doing its job in helping conduct the elections. I can't really imagine why he would say this.
The job of the Election Commission, after all, is to safeguard our democracy! Why on earth would they oppose the teaching of democracy or democratic values? What does the EC have against democracy or elections?
The excuse that year 4 or year 6 kids are too young to understand how the democratic process works is ridiculous. Even in year 1, we were electing class monitors. If you're old enough to buy something from your school canteen, you're old enough to make at least some decisions for yourself -- and I see no reason to exclude political decisions from this. If you're old enough to learn how to spend money, you're old enough to learn how to decide who to vote for.
Of course, we can debate whether the position of head prefect should be an elected one -- but assuming the candidates are drawn from the body of prefects, all of whom have already met minimum standards of discipline and responsibility, I can easily see why it may make sense to elect the head prefect.
What I can't see is why the EC should be involved in this. If the teachers' understanding of elections and democracy is so poor that they don't know where to start with holding an election, then that is a serious failure of both democracy and public education. It does not make logical sense for the same public agency to be holding both parliamentary and primary school student government elections.
Overall, I'm hopeful that we can expand civics education in our schools and see more applied lessons in democracy like this one. While it's debatable whether how this election was held was actually instructive, I think in general, schools ought to be a fantastic environment for learning how our country's political system works, and what our democratic values look like when put into practice.
Basically, a primary school in Taman Tun (a suburb of KL) held an election for the post of head prefect -- supposedly the first time this has happened in the country. They had a formal nomination and campaigning process, all conducted by the Election Commission.
When contacted, the EC deputy chair said he believed that teaching democracy to primary school students is unnecessary, but that the Federal Territories EC was just doing its job in helping conduct the elections. I can't really imagine why he would say this.
The job of the Election Commission, after all, is to safeguard our democracy! Why on earth would they oppose the teaching of democracy or democratic values? What does the EC have against democracy or elections?
The excuse that year 4 or year 6 kids are too young to understand how the democratic process works is ridiculous. Even in year 1, we were electing class monitors. If you're old enough to buy something from your school canteen, you're old enough to make at least some decisions for yourself -- and I see no reason to exclude political decisions from this. If you're old enough to learn how to spend money, you're old enough to learn how to decide who to vote for.
Of course, we can debate whether the position of head prefect should be an elected one -- but assuming the candidates are drawn from the body of prefects, all of whom have already met minimum standards of discipline and responsibility, I can easily see why it may make sense to elect the head prefect.
What I can't see is why the EC should be involved in this. If the teachers' understanding of elections and democracy is so poor that they don't know where to start with holding an election, then that is a serious failure of both democracy and public education. It does not make logical sense for the same public agency to be holding both parliamentary and primary school student government elections.
Overall, I'm hopeful that we can expand civics education in our schools and see more applied lessons in democracy like this one. While it's debatable whether how this election was held was actually instructive, I think in general, schools ought to be a fantastic environment for learning how our country's political system works, and what our democratic values look like when put into practice.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
A Student's Perspective on Semesters for Form 6
One of my friends, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a response to the lower six student's letter which Tony recently posted. Rajan, himself an alumnus of form six, said most of what I want to say about the issue, and I recommend reading it—this is perhaps the most incisive part of the piece:
As Rajan says himself, a lot of the people criticising the writer for their ostensible lousy time management probably didn't do STPM. I didn't do it either, but everything I know about it suggests that it is absolutely not a walk in the park.
In the first place, how does the school environment the writer describes train you to manage your time better? The writer is in school from 7.30am to 4pm, which is longer than the typical 9-to-5 workday. Even assuming most Malaysians work longer hours than that, it is unusual for people to bring work home with them and work at home.
Because our schools are so inferior, a lot of Malaysians now attend tuition classes outside school. Most lower six students will have even less time to attend tuition now. And even assuming there isn't tuition, most students will be studying in their spare time, especially for an exam like the STPM.
If you work it out, students operating under this new scheme will have basically little to no free time. What time is there to manage then, if you have to devote all of it to your studies?
A lot of the issues the writer mentions don't exist for pre-university students in other streams, because you tend to get a choice of what (if any) extracurricular activities to participate in, and have more spare time during the day. That's where time management is actually relevant.
Now, the writer obviously is rolling out a laundry list of problems with the school that to other people probably seem a bit ludicrous. Complaints about skin cancer and mamak food are relatively trivial compared to the other points the writer raises. But as Tony said, he or she is a 17-year-old, and in my experience, these complaints are almost ubiquitous amongst students of this age in school. Let's not focus on the trivialities of the writer's complaint: the real issue is that the Education Ministry is rolling out a poorly-thought-out plan, using the entire nation as its guinea pig — and on the face of it, the idea is ridiculous, because it means students are in school for longer than many adult workers.
If the Ministry of Education really wanted to move to a semester-based, coursework-heavy system, the better policy is to increase enrolment of non-Bumiputras in matriculation programs (though matriculation and Form Six are under different ministries). The cynic in me points out that would defeat the purpose of the dual-track system in Malaysia: as a tool of stealthish discrimination.I want to tackle something else instead: the issue of time management.
As Rajan says himself, a lot of the people criticising the writer for their ostensible lousy time management probably didn't do STPM. I didn't do it either, but everything I know about it suggests that it is absolutely not a walk in the park.
In the first place, how does the school environment the writer describes train you to manage your time better? The writer is in school from 7.30am to 4pm, which is longer than the typical 9-to-5 workday. Even assuming most Malaysians work longer hours than that, it is unusual for people to bring work home with them and work at home.
Because our schools are so inferior, a lot of Malaysians now attend tuition classes outside school. Most lower six students will have even less time to attend tuition now. And even assuming there isn't tuition, most students will be studying in their spare time, especially for an exam like the STPM.
If you work it out, students operating under this new scheme will have basically little to no free time. What time is there to manage then, if you have to devote all of it to your studies?
A lot of the issues the writer mentions don't exist for pre-university students in other streams, because you tend to get a choice of what (if any) extracurricular activities to participate in, and have more spare time during the day. That's where time management is actually relevant.
Now, the writer obviously is rolling out a laundry list of problems with the school that to other people probably seem a bit ludicrous. Complaints about skin cancer and mamak food are relatively trivial compared to the other points the writer raises. But as Tony said, he or she is a 17-year-old, and in my experience, these complaints are almost ubiquitous amongst students of this age in school. Let's not focus on the trivialities of the writer's complaint: the real issue is that the Education Ministry is rolling out a poorly-thought-out plan, using the entire nation as its guinea pig — and on the face of it, the idea is ridiculous, because it means students are in school for longer than many adult workers.
Friday, November 20, 2009
New "Semester" Scheme For Form 6?
I've received the following complaint from a Form 6 student. I don't agree with the bits which said some of the activities are a "waste of time", but the concern over long school hours is very valid. When commenting, please remember that the writer is a 17-year-old.
I am a lower 6 student. A new system has recently been implemented in all schools with Form Six classes throughout the country. All Lower Six classes from 2009 will have to stay back until 4pm. This new system started in my school in early July.
I found out from the teachers that this batch (2009/2010) was used to try out the suitability of the semester-based system to be implemented in schools in the future. Unfortunately for us, our exams are still not semester-based.
Staying back till 4pm means we, Lower Six students will not have a chance to participate in the extra-curricular activities as all the club and uniformed body meetings are held after 1pm. What about our co-curriculum marks? We were told that 10% of the overall criteria to enter local universities is from our involvement in co-curricular activities.
Before this new system was implemented, we all could go for our co-curricular activities. With the new system in place, we are forced to stay back and could not involve ourself in such activities as the timing will clash with us as most activities are held after school. While co-curricular activities make up 10% of our total STPM grades, I strongly believe there must be other alternatives. I don’t think a person who has four distinctions, but without any co-curricular achievements will be selected to enter a local university.
So, why should we stay until 4 o’clock seen that such things we are doing now are no contribute any marks to our STPM?
The new system is a complete waste of time. The new system requires students to stay back after school until 4pm for activities. But the activities organised by the school to keep students until 4pm is not a good idea. The extra time that we are required to put in in school is used for nonsensical activities such as making posters, doing sketches, preparing for presentations and proposals and doing research and development (R&D).
Besides this , some activities are really of no use to us. For example, during cocuriculum , we even told to prepare food, play on the field under the hot sun from 2.40pm - 4pm and planning how to decorate this school. I do not see the teaching and learning value here as these activities are a waste of time! In addition, some students hate it so much that they decided to skip school altogether.
I understand that this system is a part of the Education Ministry’s initiative in boosting the level of confidence and enhancing communicative ability among school students while doing presentation. But please be rational and reasonable. Ministry need to take cognizance that we are humans too. All of us need more time to study and staying back till 4pm is just too much on our plates. The moment we reach home, most of us will be dead tired. By the time we get home, we will be exhausted because we have been in school since 7.30am. Many of us would be too tired after coming back from school and just hop on to the bed into dreamland even if they wish to study.
Furthermore, not to forget the amount of assignments given by our teachers and we have to complete everything on time. By then we would be too tired to study. Preparing for presentations and projects requires a lot of our attention and time, so we will struggle to cope with our studies. Our main priority is still our studies! Without time to revise, how are we supposed to live our dreams of attaining a 4.0 score?
But forcing us to stay back after school will deprive us of the chance to revise our lessons. An ample amount of time is needed for us to carry out constant revision. However with the time constraints, there is certainly no time for us to study at home! Even if we do have the time, we would suffer from fatigue. The ministry fails to see the light that whatever there doing is in fact making our lives even more miserable, stressful and very depressing. Will this result in good achievement in the STPM exams? Definitely NO!!!
Many parents decided to send their children to Form Six as it is the cheapest route to universities. But now not any more. We have to fork out our own money for our lunch expenses. By right, if the Education Ministry wants to carry this out, they should at least think about giving lunch allowances to us. Now, parents will need to fork out additional expenses for their child’s lunch. Not everyone is well-to-do. In these times where money does not come easy, forking out extra money will be a burden to them as the overall house expenditure would have increased as well.
Another woe is that we are only given an hour for our lunch break before we begin our presentation; it is impossible for students to head home to have a home-cooked meal, take a bath and have a short break and then rush back to school before 2 o’clock. Most of us will not be able to eat at home as we are not living nearby. Therefore, students are left with no other alternatives but to patronise nearby mamak stalls for their lunch. Needless to say, food sold at mamak stalls can be unhealthy and unhygienic. And since the mamak stalls usually serves oily and non-nutritious food, the students are not benefiting at all as it make us feel lethargic. With the lack of nutritious food, how are we to maintain a healthy body to study hard and achieve good result in STPM?
On the other hand, transportation is a major problem for most of us. Our parents are not free to send us home. Left with no other immediate solutions in sight, we have to rely on public transport like buses. Taking the school bus at odd hours costs extra as it is inconvenient for the drivers. Some of us are not living nearby and thus, walking back home will be out of the question and too dangerous for us students considering the disturbingly high number of snatch theft cases across the country.
Besides that, prolonged exposure to the afternoon sun could lead to skin cancer. Do we want to wait till years later to find out that many of our future generation who took Form Six were to suffer from skin cancer because of this new system? It is undeniable that life in the sixth form can be pretty daunting and challenging.
Not only are the students disatisfied with this new system, the teachers are unhappy. They could not express their feeling as they could risk losing their jobs. Almost every teacher I have spoken to, too, did not agree with this new system.They feel that the time spent in school is way too long! Forget about the students, even the teachers are grumbling! Teachers and students alike are exhausted by the end of the day.So, how do we expect teachers to perform their best when they are tired? Needless to say, students too have a hard time concentrating in the hot and stuffy afternoon classes.It is not fair for the teachers who teach the Form Six classes for they have to stay back for longer hours compared to their other colleagues. Wake up! The new system brings nothing but stress and red tape.
I acknowledged that some authorities would advice us to quit form six if we despise or hate the system. However, as far as I concerned, we are totally not being informed about this 4pm-stay-back system until a few week after we enrolled. We are the victims and we got no other better options than form six but as a student, we have the right to protect our right and express our feeling. The system will continue to be part of our lives for next years. So, we need to change. There is no point “testing” as the Malaysian education system is not a playground or lab where future leaders were “tested” with new policies. We as the students are not “guinea pigs”. If we were to continue to “test” policies on our children, our education system will be seen as a joke in the international arena.
Last but not least, I only hope next year we can revert back to the old system where everyone can go home like normal or 1pm. I sincerely hope you will help us. Thank you.
I am a lower 6 student. A new system has recently been implemented in all schools with Form Six classes throughout the country. All Lower Six classes from 2009 will have to stay back until 4pm. This new system started in my school in early July.
I found out from the teachers that this batch (2009/2010) was used to try out the suitability of the semester-based system to be implemented in schools in the future. Unfortunately for us, our exams are still not semester-based.
Staying back till 4pm means we, Lower Six students will not have a chance to participate in the extra-curricular activities as all the club and uniformed body meetings are held after 1pm. What about our co-curriculum marks? We were told that 10% of the overall criteria to enter local universities is from our involvement in co-curricular activities.
Before this new system was implemented, we all could go for our co-curricular activities. With the new system in place, we are forced to stay back and could not involve ourself in such activities as the timing will clash with us as most activities are held after school. While co-curricular activities make up 10% of our total STPM grades, I strongly believe there must be other alternatives. I don’t think a person who has four distinctions, but without any co-curricular achievements will be selected to enter a local university.
So, why should we stay until 4 o’clock seen that such things we are doing now are no contribute any marks to our STPM?
The new system is a complete waste of time. The new system requires students to stay back after school until 4pm for activities. But the activities organised by the school to keep students until 4pm is not a good idea. The extra time that we are required to put in in school is used for nonsensical activities such as making posters, doing sketches, preparing for presentations and proposals and doing research and development (R&D).
Besides this , some activities are really of no use to us. For example, during cocuriculum , we even told to prepare food, play on the field under the hot sun from 2.40pm - 4pm and planning how to decorate this school. I do not see the teaching and learning value here as these activities are a waste of time! In addition, some students hate it so much that they decided to skip school altogether.
I understand that this system is a part of the Education Ministry’s initiative in boosting the level of confidence and enhancing communicative ability among school students while doing presentation. But please be rational and reasonable. Ministry need to take cognizance that we are humans too. All of us need more time to study and staying back till 4pm is just too much on our plates. The moment we reach home, most of us will be dead tired. By the time we get home, we will be exhausted because we have been in school since 7.30am. Many of us would be too tired after coming back from school and just hop on to the bed into dreamland even if they wish to study.
Furthermore, not to forget the amount of assignments given by our teachers and we have to complete everything on time. By then we would be too tired to study. Preparing for presentations and projects requires a lot of our attention and time, so we will struggle to cope with our studies. Our main priority is still our studies! Without time to revise, how are we supposed to live our dreams of attaining a 4.0 score?
But forcing us to stay back after school will deprive us of the chance to revise our lessons. An ample amount of time is needed for us to carry out constant revision. However with the time constraints, there is certainly no time for us to study at home! Even if we do have the time, we would suffer from fatigue. The ministry fails to see the light that whatever there doing is in fact making our lives even more miserable, stressful and very depressing. Will this result in good achievement in the STPM exams? Definitely NO!!!
Many parents decided to send their children to Form Six as it is the cheapest route to universities. But now not any more. We have to fork out our own money for our lunch expenses. By right, if the Education Ministry wants to carry this out, they should at least think about giving lunch allowances to us. Now, parents will need to fork out additional expenses for their child’s lunch. Not everyone is well-to-do. In these times where money does not come easy, forking out extra money will be a burden to them as the overall house expenditure would have increased as well.
Another woe is that we are only given an hour for our lunch break before we begin our presentation; it is impossible for students to head home to have a home-cooked meal, take a bath and have a short break and then rush back to school before 2 o’clock. Most of us will not be able to eat at home as we are not living nearby. Therefore, students are left with no other alternatives but to patronise nearby mamak stalls for their lunch. Needless to say, food sold at mamak stalls can be unhealthy and unhygienic. And since the mamak stalls usually serves oily and non-nutritious food, the students are not benefiting at all as it make us feel lethargic. With the lack of nutritious food, how are we to maintain a healthy body to study hard and achieve good result in STPM?
On the other hand, transportation is a major problem for most of us. Our parents are not free to send us home. Left with no other immediate solutions in sight, we have to rely on public transport like buses. Taking the school bus at odd hours costs extra as it is inconvenient for the drivers. Some of us are not living nearby and thus, walking back home will be out of the question and too dangerous for us students considering the disturbingly high number of snatch theft cases across the country.
Besides that, prolonged exposure to the afternoon sun could lead to skin cancer. Do we want to wait till years later to find out that many of our future generation who took Form Six were to suffer from skin cancer because of this new system? It is undeniable that life in the sixth form can be pretty daunting and challenging.
Not only are the students disatisfied with this new system, the teachers are unhappy. They could not express their feeling as they could risk losing their jobs. Almost every teacher I have spoken to, too, did not agree with this new system.They feel that the time spent in school is way too long! Forget about the students, even the teachers are grumbling! Teachers and students alike are exhausted by the end of the day.So, how do we expect teachers to perform their best when they are tired? Needless to say, students too have a hard time concentrating in the hot and stuffy afternoon classes.It is not fair for the teachers who teach the Form Six classes for they have to stay back for longer hours compared to their other colleagues. Wake up! The new system brings nothing but stress and red tape.
I acknowledged that some authorities would advice us to quit form six if we despise or hate the system. However, as far as I concerned, we are totally not being informed about this 4pm-stay-back system until a few week after we enrolled. We are the victims and we got no other better options than form six but as a student, we have the right to protect our right and express our feeling. The system will continue to be part of our lives for next years. So, we need to change. There is no point “testing” as the Malaysian education system is not a playground or lab where future leaders were “tested” with new policies. We as the students are not “guinea pigs”. If we were to continue to “test” policies on our children, our education system will be seen as a joke in the international arena.
Last but not least, I only hope next year we can revert back to the old system where everyone can go home like normal or 1pm. I sincerely hope you will help us. Thank you.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Bogus PhDs No More?
I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Higher Education as to the steps being taken to prevent academics with dubious qualifications from being hired by our local universities during the Budget debate 2 days ago. The following was the relevant exchange:
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Yang Berhormat Menteri, penjelasan. Minta maaf, topik tadi berkenaan mengenai PhD yang diambil oleh universiti-universiti tempatan. Saya ingin tahu, kita memang perlu meningkatkan jumlah pemegang PhD dalam universiti kita, tetapi saya mendapati bahawa memang ada juga yang pemegang PhD itu tidak mempunyai PhD dari universiti yang dikatakan sebagai recognized iaitu ada pemegang PhD di dalam universiti kita dan saya ada nama di mana mereka mendapat PhD mereka melalui correspondence course.
Pihak yang mengambil PhD memang tidak ada PhD yang credible boleh didapat di
correspondence course. So, apakah langkah yang diambil oleh kementerian supaya pemegang PhD seperti ini tidak dilantik dalam universiti kita.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Pertamanya kementerian sedang dalam peringkat untuk memperketatkan lagi peruntukan yang ada dalam undang-undang khususnya
undang-undang Akta Institut Pengajian Tinggi Swasta (Akta 555) untuk tentukan kita berkuasa untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap kes-kes yang sedemikian. Keduanya seperti kata Yang Berhormat ada tenaga akademik yang mungkin mempunyai PhD yang sedemikian tetapi kehadiran mereka dalam IPT atau pun universiti mereka masing-masing mungkin berasaskan Ijazah yang lain sama ada masters dan sebagainya.
Oleh kerana sesuatu PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, ia tidak di ambil kira. Saya percaya kalau pun ada nama dan saya juga mengalu-alukan kalau nama itu dapat diberi, kita boleh menyiasat dengan lebih teliti mengenai kedudukan pensyarah yang sebegini. Akan tetapi daripada laporan yang saya dimaklumkan, kalau pun ada pensyarah yang memiliki ijazah dan juga sarjana dan sebagainya, mereka juga membuat dan mendapat PhD mungkin melalui correspondence sebahagian daripada khususnya universiti awam, kalau PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, memang ia tidak diiktiraf dan mereka tidak mendapat apa-apa tambahan atau kebaikan daripada kedudukan mereka sebagai anggota tenaga akademik.
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Akan tetapi dalam resume mereka, dalam laman web, semua letak Doktor. So ini agak mengelirukan dan tidak baik untuk penuntut kita di universiti juga. Terima kasih.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Saya akan memberi nasihat dan makluman kepada semua dalam kes yang mana boleh guna profesor, boleh mengguna nama Doktor dan
sebagainya. Jika Yang Berhormat boleh bekerjasama dengan kementerian memberikan saya
nama-nama itu, kita akan follow up dengan pihak universiti dan kerana kita tidak kompromi dalam soal-soal yang boleh menyentuh kesan penjanaan tenaga akademik dalam universiti kita.
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Yang Berhormat Menteri, penjelasan. Minta maaf, topik tadi berkenaan mengenai PhD yang diambil oleh universiti-universiti tempatan. Saya ingin tahu, kita memang perlu meningkatkan jumlah pemegang PhD dalam universiti kita, tetapi saya mendapati bahawa memang ada juga yang pemegang PhD itu tidak mempunyai PhD dari universiti yang dikatakan sebagai recognized iaitu ada pemegang PhD di dalam universiti kita dan saya ada nama di mana mereka mendapat PhD mereka melalui correspondence course.
Pihak yang mengambil PhD memang tidak ada PhD yang credible boleh didapat di
correspondence course. So, apakah langkah yang diambil oleh kementerian supaya pemegang PhD seperti ini tidak dilantik dalam universiti kita.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Pertamanya kementerian sedang dalam peringkat untuk memperketatkan lagi peruntukan yang ada dalam undang-undang khususnya
undang-undang Akta Institut Pengajian Tinggi Swasta (Akta 555) untuk tentukan kita berkuasa untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap kes-kes yang sedemikian. Keduanya seperti kata Yang Berhormat ada tenaga akademik yang mungkin mempunyai PhD yang sedemikian tetapi kehadiran mereka dalam IPT atau pun universiti mereka masing-masing mungkin berasaskan Ijazah yang lain sama ada masters dan sebagainya.
Oleh kerana sesuatu PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, ia tidak di ambil kira. Saya percaya kalau pun ada nama dan saya juga mengalu-alukan kalau nama itu dapat diberi, kita boleh menyiasat dengan lebih teliti mengenai kedudukan pensyarah yang sebegini. Akan tetapi daripada laporan yang saya dimaklumkan, kalau pun ada pensyarah yang memiliki ijazah dan juga sarjana dan sebagainya, mereka juga membuat dan mendapat PhD mungkin melalui correspondence sebahagian daripada khususnya universiti awam, kalau PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, memang ia tidak diiktiraf dan mereka tidak mendapat apa-apa tambahan atau kebaikan daripada kedudukan mereka sebagai anggota tenaga akademik.
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Akan tetapi dalam resume mereka, dalam laman web, semua letak Doktor. So ini agak mengelirukan dan tidak baik untuk penuntut kita di universiti juga. Terima kasih.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Saya akan memberi nasihat dan makluman kepada semua dalam kes yang mana boleh guna profesor, boleh mengguna nama Doktor dan
sebagainya. Jika Yang Berhormat boleh bekerjasama dengan kementerian memberikan saya
nama-nama itu, kita akan follow up dengan pihak universiti dan kerana kita tidak kompromi dalam soal-soal yang boleh menyentuh kesan penjanaan tenaga akademik dalam universiti kita.
Minister's Reply on Action Against Students at UM
The issue of students being called up by the Disciplinary Board of various universities for offences such as inviting prominent politicians to be judges at a debating competition was raised during the recent budget debate, and the Minister of Higher Education 2 days ago.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nor: Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat di bawah aspek perundangan, Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang dikuatkuasakan pada 1 Februari 2009 telah membuat perubahan besar kepada sistem tadbir urus, kebajikan pekerja, dan juga hak pelajar universiti merangkumi juga kebebasan akademik.
AUKU sebenarnya tidak menyekat kebebasan berfikir dan kreativiti tenaga akademik dan pelajar universiti. Malahan mereka diberikan kebebasan untuk melahirkan pandangan, pendapat, cadangan dan sebagainya Akan tetapi mesti mengikut saluran-saluran tertentu demi mewujudkan suasana kondusif dan sihat dalam melaksanakan aktiviti pembelajaran dan pengajaran yang berkualiti.
Berkenaan dengan tindakan Universiti Malaya membawa lapan orang pelajar ke prosiding tatatertib. Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat yang telah mengemukakan mengenai perkara ini iaitu Yang Berhormat Padang Terap dan juga Yang Berhormat Serdang, tindakan yang diambil oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya merupakan prosedur biasa bagi mendapatkan maklumat di atas beberapa tindakan pelajar tersebut.
Ini adalah disebabkan oleh tindakan mereka yang menjemput VIP di dalam majlis mereka tanpa mendapatkan kelulusan pihak pengurusan universiti. Kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat setiap kes yang berlaku di IPT. Namun berkeyakinan kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukan perundangan dan peraturan sedia ada.
Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Minta penjelasan. Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Saya hendak bertanya sedikit. Sekiranya prosiding tatatertib ini adalah satu prosiding yang biasa untuk mendapatkan maklumat daripada kelapan-lapan pelajar ini. Jadi soalan saya, kenapakah prosiding ini ditangguhkan sebanyak dua kali?
Sekiranya memangl pihak universiti mereka hendak mendapatkan maklumat, informasi daripada pelajar-pelajar ini, prosiding ini boleh diteruskan. Akan tetapi nampaknya hari ini mereka memanggil pelajar-pelajar untuk datang menghadirkan diri dalam prosiding tetapi selepas pelajar-pelajar itu menunggu sehingga dua jam, prosiding ini ditangguhkan.
Ini bukan berlaku kali pertama, ini berlaku sebanyak dua kali. Jadi saya hendak meminta penjelasan daripada Menteri, adakah ini satu cara sebagai sesuatu penyeksaan mental kepada pelajar-pelajar ini. dan saya mengharapkan bahawa pihak universiti mestil lebih profesional dalam mengendalikan peristiwa seperti ini.
[...]
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua, soalan saya senang sahaja. Penambahan ke atas apa yang telah disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang. Saya ingin hendak bertanya Lembaga Tatatertib, kerjanya adakah mengadakan satu hearing untuk mendapatkan maklumat? Saya rasa itu agak ekstrem. Hendak mendapatkan maklumat, panggil sahaja penuntut-penuntut tersebut, datang ke bilik dan jelaskan. Tidak perlu panggil satu hearing tatatertib untuk mendapatkan maklumat. Jadi saya agak yang penjelasan itu seperti tidak berapa elok. [Ketawa] Terima kasih.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin [Pasir Gudang]: Beliau... Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua...
Tuan Mohd. Nasir bin Zakaria [Padang Terap]: Yang Berhormat Menteri. Isu yang sama. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya membangkitkan isu berkaitan dengan AUKU ini. Kita telah menyatakan kebimbangan kita semasa pindaan dibuat dalam Dewan ini dalam dua sesi yang lepas. Menteri memberikan jaminan kepada kita mengenai dasar kita mengamalkan maklumat bersuara dan sebagainya.
Isunya ialah bagaimana pelajar-pelajar ini atau mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini ingin mendengar pandangan balas yang kedua daripada pihak yang lain untuk memantapkan pemikiran mereka.
Pada masa yang sama kita melihat berlaku ketidakadilan apabila yang datang itu adalah daripada pandangan yang berbeza, maka pelajar-pelajar ini dipanggil untuk berdepan dengan lembaga tatatertib. Pada masa yang sama sehari ataupun dua hari sebelum daripada itu, ada daripada UMNO masuk, daripada parti pemerintah masuk dan tidak ada apa-apa tindakan. Pada masa yang sama tidak silap saya, ketika di tangguh buat kali yang pertama, ia bertepatan dengan lawatan daripada seorang pemimpin politik masuk ke dalam Universiti Malaya dan kemungkinan itu menyebabkan protes untuk hearing itu ditangguhkan. Adakah benar dan bagaimana dengan janji yang dilafazkan dahulu ketika tuan masih lagi sekarang menjadi Menteri Pengajian Tinggi?
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terima kasih kepada perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan. Isu yang timbul mengenai kes kelapan-lapan pelajar ini ialah, walaupun program yang dianjurkan itu diluluskan oleh universiti, tetapi permohonan oleh persatuan pelajar ini tidak menyebut siapa yang mereka hendak jemput dan itu sebenarnya yang menjadi isu kepada kes ini. Ini kerana setelah diluluskan permohonan menganjurkan program itu, maka didapati ...bahawa mereka telah membawa ataupun menjemput VIP yang tidak pun dimaklumkan kepada pihak universiti. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini diadakan oleh pihak universiti untuk mendapat maklumat... ataupun laporan yang lebih lanjut daripada pelajar-pelajar yang sedemikian dan penangguhan prosiding ini saya difahamkan, bahawa oleh kerana buat ketika ini pelajar-pelajar sedang melalui peperiksaan. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini telah ditangguhkan.
Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Minta penjelasan.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey.
Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Tadi kes yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang itu, sebenarnya dalam perbahasan itu saya dijemput pergi sana. Saya difahamkan, kerana kehadiran saya di kampus Universiti Malaya itu yang menyebabkan semua pelajar menghadapi masalah. Akan tetapi, saya bukan ahli politik sahaja. Saya pergi sana menjadi seorang hakim untuk perbahasan bekas-bekas debater dahulu dan saya juga bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Saya dapat Master saya di sana.
Jadi, saya seharusnya diangkat sebagai seorang bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Kalau ini pun menyebabkan Persatuan Tionghoa itu menghadapi masalah, macam mana kita boleh mengharapkan yang pelajar kita di universiti ini boleh mempunyai minda yang lebih terbuka? Ini kerana universiti memang masih melayan mereka seperti budak kecil, macam kindergarten student. Saya juga hendak tanya yang pindaan UCA, University and Colleges Act itu. Bukankah kita telah pun memberi lebih ruang kepada para pelajar untuk menganjurkan aktiviti, menyertai aktiviti dan sebagainya? Kenapa hanya kerana saya hadir dalam kampus Universiti Malaya, selepas itu persatuan itu menghadapi masalah, pelajar-pelajar semua dipanggil untuk ke disciplinary board?
Jadi, saya hendak minta Menteri boleh tolong merekakah? Kerana saya rasa ini bukan tujuan yang kita hendak shape mindset pelajar kita di universiti. Terima kasih.
Tuan Loke Siew Fook [Rasah]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih
Menteri. Semasa kita membahaskan pindaan kepada AUKU pada tahun lepas, pihak
kementerian telah memberikan jaminan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin politik walaupun daripada pembangkang akan dibenarkan untuk masuk ke dalam kampus untuk memberikan ucapan dan sebagainya kalau dipelawa oleh pelajar.
Soalan saya ialah, mungkin saya rasa dalam hal ini pihak kementerian memang tidak
ada masalah untuk memberikan pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang untuk masuk ke kampus. Adakah dalam hal ini kemungkinan pihak pengurusan universiti yang go against dasar pihak kementerian. Ini kerana saya rasa ini perkara yang remeh-temeh. Hanya menjadi pengadil.
Adakah perlu persatuan pelajar setiap permohonan itu ataupun pelawaan itu harus mendapatkan kelulusan daripada pihak universiti? Saya rasa ini mungkin pihak pengurusan universiti yang telah bertindak di luar dasar yang telah ditetapkan oleh pihak kementerian. Terima kasih.
Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Saya hendak tambah sedikit sahaja kerana saya hendak membuat satu pembetulan. Saya difahami daripada pelajar-pelajar, memanglah pihak universiti telah mengeluarkan satu surat kepada mereka yang dalam surat itu syarat-syarat yang dinyatakan adalah bahawa pelajar-pelajar di universiti dan juga orang-orang luar boleh dilibat ataupun melibatkan diri dalam debat pada hari itu.
Jadi saya rasa memanglah itu satu kebenaran dari pihak universiti. Ini kerana dalam
surat itu juga tidak nyata bahawa pelajar-pelajar ini tidak boleh mengajak Yang Berhormat Seputehkah atau ajak siapa-siapa pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik. Jadi saya rasalah alasan yang diberi daripada universiti ini memanglah langsung tidak munasabah dan saya memang harap bahawa Menteri bolehlah campur tangan supaya kita boleh tahu, kita boleh dapat satu jaminan, bahawa selepas peperiksaan pelajar-pelajar ini, mereka juga tidak akan dipecat dan diberi amaran keras kerana saya rasa tindakan mereka adalah langsung tidak ada salah.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Memanglah setiap universiti akan menetapkan prosedur bagaimana soal-soal aktiviti yang dibuat oleh pelajar, oleh persatuan dan sebagainya. Semua persatuan di universiti perlu melalui prosedur yang telah ditetapkan oleh universiti tersebut termasuklah kes yang sedang kita bahaskan pada hari ini.
Sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan bahawa semua pihak termasuklah pemimpin daripada parti pembangkang boleh dijemput sekiranya sesuatu majlis itu berkisar kepada soal-soal yang ada hubung kait dengan hal-hal akademik... Soal-soal, syarat dan segala perkara yang perlu bagi menjayakan sesuatu aktiviti oleh persatuan ataupun pelajar akan ditentukan oleh pihak universiti mengenai peraturan dan sebagainya. Mana-mana pemimpin parti politik, sememangnya dibenarkan untuk menyertai sekiranya ia melibatkan hal-hal yang ada hubung kait dengan soal-soal akademik.
Akan tetapi dalam kes ini malangnya, tidak dimaklumkan kerana Yang Berhormat yang terlibat adalah merupakan pemimpin bagi sesebuah parti politik sepatutnya saya difahamkan, saya dilaporkan begitu, persatuan pelajar itu memaklumkan siapa yang dia hendak jemput dan sebagainya. Jadi di situ masalahnya timbul, kerana tidak dimaklumkan terlebih awal dan jika universiti tidak mempunyai peraturan sebegitu, maka mungkin universiti berpendapat ia akan hilang kawalan sekiranya kes yang sama berlaku, berulang bukan sahaja oleh persatuan ini, tetapi juga oleh persatuan-persatuan yang lain.
Jadi atas sebab itulah pelajar-pelajar ini telah dipanggil oleh pihak universiti untuk menentukan mengapa perkara yang sedemikian boleh berlaku dan kita tunggu apa keputusan yang akan dibuat oleh pihak universiti dan seperti yang telah saya nyatakan kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat kes-kes yang berlaku di IPT seperti ini.
Namun, kita yakin kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan universiti termasuk UM dalam kes ini dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukkan perundangan, peraturan dan juga semangat AUKU yang telah pun kita pinda. Jadi, saya percaya setakat itu yang hendak saya nyatakan mengenai kes ini dan penangguhan kes ini adalah kerana pelajar-pelajar sedang menghadapi peperiksaan buat ketika ini.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nor: Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat di bawah aspek perundangan, Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang dikuatkuasakan pada 1 Februari 2009 telah membuat perubahan besar kepada sistem tadbir urus, kebajikan pekerja, dan juga hak pelajar universiti merangkumi juga kebebasan akademik.
AUKU sebenarnya tidak menyekat kebebasan berfikir dan kreativiti tenaga akademik dan pelajar universiti. Malahan mereka diberikan kebebasan untuk melahirkan pandangan, pendapat, cadangan dan sebagainya Akan tetapi mesti mengikut saluran-saluran tertentu demi mewujudkan suasana kondusif dan sihat dalam melaksanakan aktiviti pembelajaran dan pengajaran yang berkualiti.
Berkenaan dengan tindakan Universiti Malaya membawa lapan orang pelajar ke prosiding tatatertib. Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat yang telah mengemukakan mengenai perkara ini iaitu Yang Berhormat Padang Terap dan juga Yang Berhormat Serdang, tindakan yang diambil oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya merupakan prosedur biasa bagi mendapatkan maklumat di atas beberapa tindakan pelajar tersebut.
Ini adalah disebabkan oleh tindakan mereka yang menjemput VIP di dalam majlis mereka tanpa mendapatkan kelulusan pihak pengurusan universiti. Kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat setiap kes yang berlaku di IPT. Namun berkeyakinan kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukan perundangan dan peraturan sedia ada.
Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Minta penjelasan. Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Saya hendak bertanya sedikit. Sekiranya prosiding tatatertib ini adalah satu prosiding yang biasa untuk mendapatkan maklumat daripada kelapan-lapan pelajar ini. Jadi soalan saya, kenapakah prosiding ini ditangguhkan sebanyak dua kali?
Sekiranya memangl pihak universiti mereka hendak mendapatkan maklumat, informasi daripada pelajar-pelajar ini, prosiding ini boleh diteruskan. Akan tetapi nampaknya hari ini mereka memanggil pelajar-pelajar untuk datang menghadirkan diri dalam prosiding tetapi selepas pelajar-pelajar itu menunggu sehingga dua jam, prosiding ini ditangguhkan.
Ini bukan berlaku kali pertama, ini berlaku sebanyak dua kali. Jadi saya hendak meminta penjelasan daripada Menteri, adakah ini satu cara sebagai sesuatu penyeksaan mental kepada pelajar-pelajar ini. dan saya mengharapkan bahawa pihak universiti mestil lebih profesional dalam mengendalikan peristiwa seperti ini.
[...]
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua, soalan saya senang sahaja. Penambahan ke atas apa yang telah disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang. Saya ingin hendak bertanya Lembaga Tatatertib, kerjanya adakah mengadakan satu hearing untuk mendapatkan maklumat? Saya rasa itu agak ekstrem. Hendak mendapatkan maklumat, panggil sahaja penuntut-penuntut tersebut, datang ke bilik dan jelaskan. Tidak perlu panggil satu hearing tatatertib untuk mendapatkan maklumat. Jadi saya agak yang penjelasan itu seperti tidak berapa elok. [Ketawa] Terima kasih.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin [Pasir Gudang]: Beliau... Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua...
Tuan Mohd. Nasir bin Zakaria [Padang Terap]: Yang Berhormat Menteri. Isu yang sama. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya membangkitkan isu berkaitan dengan AUKU ini. Kita telah menyatakan kebimbangan kita semasa pindaan dibuat dalam Dewan ini dalam dua sesi yang lepas. Menteri memberikan jaminan kepada kita mengenai dasar kita mengamalkan maklumat bersuara dan sebagainya.
Isunya ialah bagaimana pelajar-pelajar ini atau mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini ingin mendengar pandangan balas yang kedua daripada pihak yang lain untuk memantapkan pemikiran mereka.
Pada masa yang sama kita melihat berlaku ketidakadilan apabila yang datang itu adalah daripada pandangan yang berbeza, maka pelajar-pelajar ini dipanggil untuk berdepan dengan lembaga tatatertib. Pada masa yang sama sehari ataupun dua hari sebelum daripada itu, ada daripada UMNO masuk, daripada parti pemerintah masuk dan tidak ada apa-apa tindakan. Pada masa yang sama tidak silap saya, ketika di tangguh buat kali yang pertama, ia bertepatan dengan lawatan daripada seorang pemimpin politik masuk ke dalam Universiti Malaya dan kemungkinan itu menyebabkan protes untuk hearing itu ditangguhkan. Adakah benar dan bagaimana dengan janji yang dilafazkan dahulu ketika tuan masih lagi sekarang menjadi Menteri Pengajian Tinggi?
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terima kasih kepada perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan. Isu yang timbul mengenai kes kelapan-lapan pelajar ini ialah, walaupun program yang dianjurkan itu diluluskan oleh universiti, tetapi permohonan oleh persatuan pelajar ini tidak menyebut siapa yang mereka hendak jemput dan itu sebenarnya yang menjadi isu kepada kes ini. Ini kerana setelah diluluskan permohonan menganjurkan program itu, maka didapati ...bahawa mereka telah membawa ataupun menjemput VIP yang tidak pun dimaklumkan kepada pihak universiti. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini diadakan oleh pihak universiti untuk mendapat maklumat... ataupun laporan yang lebih lanjut daripada pelajar-pelajar yang sedemikian dan penangguhan prosiding ini saya difahamkan, bahawa oleh kerana buat ketika ini pelajar-pelajar sedang melalui peperiksaan. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini telah ditangguhkan.
Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Minta penjelasan.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey.
Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Tadi kes yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang itu, sebenarnya dalam perbahasan itu saya dijemput pergi sana. Saya difahamkan, kerana kehadiran saya di kampus Universiti Malaya itu yang menyebabkan semua pelajar menghadapi masalah. Akan tetapi, saya bukan ahli politik sahaja. Saya pergi sana menjadi seorang hakim untuk perbahasan bekas-bekas debater dahulu dan saya juga bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Saya dapat Master saya di sana.
Jadi, saya seharusnya diangkat sebagai seorang bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Kalau ini pun menyebabkan Persatuan Tionghoa itu menghadapi masalah, macam mana kita boleh mengharapkan yang pelajar kita di universiti ini boleh mempunyai minda yang lebih terbuka? Ini kerana universiti memang masih melayan mereka seperti budak kecil, macam kindergarten student. Saya juga hendak tanya yang pindaan UCA, University and Colleges Act itu. Bukankah kita telah pun memberi lebih ruang kepada para pelajar untuk menganjurkan aktiviti, menyertai aktiviti dan sebagainya? Kenapa hanya kerana saya hadir dalam kampus Universiti Malaya, selepas itu persatuan itu menghadapi masalah, pelajar-pelajar semua dipanggil untuk ke disciplinary board?
Jadi, saya hendak minta Menteri boleh tolong merekakah? Kerana saya rasa ini bukan tujuan yang kita hendak shape mindset pelajar kita di universiti. Terima kasih.
Tuan Loke Siew Fook [Rasah]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih
Menteri. Semasa kita membahaskan pindaan kepada AUKU pada tahun lepas, pihak
kementerian telah memberikan jaminan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin politik walaupun daripada pembangkang akan dibenarkan untuk masuk ke dalam kampus untuk memberikan ucapan dan sebagainya kalau dipelawa oleh pelajar.
Soalan saya ialah, mungkin saya rasa dalam hal ini pihak kementerian memang tidak
ada masalah untuk memberikan pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang untuk masuk ke kampus. Adakah dalam hal ini kemungkinan pihak pengurusan universiti yang go against dasar pihak kementerian. Ini kerana saya rasa ini perkara yang remeh-temeh. Hanya menjadi pengadil.
Adakah perlu persatuan pelajar setiap permohonan itu ataupun pelawaan itu harus mendapatkan kelulusan daripada pihak universiti? Saya rasa ini mungkin pihak pengurusan universiti yang telah bertindak di luar dasar yang telah ditetapkan oleh pihak kementerian. Terima kasih.
Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Saya hendak tambah sedikit sahaja kerana saya hendak membuat satu pembetulan. Saya difahami daripada pelajar-pelajar, memanglah pihak universiti telah mengeluarkan satu surat kepada mereka yang dalam surat itu syarat-syarat yang dinyatakan adalah bahawa pelajar-pelajar di universiti dan juga orang-orang luar boleh dilibat ataupun melibatkan diri dalam debat pada hari itu.
Jadi saya rasa memanglah itu satu kebenaran dari pihak universiti. Ini kerana dalam
surat itu juga tidak nyata bahawa pelajar-pelajar ini tidak boleh mengajak Yang Berhormat Seputehkah atau ajak siapa-siapa pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik. Jadi saya rasalah alasan yang diberi daripada universiti ini memanglah langsung tidak munasabah dan saya memang harap bahawa Menteri bolehlah campur tangan supaya kita boleh tahu, kita boleh dapat satu jaminan, bahawa selepas peperiksaan pelajar-pelajar ini, mereka juga tidak akan dipecat dan diberi amaran keras kerana saya rasa tindakan mereka adalah langsung tidak ada salah.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Memanglah setiap universiti akan menetapkan prosedur bagaimana soal-soal aktiviti yang dibuat oleh pelajar, oleh persatuan dan sebagainya. Semua persatuan di universiti perlu melalui prosedur yang telah ditetapkan oleh universiti tersebut termasuklah kes yang sedang kita bahaskan pada hari ini.
Sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan bahawa semua pihak termasuklah pemimpin daripada parti pembangkang boleh dijemput sekiranya sesuatu majlis itu berkisar kepada soal-soal yang ada hubung kait dengan hal-hal akademik... Soal-soal, syarat dan segala perkara yang perlu bagi menjayakan sesuatu aktiviti oleh persatuan ataupun pelajar akan ditentukan oleh pihak universiti mengenai peraturan dan sebagainya. Mana-mana pemimpin parti politik, sememangnya dibenarkan untuk menyertai sekiranya ia melibatkan hal-hal yang ada hubung kait dengan soal-soal akademik.
Akan tetapi dalam kes ini malangnya, tidak dimaklumkan kerana Yang Berhormat yang terlibat adalah merupakan pemimpin bagi sesebuah parti politik sepatutnya saya difahamkan, saya dilaporkan begitu, persatuan pelajar itu memaklumkan siapa yang dia hendak jemput dan sebagainya. Jadi di situ masalahnya timbul, kerana tidak dimaklumkan terlebih awal dan jika universiti tidak mempunyai peraturan sebegitu, maka mungkin universiti berpendapat ia akan hilang kawalan sekiranya kes yang sama berlaku, berulang bukan sahaja oleh persatuan ini, tetapi juga oleh persatuan-persatuan yang lain.
Jadi atas sebab itulah pelajar-pelajar ini telah dipanggil oleh pihak universiti untuk menentukan mengapa perkara yang sedemikian boleh berlaku dan kita tunggu apa keputusan yang akan dibuat oleh pihak universiti dan seperti yang telah saya nyatakan kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat kes-kes yang berlaku di IPT seperti ini.
Namun, kita yakin kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan universiti termasuk UM dalam kes ini dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukkan perundangan, peraturan dan juga semangat AUKU yang telah pun kita pinda. Jadi, saya percaya setakat itu yang hendak saya nyatakan mengenai kes ini dan penangguhan kes ini adalah kerana pelajar-pelajar sedang menghadapi peperiksaan buat ketika ini.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Doing due diligence: finding educational opportunities
The case of Anucia, which Tony blogged about last month, seems to have struck a chord with you all: there are over 60 comments and counting on the post. Many are critical of Anucia's failure to research the government's requirements for a teaching post. A lot of people seem to have missed the critical point: if we want better teachers, we need to recognise more good universities. That's basically it -- as for what Anucia should do in her personal situation, the answer is fairly obvious: look for a private sector job, be it here or overseas. But what I want to draw more attention to is the important issue of information when it comes to education; there is an immense knowledge gap which often makes a huge difference in where people end up, and not enough people seem to have this in mind.
My father comes from a rural New Village. The fact that he has a PhD from a prestigious foreign university is almost a fluke. He was fortunate that my grandparents earned enough to put him through university overseas; he tried to apply for a government scholarship, but received what he thought was a rejection letter. Looking back, he realises now that he could have gotten a scholarship if he'd tried harder -- and if not for my grandparents' good fortune and hard work, he might not have gone overseas at all.
Tony and Kian Ming both went to Singapore for secondary school -- like many other middle- to upper-class Malaysian students, they escaped our rapidly-deteriorating public school system. But not many Malaysians know about these kinds of opportunities -- I was only vaguely aware of them when I was in school, and I am in a solidly upper-middle-class area. A lot of times, the question of who gets what opportunities is pretty much up to the roll of the dice, because so many people are not in a position to know what opportunities are out there.
In my part of Petaling Jaya, many students from SMK Damansara Jaya and Damansara Utama go on to attend one of the prestigious United World Colleges for pre-university. Are the students at DJ and DU particularly smarter than their peers elsewhere? Not particularly -- it just happens that a few DJ and DU alumni found out about the UWCs, applied there, got in, and then told their juniors about the opportunity. I never even heard of the UWCs until I went to university.
One of my friends, who is now working, applied on a whim to Bates College -- one of the best liberal arts colleges in the US -- because one of her best friends applied there. He applied there because many of his family members went there. Because she applied, her friends applied as well. For several years, the Malaysian population at Bates was almost entirely comprised of this motley crew. There's no particular reason that this should have been the case, except for simple information asymmetry.
If all Malaysians knew about the UWCs, or about American liberal arts colleges, the situation would be quite different, I am certain. But nobody really seems aware of just how important awareness is. Knowing is easily half the battle here -- you can't apply to Harvard if you've never heard of it. You can't get financial aid from a liberal arts college if you don't even know what financial aid is.
One commenter on Tony's post wrote: "I feel that being young (a subjective measure of age) and having parents that are not well-educated (as you have assumed) are not valid factors that contribute to [Anucia's] predicament now." This is flat-out wrong. If Anucia were older when she applied to do her degree, and if she had come from a more educated family background, she would have more information about how the education system works and what sort of opportunities are out there. That's about as straightforward as you can get.
People in urban areas and from upper-income backgrounds often underestimate how much luck can play a role in securing a good education. People from rural areas and from poor backgrounds simply do not have the educational resources or practical experience to make the right decisions, and this is a major reason why so many Malaysians do not get as good an education as they could have. Blame them for their predicaments all you want -- that will not solve the problem.
My father comes from a rural New Village. The fact that he has a PhD from a prestigious foreign university is almost a fluke. He was fortunate that my grandparents earned enough to put him through university overseas; he tried to apply for a government scholarship, but received what he thought was a rejection letter. Looking back, he realises now that he could have gotten a scholarship if he'd tried harder -- and if not for my grandparents' good fortune and hard work, he might not have gone overseas at all.
Tony and Kian Ming both went to Singapore for secondary school -- like many other middle- to upper-class Malaysian students, they escaped our rapidly-deteriorating public school system. But not many Malaysians know about these kinds of opportunities -- I was only vaguely aware of them when I was in school, and I am in a solidly upper-middle-class area. A lot of times, the question of who gets what opportunities is pretty much up to the roll of the dice, because so many people are not in a position to know what opportunities are out there.
In my part of Petaling Jaya, many students from SMK Damansara Jaya and Damansara Utama go on to attend one of the prestigious United World Colleges for pre-university. Are the students at DJ and DU particularly smarter than their peers elsewhere? Not particularly -- it just happens that a few DJ and DU alumni found out about the UWCs, applied there, got in, and then told their juniors about the opportunity. I never even heard of the UWCs until I went to university.
One of my friends, who is now working, applied on a whim to Bates College -- one of the best liberal arts colleges in the US -- because one of her best friends applied there. He applied there because many of his family members went there. Because she applied, her friends applied as well. For several years, the Malaysian population at Bates was almost entirely comprised of this motley crew. There's no particular reason that this should have been the case, except for simple information asymmetry.
If all Malaysians knew about the UWCs, or about American liberal arts colleges, the situation would be quite different, I am certain. But nobody really seems aware of just how important awareness is. Knowing is easily half the battle here -- you can't apply to Harvard if you've never heard of it. You can't get financial aid from a liberal arts college if you don't even know what financial aid is.
One commenter on Tony's post wrote: "I feel that being young (a subjective measure of age) and having parents that are not well-educated (as you have assumed) are not valid factors that contribute to [Anucia's] predicament now." This is flat-out wrong. If Anucia were older when she applied to do her degree, and if she had come from a more educated family background, she would have more information about how the education system works and what sort of opportunities are out there. That's about as straightforward as you can get.
People in urban areas and from upper-income backgrounds often underestimate how much luck can play a role in securing a good education. People from rural areas and from poor backgrounds simply do not have the educational resources or practical experience to make the right decisions, and this is a major reason why so many Malaysians do not get as good an education as they could have. Blame them for their predicaments all you want -- that will not solve the problem.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Action taken against PMIUM and UM students
This is really sad. Another reason why the UUCA should be revised. These students were not taking part in political activities. They merely invited politicians, some of whom happened to be from the opposition party, to some of their events. Sadly, the provisions of the amended UUCA probably can be interpreted in such a way as to make a case for these students to be punished.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Wants to Teach, but Degree not Recognised
The following is a letter I've received from Anucia with regards to the recognition of diplomas and degrees from some of overseas universities.
I am a student almost completing the Graduate Diploma in Education in the University of Western Australia and have been very much looking forward to serving the country. I completed my undergraduate Science degree in USM Penang and opted for an internationally recognised teaching qualification for security purposes. Before I go any further, I would like to apologise if this piece comes across as emotionally driven.
I recently applied online on the Ministry of Education’s website for the Guru Sandaran Terlatih position and have been regularly checking the site for updates since getting through to a person I could speak to about my circumstances has proved to be very hard.
I managed to speak to an officer from the ministry last week and he informed me that the route to a permanent post is via the same route, ie initial probationary period subject to confirmation, and that it was the same for teaching students from public and private colleges. He however could not offer me more information and suggested I call back at another time. Today I spoke to someone else in the office about the process and she told me that I would need my qualifications recognised by JPA before I could be granted an interview and she did not know what should be done after obtaining the JPA recognition.
Anyway, I duly called JPA and was curtly told that my qualifications are not recognised, never mind that it is internationally recognised. I was too distraught to proceed with further questions like where do I go from here, etc. I do not mean to sound pompous, but my practical reports and academic results have been outstanding and I have even been offered a teaching position overseas. I however declined because I wanted to come home to serve my country. To be presented with such news is disappointing and shocking among other things. I guess I can still apply to local private schools but my desire is to make a positive difference in the public education system – a system that I am proudly a product of.
Now I need to figure out what to tell my parents who have funded this course with their life savings. I know I will be faulted for not finding this out before enrolling but really, who would have thought that an internationally recognised qualification is not recognised in Malaysia. Which part of 'international' does Malaysia not fall under? Needless to say I am disillusioned and extremely disappointed that my qualifications and big dreams have no place in Malaysia. Do we even need to wonder why young people are forced out of their own country?
What next? I really don’t know.
Anucia Chacko
I am a student almost completing the Graduate Diploma in Education in the University of Western Australia and have been very much looking forward to serving the country. I completed my undergraduate Science degree in USM Penang and opted for an internationally recognised teaching qualification for security purposes. Before I go any further, I would like to apologise if this piece comes across as emotionally driven.
I recently applied online on the Ministry of Education’s website for the Guru Sandaran Terlatih position and have been regularly checking the site for updates since getting through to a person I could speak to about my circumstances has proved to be very hard.
I managed to speak to an officer from the ministry last week and he informed me that the route to a permanent post is via the same route, ie initial probationary period subject to confirmation, and that it was the same for teaching students from public and private colleges. He however could not offer me more information and suggested I call back at another time. Today I spoke to someone else in the office about the process and she told me that I would need my qualifications recognised by JPA before I could be granted an interview and she did not know what should be done after obtaining the JPA recognition.
Anyway, I duly called JPA and was curtly told that my qualifications are not recognised, never mind that it is internationally recognised. I was too distraught to proceed with further questions like where do I go from here, etc. I do not mean to sound pompous, but my practical reports and academic results have been outstanding and I have even been offered a teaching position overseas. I however declined because I wanted to come home to serve my country. To be presented with such news is disappointing and shocking among other things. I guess I can still apply to local private schools but my desire is to make a positive difference in the public education system – a system that I am proudly a product of.
Now I need to figure out what to tell my parents who have funded this course with their life savings. I know I will be faulted for not finding this out before enrolling but really, who would have thought that an internationally recognised qualification is not recognised in Malaysia. Which part of 'international' does Malaysia not fall under? Needless to say I am disillusioned and extremely disappointed that my qualifications and big dreams have no place in Malaysia. Do we even need to wonder why young people are forced out of their own country?
What next? I really don’t know.
Anucia Chacko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)