You are currently browsing the archive for the Published category.
Over the past few weeks I’ve been involved with RandomAlphabets working on the next project happening on 25th of February, Keretapi Sarong. Above is a pic of me and 2 of the team members at Fly FM radio for the interview, and below is a podcast of the interview done with BFM radio. Click here and here to know more about the event.
25th Jan 2012. Click on image to enlarge to read article.
Thanks Carol Hong for the writeup. Thanks @bytebot Colin Charles for the twitpic.
This was a piece I wrote, my second published in Sinar Harian, sometime late December 2011. It is on the Walkout by the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat, when the Public Assembly Bill was bulldozed through the Parliament. My discussion is on the issue of the Walkout itself (that received backlash including from their own supporters), between action by principle, theory and impact.
Banyak yang berlaku di gelombang politik Malaysia semenjak duamenjak ini, yang saya hampir resah untuk pilih apa yang mahu di bincangkan, tanpa mengelirukan isu-isu yang patut diperhatikan, dengan paras emosi yang tidak berlebihan. Lebih hangat isu tersebut, lagi lama harus ditunggu untuk mengemukakan perbincangan yang lebih teratur tanpa tindakbalas yang kurang sihat.
Baru – baru ini, Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman 2011 telah diluluskan oleh Dewan Rakyat. Ia merupakan satu draf undang – undang yang membenarkan pihak berkuasa menyekat rakyat untuk berhimpun, hingga ke tahap mengekang kebebasan mereka.
Rang Undang – undang adalah satu draf kepada undang – undang, yang sebaik sahaja diluluskan, menjadi undang – undang yang berkuatkuasa atas semua yang tertakluk padanya. Proses pelulusan ini adalah melalui undian dalam Parlimen. Proses undian ini, adalah satu komponen penting untuk satu draf diangkat menjadi undang – undang. Perdebatan juaga adalah sebahagian daripada proses ini.
Namun demikian, satu perkara di luar kebiasaan telah berlaku di Dewan Rakyat dalam hal ini. Pihak yang mengusulkan rang undang – undang ini tidak membuka ruang untuk perdebatan. Pihak yang membangkang pula, tidak mengundi menentang rang undang – undang ini. Tetapi, apa yang berlaku ialah mereka keluar daripada sidang Parlimen.
Apa yang dilakukan oleh pihak kerajaan sudah dijangka. Untuk memastikan rang tersebut diluluskan, mereka tidak memberi ruang untuk ia didebatkan dan terus mengusulkan supaya undian langsung diadakan. Tetapi, tindakan melangkah keluar daripada pihak pembangkang tidak dijangka dan ini menyebabkan ramai yang terperanjat. Banyakpihak yang saya tahu amat sedih dengan situasi ini di mana mereka akhirnya memutuskan untuk tidak lagi berbincang tentangnya dan malah bertindak menuding jari ke pihak lain sebagai punca masalah ini.
Dewan Rakyat terdiri daripada politikus-politikus yang mewakili kita, rakyat. Secara teori, apa yang kita fikir, sentimen dan perhatian kita seharusnya dicerminkan oleh wakil – wakil ini. Jadi kelihatan aneh apabila berlaku kejadian melangkah keluar dewan ini. Dan oleh itu, para penyokong pihak pembangkang amat tidak berpuas hati dengan tindakan ini.
Mari kita lihat konsep keluar dewan dalam sistem demokrasi.
Tindakan keluar dewan ini adalah tanda protes, bukan sekadar tanda tidak bersetuju.
Menurut Wikipedia, “aksi keluar dewan ini sering dilakukuan kerana menentang kehadiran seorang pembicara atau menentang konteks sesuatu ucapan yang sedang berlangsung dalam sebuah mesyarat… seringkali sebagai satu cara senyap, dan tidak ganas untuk menunujukkan penolakan.”
Ini bermakna mereka yang memprotes ini tidak cuba menghalang ia daripada berlaku kerana mereka tiada kuasa untuk menghalangnya. Tetapi mereka dengan jelasa sedang menunjukkan penolakan mereka, dengan cara melangkah keluar daripada Dewan Rakyat.
Pandangan terhadap mana – mana rang undang – undang yang sedang dibentangkan biasanya ditunjukkan dengan cara mengundi menentangnya. Mengapa dalam hal ini, aksi keluar dewan yang diambil?
Di sini datangnya isu prinsip.
Mengundi menentangsesuatu, adalah cara normal untuk menunjukkan pandangan kita. Kadang – kala, apabila kita ingin menekan lagi pandangan kita, kita melangkah keluar daripada perdebatan.
Secara prinsip, aksi keluar juga boleh dilakukan terhadap mana – mana tindakan yang kita rasa tidak adil dan kita tidak mahu mengakui tindakan tersebut. Cuba kita bayangkan, perselisihan faham antara rakan-rakan dan berasa sedih kerananya, atau tidak mahu menghubungi seorang rakan atas tindakan yang kita tidak bersetuju dengannya.
Sekarang, kita kembali ke Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman dan Dewan Rakyat.
Pertama, tempoh perdebatan yang biasa telah diabaikan. Kedua, rang undang-undang itu sendiri dilihat tidak mematuhi perlembagaan (bermakna tidak boleh diterima sama sekali, bukan hanya sekadar pendapat) oleh pengamal dan pakar undang – undang. Itulah yang menjadi asas kenapa pihak pembangkang menentang tindakan kerajaan dalam hal ini. Jadi, mereka bertindak melangkah keluar dari Dewan Rakyat.
Jika mereka tetap berdiam tidak melangkah keluar, paling tidak mereka hanya bolehmengundi dan tindakan mereka akan direkodkan dalam Hansard (rekod sidang Parlimen) yang boleh dirujuk pada masa akan datang. Tetapi, apakah impaknya?
Berdasarkan apa yang telah saya katakan, tindakan pihak pembangkang sememangnya munasabah. Tetapi, para penyokongnya tidak merasakan sedemikian, apatah lagi rakyat. Kebanyakan yang mengikuti hal ini, berhujah yang oleh kerana terlalu banyak tindakan keluar dewan ini dilakukan, kesannya tidak lagi dirasai.
Pada masa yang sama, satu lagi pihak mengatakan, yang walau pun secara prinsip ia tindakan yang bagus, satu aksi simbolik seperti ini tidak dapat difahami oleh mereka yang tidak mempunyai pendidikan yang mencukupi dalam politik. Oleh kerana itu, saya telah menulis artikel ini.
Saya bukan seorang ahli politik. Saya menulis kerana saya tahu yang politik, seperti ekonomi atau pendidkian, berkati rapat dengan kehidupan kita.
Saya merasakan yang perkara ini amat membingungkan. Baik daripada apa yang telah berlaku, kepada apa yang sepatutnya berlaku, kita memerlukan satu jawaban kepada perkara ini kerana para pemimpin kita berkata yang kuasa ada di tangan kita, para pemuda dan pemudi.
Jadi, jika kita harus mengambil keputusan, apa yang seharusnya kita lakukan?
Article for my column in The Star published today. Was requested to write a retrospective piece on 2011. Well done again to UndiMsia (not just for making the pic article) and Teach For Malaysia. I love you two, for the very ground up development that you’ve had to work through and for.
I think this piece could have been better written. So to emphasize my point/theme here, look at the bigger picture. Some people can see that better if they’re educated with the knowledge, and perspective (though I’m not sure how to begin with the latter, but I assume engagement and discussion is a good start).
*Credit to The Star and Star R.age team. Happy new year to you, and special thanks to my editors and such: Ivy Soon, Niki Cheong and Melody Goh.
A Year in Learning
THE common thread running through 2011 for me was education. That’s my takeout when I look through the various chapters of 2011. I took part in initiatives such as the campaign to encourage people to vote UndiMsia, discussions on the teaching of Maths and Science in English (PPSMI), and the Bersih 2.0 rally for clean and fair elections. I was also involved in projects like Teach For Malaysia and permaculture.
UndiMsia (www.undimsia.com) is a voter education campaign started by a random group of Malaysians, and their numbers have grown by tenfold, at least. They’re active and have an open concept for others who are interested to participate by joining their meetings every Saturday at 11am in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur.
UndiMsia is a non-partisan youth citizen movement.
Besides educating people to vote for the right reasons – meaning to vote issues and not politicking – it called for a more participatory democracy by the rakyat, beyond voting. Generally, UndiMsia focuses on three issues: Food and housing, freedom of expression and the education segment of the national Budget.
As I became more active in society, I was more aware of things that are part and parcel of my private and public life. Politics – partisan or not, institutional or not – was something inevitable that I had to take an interest in. So, when the Bersih 2.0 chapter took off, I got involved.
It was enlightening for me to discuss why clean and fair elections were necessary and how it benefited Malaysians beyond politics and government.
I was also active in public discussions on the Government’s decision not to teach Maths and Science in English. I might not be a teacher but I did home tutoring for SPM candidates in Maths, for six years.
Initially, I was supporting the call for Maths and Science to be taught in English, but I have since changed my stand. It’s because I believe teaching these subjects in English would widen the polarity in Malaysia. Everyone deserves equal access to education, and teaching Maths and Science in English could render these subjects inaccessible to some students.
In 2011, two of my friends – Keeran Sivarajan and Dzameer Dzulkifli – started Teach For Malaysia (TFM), an initiative to improve the quality of teaching in schools. They are recruiting university graduates to work for two years as teachers before going on to whatever career path they choose.
It’s an amazing platform for Malaysians to build themselves but more importantly to focus on helping poor performing schools. Their mission for education equity for all is truly inspiring.
To close the 2011 book, I explored permaculture, which the all-knowing Wikipedia defines as “an approach to designing human settlements and agricultural systems that is modelled on the relationships found in nature.”
I started having plants at home in the middle this year to test if I had a greenthumb or not. I’m not sure if I do but I am recognising the impact of living around elements of nature. I’ve been looking to adapt my home to not just include planting my own greens, but also to be environmentally conscious beyond using recyclable bags and reducing water wastage.
This year has only been a piece of the puzzle. Likewise, don’t look at these issues and initiatives in isolation. Let’s look at how they are part of a bigger picture, so we can piece together our next move in 2012.
Zain HD writes occasionally at ZainHD.com and tweets excessively at twitter.com/ZainHD.
Friends- Syahredzan Johan and Woon King Chai, both fellow LoyarBurokkers, today published an article they wrote together and credited me for what little I shared on the issue (see below).
Take note that there were other remarks I made (via email) about the issue that was not included. That said, I won’t add on to what they said or comment on it, but I would commend them for the effort of taking action to write about it and get it out there. It helps the discourse, for people to better understand the issue, if not more than that.
Taken from LoyarBurok.com, follow them on Twitter.com/LoyarBurok:
Both Syahredzan Johan and Woon King Chai look at the ramifications of last Saturday’s infamous ‘flag incident’ at PWTC and ponder where the mahasiswa go from here.
Surely you must have heard the latest and hottest news in town: of Adam Adli, an UPSI student and coordinator of Legasi Mahasiswa Progresif (LMP), coming under fire for his actions in a student march which culminated at PWTC on 17 December 2011.
Both of us were not at the scene of the march, so what we know will be based on the news report as well as eyewitness accounts of those who were at the protest.
The march began at Masjid Jamek LRT station and the objective was to a present memorandum at PWTC and at SUHAKAM headquarters. The march itself was without incident, in fact what was noteworthy was the cooperation given by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) to the protesters, in which they facilitated the march instead of trying to stop it as what usually happens. This is much welcomed, and hopefully this will herald a new approach to policing and future protests be handled similarly.
The current controversy is in relation to an incident in PWTC. It would seem that emotions got the better of some of the students at PWTC. A flag, bearing the Prime Minister’s face, was lowered and replaced with the flag of BEBAS. It happened briefly, the original flag was raised back up as quickly as it came down. The incident took place not more than 5 to 10 minutes, and in the words of@KohJL on Twitter:
Never has so much been said about so little. I saw incident and didn’t even think it was newsworthy. I’ve been proven very wrong
But newsworthy it was indeed. The storm of controversy that followed the aftermath of the incident (Flag-gate, anyone? You heard here first, on LB!) is well documented. In fact, the flag incident has overshadowed the march of the mahasiswa so much so that no one seems to be talking about the real issue behind the events that Saturday. It would appear that all we that we took from the march was the Flag-gate incident.
It is interesting to note how much this incident has garnered divided opinions and perspectives, from within the mahasiswa movement itself and the larger civil society.
Those in support of what Adam did say that it is a flag with the PM’s face and not the Jalur Gemiling. Some say that students did not burn nor trample the flag and merely lowered it. To them, there is nothing wrong with the action – it is a display of dissent and dissatisfaction with the government. Some have even accorded the act with a sense of symbolism, when quite clearly it was something which was not planned at the time did not have the endorsement of the organisers. It was only later that BEBAS did so retrospectively. As such, to say that the act is supposed to a symbolic one sounds like an afterthought and a rather disingenuous one at that.
On the other side of the spectrum, those against what Adam did described it as lacking courtesy at best, and biadap at worst. @ZainHD described it on Twitter (edited for clarity):
Whatever your affiliations, get it right. Don’t step into someone’s PRIVATE PROPERTY & do something that will LIKELY INSULT them. Understand respect.
Some students themselves (within the movement and the same circle) feel that the actions by BEBAS do not represent the entire student segment of the citizenry. Even though they walked with BEBAS on Saturday, or have been ardent supporters of the movement to expand student freedom and university autonomy, they do not agree with the act. They use the analogy of someone coming by your house, your very own private property, and starts messing around with your garden on your property.
Unfortunately, Flag-gate has degenerated into a partisan farce. Those in UMNO are going after Adam and BEBAS. Those in PKR meanwhile have thrown their support behind Adam and BEBAS. It is with this backdrop that the public discourse regarding Flag-gate is taking place.
BEBAS had no control what Adam did and it would appear that the movement did not plan to do what Adam did. So they could not be held responsible for what happened. What we disagree to is the response by BEBAS to the backlash. Instead of taking a step back to re-evaluate the situation and to take in the bigger picture of how political liberalization is an evolutionary process, they have instead opted to go forth with guns blazing.
Make no mistake, we condemn the threats against Adam, which so far includes threats to slap and spit on him. And while we do not agree in principle with Adam’s act, we also think that the backlash is disproportionate to the ‘crime’. It is after all just a flag with the Prime Minister’s face and it was just briefly lowered.
But BEBAS could have seen the bigger picture. They were asked to apologise, and while we do not see a need to do so, they could have instead chosen the more reconciliatory approach. The confrontational stance they have taken and their retrospective endorsement of Adam’s act have ironically damaged the movement and the cause.
Detractors of the cause are now using Flag-gate to discredit the cause. They are using this incident as proof that the mahasiswa should not be given their freedoms. The erstwhile @mpkotabeludtweeted:
Next it’ll be burning, spitting, tearing & stepping on Jalur Gemilang. Why the hell not? It’s freedom of speech & expression what!
The hardliners in UMNO have also found their ammunition against Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, one of the few true progressives in the party who not only talk of it, but also acts on it. We find it sad thatFlag-gate is being used against the mahasiswa movement’s benefactor and greatest ally in government.
Time to put things back into perspective. It was a historic march, the culmination of years and years of mahasiswa empowerment. It should symbolise the coming of age of student activism, the day when the mahasiswa showed to the world that they no longer are afraid of the shackles of AUKU, placed upon them by a government fearful of the mahasiswa. The fact that the students marched peacefully to forward their cause for academic freedom without any violence or sabotage from anyone should take precedent over Flag-gate.
The very fact that SUHAKAM, through its commissioner Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah, received the memorandum is recognition of the inalienable rights of the mahasiswa by the statutory body. Similarly, the fact that the memorandum was received by Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, Deputy Higher Education Minister and stalwart supporter of student political participation, is tacit acknowledgment by the government of the perjuangan.
Lest our views are misconstrued as losing faith in the students’ ability to handle the responsibility of political expression and affiliation, we reiterate a popular quote from Evelynn Beatrice Hall, in her work “Friends of Voltaire”:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Likewise, while we disagree with the methods and tactics employed, we must stand in solidarity together with those who believed in the same cause of advancing student freedom and university autonomy. Flag-gate must not be allowed to be used as an argument to take away from the very same struggle that has been fought for by many generations of students for over four decades.
Those fighting for the cause, regardless of whether it is BEBAS, PKR, PAS, Dato’ Saifuddin, youth wings within Barisan Nasional and civil society must stand together instead of being divided overFlag-gate. The cause is a political cause, but it should not be allowed to become a partisan one.
The cause is far, far bigger than Flag-gate. Let us turn Flag-gate into a positive. BEBAS, while possibly causing damage to the cause, have also put the focus on its movement. Before Nelson Mandela promoted his cause through dialogues, writing, speeches and thereafter reconciliation, he also committed acts of sabotage. It was part and parcel of the struggle. Maybe this is also part and parcel of the perjuangan mahasiswa. And since the nation’s attention is already on this issue, let use it to bring the spotlight onto the cause itself, rather than the incident.
Syah and King Chai are respectively a constitutionalist and a student-rights activist. They would also like to thank ZainHD for his assistance in the completion of this co-authored piece.
Published in my column today 21 Dec. The Star newspaper.
Malaysians want Malaysia to do well. We often look elsewhere for aspiration and a benchmark of what we should be. Where we want to be is ascertainable but how we get there is not always the case.
Do we seek to achieve great things and then perhaps hope the international media picks it up to recognise and validate that achievement? I don’t think the latter is our objective but a nice present instead.
That said, lately we get upset about these recognitions as they seem to often highlight not so nice things in Malaysia, regardless of the fact that bad news have a tendency to make the news.
When this happens, a lot of people tend to lose sight of what needs to be worked on at hand. As a result of that, we need to focus on ourselves first and recognise the original matter. What are we doing wrong in order to get “there”?
There were three things that took place recently that can’t run away from my mind (thanks to my law studies background) – the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (PA2011), the Computing Professionals Bill 2011 (CPB2011) and the University and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA).
A Bill is a draft of a law that goes through the process in Parliament before it becomes law. It might not become law at all, or it might get amended in between the debates and voting sessions by our representatives. It has no legal impact until it becomes law (or an ‘Act’ like UUCA), but when it enters the process, the objective is exactly that: To make it become law.
What are the issues with the PA2011? According to the legal experts and practitioners, it basically significantly curbs the ability of Malaysians, to voice our grouses together in a public space, something that is universally accepted as a human right.
No, it’s not a Western concept or culture. It stems from our innate need to express our feelings and concerns. Indeed there are channels like dialogue and complaint letters, but there are times when some people need to cause greater impact in order to be heard.
Then there’s the CPB2011, which got Twitterjaya going crazy as this is, in many ways, their playground.
What this Bill proposes to do is, to regulate the IT professionals and non-professionals of Malaysia.
In a nutshell, you’ll have to be registered and pass an exam in order to legally deal with computers. For an industry that innovates at a ridiculous pace and a technological tool that is so widely used by many at varying levels, this is not practical.
Finally, there’s the UUCA. This is a law that involves students in tertiary education institution, which involves hundreds of thousands of young energetic Malaysians.
The biggest contention is about not allowing students to partake in politics. You might be 21 years old and can legally vote, but you can’t be allowed to be part of party politics even as a member.
The reason why I’m allowed to vote at 21, is because I am entrusted with the capacity to decide as an adult. Therefore not allowing me to actively participate in something that is necessary to govern a country, something that affects my life, is quite contradictory.
In a developed progressive society, such laws like the three mentioned here do not exist. I’m not saying that no form of regulation is required for us to be number one, but to what end do we need to be handheld by law?
Law is only one aspect of influencing the direction of a country. But it does set clear perimeters within which we can and can not do, should and should not do.
Our elders raised us with a set of rules accompanied with punishments, rights and responsibilities. Much like how a country manages its people. At the same time, our elders also give us freedom to think, to decide and to grow.
There are times when we do need support of others to get something done but surely we don’t want a kind of thinking where many of what we want to achieve, requires approval from someone else. It is vibrant energy that moves people forward.
Let Malaysians believe in ourselves. Let Malaysia start here.
* Zain runs Random Alphabets (randomalphabets.com), and tweets at @ZainHD.
Some weeks ago I was actively arguing why I was/am against teaching maths and science in English in Malaysian schools.
Below is the article published in my column in The Star on the matter. A similar (unedited) one in BM published in Sinar Harian today, a personal milestone for me as this is my first time my writing got published in a Bahasa Malaysia publication.
Also here are two pieces from friends of mine who wrote on the same matter. One by Shahril Hamdan, and the other by Najmie Noordin. I highly recommend you to read both as they touched on angles I did not include in my piece.http://zainhd.cm/2011/11/ppsmi-maths-science-in-english/
+
The Star:
Many people find it surprising that I am against the education policy of teaching maths and science in English (PPSMI). This is considering that I am far more fluent in English than I am in Bahasa Malaysia, and went to Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) where everything was taught in English to students who were largely not proficient in the language.
Throughout law school, I was a maths and advance maths private home tutor to students who were sitting for their SPM and PMR exams. Sometimes, I would teach in two different languages as not all the students could understand English well.
I was once a supporter of PPSMI, but have changed my stand since. I’ve come to learn that there’s a huge difference between making a decision and making an informed decision. I changed my mind about PPSMI when I understood the bigger picture.
It started when I saw a draft copy of a World Bank report that looked into the education sector in Malaysia, which is currently being vetted by the Ministry of Education.
In the country’s GDP, we spend 60% more than comparable countries and twice the Asean average for the expenditure of basic education. This is a pattern that covers at least 30 years. Using international comparison, the report finds little or no evidence of a relationship between spending and learning outcomes.
My take from this information and the report as a whole is best illustrated like this: Our education system is like a factory that is heavily invested, well funded, overstaffed and sufficiently supported by stakeholders from the people to their leaders.
Yet its products, the Malaysian students, are not noteworthy.
There is a fundamental problem here. The core objective of this system, which is to educate Malaysians, is not doing what it is meant to do. To implement PPSMI, assuming you think the policy is a good idea, will not be wise. Why ask for a lightweight tyre, when the core structure of your bicycle is falling apart?
If we are going to work on fixing these problems, then we have to be focused.?Implementing something like PPSMI would mean a dillution of energy, time and money towards making the overall system work.
PPSMI has yet to be proven to have significant correlation towards comprehension or results for tertiary science subjects. According to the World Education Ranking conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that measures competency in “Reading, Maths and Science”, the top scorers are Shanghai (China), Korea, Finland and Hong Kong (China). United States ranked 17th, behind Poland and Switzerland.
Here’s another interesting point, assuming that the idea is to make the transition into English tertiary science-based education easier for Malaysian students: Of the approximate 400,000 students who enter Year 1, only 100,000 of them go on to complete their university education. Of that, number, how many of them are actually in the scientific field of study?
Now imagine having PPSMI across Malaysia of which has relevance to a small segment of students.
Imagine the disparity we’re harvesting between the educated, and the non-educated, the employability between the science students and the non-science students. Considering the disparity, caused by the benefit enjoyed by a “selective” segment of our students, can this be good for Malaysia?
If having better standards of English is good for those studying in university and also the country, then improve English as a whole. Japan is ranked 8th in the OECD study and yet, I’m confident that by percentage our population is more exposed to English and understand the language better than the Japanese. Meanwhile, people in Netherlands, ranked 10th, are fluent in Dutch, English and French, too.
Both countries have their education system in their local language.
Education is a national issue that all Malaysians have equity in it. A small school in a rural area where kids live as far as a three-day walk, will not have enough students to make a separate class specially for PPSMI, assuming they even have a teacher who can manage it (well).
Therefore, even if it’s an option, that option is an illusion. They now don’t have access to a portion of our education system, simply because of where they are born. Is that fair?
We have to understand things by tracing back the philosophy of a national education system. Is it meant to give selective special education where the smart will become smarter, and then figure out what to do with those who lack the exposure and opportunities? Is it meant to enable all Malaysians as much as possible to this basic human right? Or, is it purely to produce a workforce or to build a nation of people who are smart and able to articulate?
There’s been a good amount of intelligent people in this world throughout history, who don’t even know English and yet have their knowledge and work transcend beyond their own borders. Let’s work towards a solution for Malaysia. A smart one.
+
Sinar Harian:
Sudah lepas masa yang cukup, saya rasa, setelah Timbalan Perdana Menteri serangkap Menteri Pendidikan membuat keputusan tentang Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) yang membolehkan kita membincang akan isu ini dengan lebih asas dan objektif.
Ramai yang terkejut apabila mendengar yang saya merupakan antara mereka yang menentang dasar PPSMI. Lebih – lebih lagi saya lebih fasih berbahasa Inggeris berbanding Bahasa Melayu, dan menerima pendidikan lanjut di UiTM di mana semua pelajaran diajarkan dalam Bahasa Inggeris kepada pelajar – pelajar yang majoritinya malah tidak fasih dalam bahasa tersebut.
Sepanjang pengajian saya di Fakulti Undang-Undang UiTM, saya menjadi tutor Matematik dan Matematik Tambahan bagi pelajar – pelajar yang mengambil peperiksaan SPM dan PMR. Acapkali saya terpaksa mengajar dalam dua bahasa kerana tidak semua boleh memahami apa yang diajarkan dalam bahasa Inggeris.
Sebelum ini saya merupakan penyokong PPSMI, tetapi saya telah mengubah pendirian saya. Saya sedar bahawa terdapat jurang yang besar dalam mengambil satu keputusan dan mengambil satu keputusan termaklum. Saya telah mengubah pendirian tentang PPSMI setelah memahami situasi ini dengan lebih jelas.
Ia bermula apabila saya terbaca satu salinan draf penyata yang dikeluarkan World Bank berhubung sektor pendidikan di Malaysia, yang pada masa ini sedang diteliti Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Berdasarkan data Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) Malaysia, kita membelanjakan lebih 60% berbanding negara-negara yang sebanding dengan kita dan dua kali ganda lebih banyak daripada purata negara – negara Asean dalam peruntukan pendidikan. Ini telah berjalan sekurang-kurangnya selama 30 tahun. Dibandingkan dengan negara – negara lain, penyata tersebut gagal merincikan sebarang pertalian antara perbelanjaan dan natijah pendidkan.
Apa yang saya perhatikan daripada penyata ini dapat disimpulkan seperti berikut: “sistem pendidikan kita bagaikan sebuah kilang yang telah menerima banyak pelaburan, mempunyai dana yang mencukupi, tenga kerja yang ramai, dan disokong sepenuhnya oleh pihak – pihak berkepentingan baik dari masyarakat awam ke para pemimpin. “
Namun demikian, hasilnya, iaitu pelajar – pelajar kita, tidak berdaya saing.
Di sini kelihatan wujudnya satu masalah yang mendasar. Objektif utama sistem ini, iaitu mendidik rakyat Malaysia, tidak tercapai. Untuk melaksanakan PPSMI, andaikata dasar ini merupakan satu idea yang baik, adalah tidak bijak sama sekali. Berdasarkan analogi sebuah basikal, kenapa kita ingin menukar tayar sedangkan rangka basikal itu sendiri tidak kukuh?
Jika kita ingin memperbaiki sistem ini, kita mesti memfokuskan usaha kita. Pelaksanaan PPSMI akan mencairkan usaha, dana dan masa hanya untuk memastikan seluruh sistem ini dapat berjalan.
PPSMI sendiri masih belum berjaya dibuktikan mempunyai pertalian yang signifikan terhadap pemahaman mahupun keputusan subjek – subjek sains di peringkat tertiari. Menurut World Education Ranking yang dikeluarkan oleh Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) yang mengukur kemampuan dalam “Pembacaan, Sains dan Matematik,” yang mencatat markah tertinggi adalah Shanghai – China, Korea, Finland dan Hong Kong – China. Amerika Syarikat berada di tempat ke-17, di belakang Poland dan Switzerland.
Satu lagi fakta menarik, andaikata idea kita adalah untuk memudahkan peralihan kepada Bahasa Inggeris sebagai medium pengajaran sains di peringkat tertiari bagi pelajar-pelajar Malaysia: Daripada kira-kira 400,000 yang memulakan pengajian di Tahun 1, hanya kira-kira 100,000 yang berjaya menyelesaikan pengajian mereka. Daripada jumlah itu, berapa ramai yang merupakan graduan daripada bidang sains?
Dan sekarang bayangkan pelaksanaan PPSMI yang hanya memberikan manfaat buat segelintir pelajar di seluruh Malaysia.
Bayangkan jurang yang kita wujudkan di antara mereka yang berpendidikan dan mereka yang tidak, kebolehpasaran (employability) antara pelajar aliran sains dan bukan sains. Apabila kita renungkan jurang ini, yang disebabkan oleh manfaat yang hanya boleh dirasai oleh segelintir masyarakat, adakah ini sesuatu yang baik buat Malaysia?
Jika mempunyai standard Bahasa Inggeris yang lebih baik itu menguntungkan pelajar-pelajar kita di universiti dan juga negara, maka apa yang perlu kita lakukan adalah meningkatkan kualiti pengajaran Bahasa Inggeris itu sendiri! Jepun berada di tangga ke-8 dalam laporan OECD yang sama, tetapi saya yakin yang secara keseluruhan, populasi Malaysia jauh lebih terdedah kepada Bahasa Inggeris daripada Jepun. Manakala masyarakat Belanda, di tempat ke-10, fasih berbahasa Belanda dan Inggeris.
Kedua-dua negara ini mengggunakan bahsa ibunda masing-masing sebagai bahasa pengantar pendidikan mereka.
Pendidikan merupakan satu isu nasional di mana setiap rakyat Malaysia mempunyai ekuiti di dalamnya. Sekolah-sekolah kecil di kawasan luar bandar, tidak akan mempunyai pelajar yang cukup untuk melaksanakan kelas PPSMI secara berasingan, itu pun dengan andaian yang mereka mempunyai guru yang terlatih.
Oleh itu, biarpun PPSMI merupakan satu pilihan, ia lebih merupakan satu ilusi. Pilihan ini akan menyebabkan anak-anak di luar bandar ini akan terpinggir daripada pendidikan kita hanya kerana mereka lahir di luar bandar. Adakah ini akan membawa keadilan sosial?
Untuk itu, dalam usaha kita memahami situasi ini, kita perlu menelusuri kembali falsafah pendidikan negara kita. Adakah ia digubal untuk menyediakan satu siri pendidikan khas supaya mereka yang cerdik akan bertambah cerdik dan kemudiannya cuba memberikan penyelesaian kepada mereka yang kurang bernasib baik? Adakah ia digubal untuk menjamin hak setiap rakyat Malaysia untuk diberi peluang menerima pendidikan yang bermutu? Adakah ia digubal hanya untuk menghasilkan tenaga kerja? Atau adakah ia digubal untuk melahirkan generasi pembina negara dan masyarakat yang berwawasan?
Melihat kembali sejarah manusia, telah lahir banyak cendikiawan di dunia ini yang tidak mahir berbahasa Inggeris tetapi berilmu tinggi dan menghasilkan pelbagai karya yang merentasi batas-batas sosiobudaya. Untuk itu, marilah kita berusaha bersama-sama dalam mencari penyelesaian (yang bijaksana) buat Malaysia.
Some months ago I started reducing speaking engagements because I felt, if I was in the audience, listening to me, I’d be upset with how the speaker just wasted the time in my life, albeit brief. This was indeed how I felt most of the time for the talks I’ve been going to for the past year. That self reflection made me improve in some areas and recently I put it to test.
Few weeks ago I gave a talk at Monash university on entrepreneurship. I wrote about it in my column last week in The Star, and reproduced it below. Last weekend, the Malaysian Students Association in Australia organized a summit that included MAP (Malaysian Aspration Program), their version of TED Talks. I couldn’t go to Melbourne, so I recorded my part on youtube (below) for them to screen and did the Q&A live via Twitter from KL.
For both, I tried to focus on the reality as well as substance and not style. Either way, I thank both organizers for having me and hope I did not disappoint you and the audience. If I did, don’t expect a card and some flowers. Just let me know and I’ll work on it.
http://zainhd.com/2011/10/my-article-video-on-entrepreneurship
Video Part 1 of 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkfo42ezZ0k
Video Part 2 of 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky0dxz_64UE
Video Part 3 of 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuhOPPPenTw
+
Business Minded
MANY people I know do not actually have a clear idea of what they did in the past that had gotten them to where they are today. I was asked recently to speak to Monash University students on entrepreneurship. Until that point, I was not actually conscious of being an entrepreneur, nor was I aware of how I got “there” in the first place.
In 1995, my father brought home football magazines from an overseas trip, which I photocopied (without legal consent, of course) and sold to my friends at school. That’s a “pirate”, not entrepreneur right?
Years later, I was a performer, getting paid as a rapper and moving with it business-wise such as booking shows and recording with other people. After awhile, when it was not as fun anymore, I left. But that too is being a musician right? Not an entrepreneur I think.
Today, I run a startup company, a business that thinks of, sells and executes ideas. If I have no clients to do business with, there’d be no money. The excitement is fascinating but the risk does make me lose sleep sometimes.
“A person who organises and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so.” That was how my laptop dictionary defined entrepreneurship.
So I suppose yes, I’m an entrepreneur although I’m not too sure how I got here. I sure didn’t make any plans, or a conscious choice to be an entrepreneur. I just did what I felt like doing, but let’s set a few things straight.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone but I feel from what little I know so far, certain things about entrepreneurship must be made clear.
First of all, not all entrepreneurs are successful. It’s not always like the stories we hear, where it’s glittered with positive words, romantic elements, big money and at most a difficult beginning. We know this is not true but not many people are that consciously aware of it. For some people the risk they have to take is immense, and when the flowers don’t bloom as they’d hope, the pretty garden they planned for their life can fall apart horribly.
Besides that, there are some who choose entrepreneurship as a way out of something they were unhappy about and not because they wanted it or because they had the characteristics of being one. To illustrate, if you don’t like rock music, that doesn’t mean you might not like another genre.
There are also some people who choose entrepreneurship for the supposed “cool” factor. Your career is also your livelihood and there’s nothing cool about not having enough money to make a living or paying the salary of the people who work for you. It’s a very serious circumstance to be in.
Finally, there’s often a tendency to be inspired when reading the journey of an entrepreneur, but don’t let that devalue your perception of other professions out there.
There are many people out there who hold on to their conventional job while being involved in a business venture.
My company actually started out as a side business while I had a full-time job that eventually didn’t work out for me. At first, the company didn’t work out either, but many lessons learned during my job helped me start the business and subsequently, continue to grow it.
It’s not just about me, myself and I. Apart from the experiences I got at my old job, I also had a business partner who helped make the work smoother by bringing in lessons he learned from his previous work.
On top of that, a supportive staff also made things easier.
So, should you consider going down this path of entrepreneurship, do take into account all the little things you’ve learned along the way. At the end of the day, whatever you choose, make the best out of it.
* Zain runs Random Alphabets (randomalphabets.com), and tweets at @ZainHD.
