One area affected by the mini-budget or stimulus package that was announced yesterday is postgraduate education in Malaysia. All the details are not out yet but here are some of my preliminary thoughts based on the following Star report.
This is what the DPM who is also the Finance Minister and will soon by our PM said:
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said it would finance tuition fees and research grants up to RM20,000 for every student pursuing a PhD locally and RM10,000 for students pursuing a Master’s programme.
“A total of 500 places at PhD level and 10,000 at Masters level in public universities as well as at Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Multimedia University and Universiti Teknologi Petronas will be offered,” he said.
The Higher Education Minister had this to add:
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin was happy that the stimulus package took into the consideration the needs and problems faced by fresh graduates during the current economic slowdown.
“Not only are there several schemes for unemployed graduates, the Government is also helping them further their studies by providing financial aid,” he said at the Parliament lobby.
Right off the bat, I want to state that I am not against increasing the number of postgraduate students in Malaysia. In fact, this is probably a necessary step if we want to increase the R&D capacity in our country. But there are a few caveats here, caveats which I have discussed before in previous posts. These include - having a sufficient number of professors who can teach and guide these postgrad students and having a selection process that is rigorous enough such that only well-qualified students are admitted into these postgrad programs.
The remarks of the Higher Education minister do not inspire confidence in me. It seems to me that he sees the increase in the number of postgrad places in our public universities as a way to decrease graduate unemployment. In fact, his remarks seem to imply that these scholarships should be given to unemployed graduates!
In any economic downturn, especially in the US context, a larger number fresh graduates will opt to go to graduate school because the opportunity costs associated with grad school is lower - fewer high paying jobs under current market conditions and so on. But many of these students, especially those who can get into the top graduate programs, would have found a job if they didn't choose to go to grad school albeit one which may not meet their high expectations. These are not students who go to grad school because the alternative would be unemployment.
Perhaps the Higher Education Minister was quoted out of context but it really does seem to me that he doesn't 'get' postgrad degrees. He may really think that it's a good solution to solve unemployment in the country. If these students cannot get a job in the private sector or in government, why not ship them off to do postgrad degrees which we i.e. the taxpayer will foot the bill for?
At least the Education Minister seems to 'get' the picture a little bit better:
Meanwhile, Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the 1,000 additional posts for graduate teachers, who would be hired on contract, would enable the ministry to address the shortage of teachers in certain sectors.
These teachers will be put to productive use, hopefully, in areas where there are teacher shortages, both geographically as well as by subject. The academic 'bar', so to speak, may not be as high as that needed for a PhD student.
The costs associated with selecting a large group of students who are unsuitable for PhD programs are far greater to the taxpayer as well as in terms of human resource management. There may be high drop out rates, dropping of standards to allow sub-par students to obtain their PhDs, frustrated PhD students who are not well guided by their professors, etc...
Thoughts of Wisdom from Fikri
Senin, 09 Maret 2009
I first 'met' Fikri though the education blog. I found that he left pretty interesting comments and emailed him because of this. I found out that he's doing his Masters degree in film studies in Korea under a Korean government / university scholarship. Fikri tells me that there are approximately 300 JPA students studying engineering in Korea, He has a couple of colleagues who are doing their Bachelor's in Directing and Cinematography respectively and he tells me that a number of other Malaysians got the same scholarship to study Dance, Fine Arts, Graphic Design and Multimedia in Korea. Fikri also spent some time during his high school days in the UK while his parents were living / studying there. Below are some of his thoughts on the education system in Malaysia which reflects his experience growing up. I think they warrant some discussion.
Fly To The Sky
I believe that the quality of one's education is the key factor in one's ability to reach for the sky. That seems obvious enough, once written down on paper. Of course, other factors come into play as well, but it is the quality of the schooling we receive that determines, to a large extent, the kind of opportunities we receive later in life. Thus, in writing this, I should make it clear that while I have done a fair amount of research on the subject of education in Malaysia (through my own personal initiatives and when I was working a Malaysian education magazine), my experience with the local schools system is limited. Somehow, I ended up doing things in a very roundabout way, and the ideas I will postulate here is largely based on that experience. It is by no means perfect, merely a very personal opinion aimed to spark something more, and to somehow improve upon a very public issue.
Generally speaking, there's plenty that can be improved within the Malaysian primary and secondary education system. Within a single sentence, its objective is to produce people who are capable, well-rounded, multi-cultural, confident, and able to make a significant difference in Malaysia (and beyond). Someone who is, first and foremost, a Malaysian, rather than a Malay, Chinese, Indian or Other. Of course, these are still vague notions, to be honest (How capable? And in what way?). It does, however, provide something to aim for in this particular post.
Let's go one step further than that, though. Let's imagine for the moment that I am the Education Minister of Malaysia, and have the power to set the tone for the schools in Malaysia. What would I do? I aim to change a couple of things, and make sure that there's a little bit more room for people to negotiate with. To that end, there are two main things that I will do:
1. Integration
By this I mean have a single school system that does not demarcate our students and schools into different streams based on race and religion (the public/private debate will probably be left for another time). Let's face it, it's not exactly something that will win me plenty of brownie points. Mukhriz Mahathir didn't get much either, when he suggested a similar ideal at the tail end of last year.
It is a form of political suicide in Malaysia, but perhaps it is a necessary sacrifice, and a suicide worth taking, for it shouldn't really be a political issue. One one level, I'll stick my head on the line and say that it is not a bad idea. I do not believe for a moment that all the national schools are in an absolutely terrible shape; some schools are good, others not so. Some succeed due to good implementation of good ideas and effective teaching, others fall by the wayside due to things like politics and money. History have shown in other countries that it can be done properly; France jumps to mind in this case.
Then again, France didn't quite have the same history as we do. It is history and politics that plays a big role here, and I do not believe for a second that schools should be swayed by political intent. For example, some schools do not receive the same sort of allocation According to my sisters, who attended Convent Bukit Nenas (both primary and secondary), the school did not receive enough financial support from the government for many years due to its Christian origins. “But it's a sekolah kebangsaan, no?” I asked, somewhat naively at the time. I am not entirely sure whether this is the official policy, but nevertheless, under one single system, it would be easier to remove one layer of excuse from the cake. I believe that every school deserves a fair bite at the cake, Every single one of them deserve to get money, whether it is to bring on board new teachers or even for something as simple as ensuring that there are enough tables in classes. It won't cut out the dross away completelyl there will be schools who get more money compared to others, but at the very least, I believe that a single school system will be a step forward in this regard. How big a step is another question.
It is not just politics and money that interests me when it comes to this, it is also politics and race. Some say that in Malaysia, the two are forever locked in an intertwined marriage. In this case, the existence of vernacular schools are, in part, a move to appease the minorities in Malaysia that their rights, culture, and history will be preserved. Such a move to integrate schools into a single system, then, will not be accepted lightly, if at all. The main issue that will rankle with people is the perception that such a move will spell the death for their own race and culture within the Malaysian hegemony. While this may be not be unfounded, I believe that each of the respective cultures are strong enough to not roll over and die just because we have a single school system. There are plenty of other factors involved in that potent mix, and people still work hard to ensure that their race and religion is kept alive even outside of the schools. The family and society plays a very powerful role in ensuring that this doesn't happen. While I have my own critiques of the family institute (which I will explore further before the end of this post), I applaud those who do make efforts to keep this alive.
Furthermore, all is not lost, because I am actually not suggesting that we integrate into the current national system...
2. Revolutionise
...I am suggesting that we modify the current national curriculum. Not every school should blindly ape the national agenda, though. Each should still be given some space in order for it to shape its curriculum depending on various circumstances. Nevertheless, I would like to see a bigger variety of subjects and/or themes being touched upon by the curriculum. Mohd Prasad Hanif, a member of the PAS party, wrote about this previously here, and it is an extensive article worth reading.
I would personal place bigger emphasis on humanities subjects like languages, international studies or even cultural studies. In addition to giving our children an extra string to the bow, it's also likely that these subjects can be fun. No, not French or German, but more of, say, Mandarin and Tamil. Perhaps what can be included is a compulsory Modern Languages subject. People bang on about having to speak English well in order to survive in the 21st century. I'd say that being able to speak Hindi or various Chinese dialects just as well would also open up plenty of opportunities for people to work in other Asian countries. Let's face it: knowing more than just two languages (English and Malay), which is what most Malay students are fluent in, is an advantage, and I think it is an advantage that more should be given the chance of obtaining. From a political point of view, although it is not my priority, it would go some way towards convincing people that I'm not trying to stamp out their culture
I would also introduce Drama as a subject. I previously did this in secondary school for three years, and did not drop it lightly when I had to choose the two electives for my final exams (I eventually plumped for Media Studies and Information Technology, but continued taking drama lessons outside of school). What was done in the class was plenty of the things that would jump up off the top of your head. A fair amount of acting, a fair amount of script reading, a fair amount of improvisation. There's also the element of teamwork, where you had to coordinate with other people what to do (there's only so much space in the limelight, after all). Far more importantly, what all this amounted to was a fair amount of actually doing things in front of people. Ever had that fear of standing up and speaking in front of people? It was absolutely terrifying to begin with, and of course, your classmates didn't really help with their constant sniggering as you're trying to remember the Shakespeare line you were given. Nevertheless, over time, I got used to it. You probably won't become actors, singers, or dancers, but that's not really the main point at this level. Let's put it this way: doing drama will improve how you deal with people. There's not point being a straight A student if the confidence to get your ideas across is lacking. It will improve your communication skills, and it will improve your confidence. Once again, conducted properly, it could also be fun, making for a nice break from other, more monotonous subjects.
Something that's probably a lot less fun for you to hear is also the most controversial of my ideas. I would call for the abolishment of Islamic Studies and Moral Education. Fear not, for in its place will be one single subject that does exactly what it says on the tin: Religious Education (RE). One incredibly big issue I have with religion and morals in Malaysia it is seemingly stuffed down my throat at almost every corner I turn. It was an experience I had back when I was in primary school, and truth be told, I absolutely hated it. Perhaps it was just the way my teacher taught it at the time. Nevertheless, I believe that morals and religious piety shouldn't be forced. This is an education that perhaps should take its cue more from the family rather than from the school. Through my own research, study, and experience of having religion forced upon me (of my own religion and of others; I count five occasions on which people have tried to convert me), I am even more convinced that a heavy handed approach like this will do more to turn people away from religion rather than towards it. This, of course, is largely dependent on how you teach the subjects, and there are other factors that come into play, but ultimately, I believe that such subjects should be integrated into the one, single RE subject.
Through this subject, we will hopefully have a better chance of learning about the relevant religions in Malaysia in a more theoretical way. The aim is not to convert, but to better understand the various religions, and also the various denominations within these religions. It strikes me as interesting that in a country where religion is such a big factor, and where there are so many religions around, there's still a lot of people who rarely venture beyond their own religious, racial and cultural borders. I am still surprised by the number of Malaysians who do not know the difference between me not being able to eat pork and not being able to eat non-halal food. “You can eat the chicken, got no pork wan,” said a friend who was trying to convince me to eat in a Chinese restaurant in Ipoh recently (a Malay guy seeking for halal non-mamak food in Ipoh town on early Saturday morning: I might as well have been looking for the Holy Grail). Neither do I subscribe to the notion that studying the Torah pushes you towards Judaism, reading Mere Christianity pulls you towards the church, or that learning a bit more about Lord Krishna makes you more of a Hindu. If anything, it provides a very good chance for people to come together and better understand each other. These classes should not aim to inspire piety, but knowledge. We could even have a system whereby we'll learn different religions, before specialising in a few for the SPMs. Hopefully in this way, we will suffer less from ignorance. Should parents still feel the need for the children to learn more about their own religion, then they should chip in and pull their weight as well, because...
3. Family
...despite all the harping on that many parties have done about the good, the bad, and the weird of our education system, I believe that the family plays a far more important role. Within the modern day, especially, with both parents holding down jobs, I am nevertheless surprised at the lack of supervision and guidance that a lot of children receive from their parents. They should take charge (as many are wont to do these days, to be fair) in ensuring that children gets more of what they (the family) wants. For example, my parents used to arrange for an ustaz come over to spend time with me and my siblings. He led us one by one in reading the Qur'an, before we'd have a more general discussion on related issues. This would usually be rounded up with all of us praying together, before he'd motor on to another house down the street to do the same. Going back even further, when I was around still in primary school, me and my friends going together to a nearby ustazah, who would teach us how to read the Qur'an. These sessions were actually far more enjoyable and informative than any of the ones I received in school, and it was during this period of time that I felt a lot closer to God. Funnily enough, taking the RE classes at school didn't do the same, which convinces me even more that desire for religion should be cultivated from within, rather than be totally forced. Even in these days, a lot of my Christian friends are constantly meeting up every week for regular discussions at Church. This can be prayer meetings, Bible studies, or even organising Christmas plays. I believe that this is the way to go if truly understanding religion is the aim. It might even be rather fun (there's that word again!). I do not really see as much of the same things happening with children from other religions. Then again, I suppose telling people that you're part of an Islamic 'cell' group is probably not the best of ideas either. The point I am trying to make here is not to marginalise religion in any way, only that it is probably best taught and explored outside of the school rather than within.
All these ideas put forth are not perfect, as I have mentioned before. To begin with, class timetables are already jam-packed with other subjects. In introducing new ones like religion education and drama, I am not in any way trying to suggest things like history or geography should be shafted off the table. There are also other ways to inspire the same benefits as well; introducing debating as a compulsory after school activity, or even classifying drama as an co-curricular activity (as some schools have done already done; my little sister's school, St George's, have already done this), could also be other ways to inspire the same sort of confidence I was talking about. We could also argue for the inclusion of other subjects, like cultural and international studies. I didn't mention it here, because it wasn't something I had done before at that level. And no matter how many RE classes one may take, it won't completely wipe out racial discrimination and polarisation; if someone really wants to call you “a f*ck*ng Paki”, then I suppose there's nothing to stop them from doing so. Furthermore, no matter how great the plan is, it won't do much good if the execution of the plan is bungled. That much is as obvious as the importance of other institutes like family and friends. After all, statistically speaking, kids spend more time at home than they do at school; despite all the hard work that me and ministry(!) would put in to change the system, the advantages would be wiped out if kids come home to an atmosphere of “Don't trust the Chinese so much,” “Jangan beli nasi lemak dari India tu!” or “Fikri, no matter what...you must marry a Malay girl.” While the sentiments behind it may be sincere in people wanting to further protect their own 'turf', I don't think it really helps as much if increased tolerance and understanding of others is what we're aiming for.
Malaysian education being the complex animal that it is (I haven't even touched on teaching Science and Maths in English yet), this post will not really move us forward that much unless they're actually implemented. And they won't. You and I know that unless there are absolutely drastic changes not only to the education system, but also to Malaysia itself, I don't think most of the ideas I've put forth here would even be seriously considered by those in charge in a million years. Perhaps some will scoff, others will huff and puff their chests out, wield their keris and promises to fight for their race till their last drop of blood. Maybe some of you might nod along quietly to some of the ideas I've put forth here.
Nevertheless, I dare to dream of a day when people will truly be Malaysians first and foremost, when race and religion will truly fade away into the background. I dare to dream of a day when our future generations will no longer be the political toys that I sometimes feel it is.
I dare to dream of the day when we can all reach out for and actually touch that sky.
Fly To The Sky
I believe that the quality of one's education is the key factor in one's ability to reach for the sky. That seems obvious enough, once written down on paper. Of course, other factors come into play as well, but it is the quality of the schooling we receive that determines, to a large extent, the kind of opportunities we receive later in life. Thus, in writing this, I should make it clear that while I have done a fair amount of research on the subject of education in Malaysia (through my own personal initiatives and when I was working a Malaysian education magazine), my experience with the local schools system is limited. Somehow, I ended up doing things in a very roundabout way, and the ideas I will postulate here is largely based on that experience. It is by no means perfect, merely a very personal opinion aimed to spark something more, and to somehow improve upon a very public issue.
Generally speaking, there's plenty that can be improved within the Malaysian primary and secondary education system. Within a single sentence, its objective is to produce people who are capable, well-rounded, multi-cultural, confident, and able to make a significant difference in Malaysia (and beyond). Someone who is, first and foremost, a Malaysian, rather than a Malay, Chinese, Indian or Other. Of course, these are still vague notions, to be honest (How capable? And in what way?). It does, however, provide something to aim for in this particular post.
Let's go one step further than that, though. Let's imagine for the moment that I am the Education Minister of Malaysia, and have the power to set the tone for the schools in Malaysia. What would I do? I aim to change a couple of things, and make sure that there's a little bit more room for people to negotiate with. To that end, there are two main things that I will do:
1. Integration
By this I mean have a single school system that does not demarcate our students and schools into different streams based on race and religion (the public/private debate will probably be left for another time). Let's face it, it's not exactly something that will win me plenty of brownie points. Mukhriz Mahathir didn't get much either, when he suggested a similar ideal at the tail end of last year.
It is a form of political suicide in Malaysia, but perhaps it is a necessary sacrifice, and a suicide worth taking, for it shouldn't really be a political issue. One one level, I'll stick my head on the line and say that it is not a bad idea. I do not believe for a moment that all the national schools are in an absolutely terrible shape; some schools are good, others not so. Some succeed due to good implementation of good ideas and effective teaching, others fall by the wayside due to things like politics and money. History have shown in other countries that it can be done properly; France jumps to mind in this case.
Then again, France didn't quite have the same history as we do. It is history and politics that plays a big role here, and I do not believe for a second that schools should be swayed by political intent. For example, some schools do not receive the same sort of allocation According to my sisters, who attended Convent Bukit Nenas (both primary and secondary), the school did not receive enough financial support from the government for many years due to its Christian origins. “But it's a sekolah kebangsaan, no?” I asked, somewhat naively at the time. I am not entirely sure whether this is the official policy, but nevertheless, under one single system, it would be easier to remove one layer of excuse from the cake. I believe that every school deserves a fair bite at the cake, Every single one of them deserve to get money, whether it is to bring on board new teachers or even for something as simple as ensuring that there are enough tables in classes. It won't cut out the dross away completelyl there will be schools who get more money compared to others, but at the very least, I believe that a single school system will be a step forward in this regard. How big a step is another question.
It is not just politics and money that interests me when it comes to this, it is also politics and race. Some say that in Malaysia, the two are forever locked in an intertwined marriage. In this case, the existence of vernacular schools are, in part, a move to appease the minorities in Malaysia that their rights, culture, and history will be preserved. Such a move to integrate schools into a single system, then, will not be accepted lightly, if at all. The main issue that will rankle with people is the perception that such a move will spell the death for their own race and culture within the Malaysian hegemony. While this may be not be unfounded, I believe that each of the respective cultures are strong enough to not roll over and die just because we have a single school system. There are plenty of other factors involved in that potent mix, and people still work hard to ensure that their race and religion is kept alive even outside of the schools. The family and society plays a very powerful role in ensuring that this doesn't happen. While I have my own critiques of the family institute (which I will explore further before the end of this post), I applaud those who do make efforts to keep this alive.
Furthermore, all is not lost, because I am actually not suggesting that we integrate into the current national system...
2. Revolutionise
...I am suggesting that we modify the current national curriculum. Not every school should blindly ape the national agenda, though. Each should still be given some space in order for it to shape its curriculum depending on various circumstances. Nevertheless, I would like to see a bigger variety of subjects and/or themes being touched upon by the curriculum. Mohd Prasad Hanif, a member of the PAS party, wrote about this previously here, and it is an extensive article worth reading.
I would personal place bigger emphasis on humanities subjects like languages, international studies or even cultural studies. In addition to giving our children an extra string to the bow, it's also likely that these subjects can be fun. No, not French or German, but more of, say, Mandarin and Tamil. Perhaps what can be included is a compulsory Modern Languages subject. People bang on about having to speak English well in order to survive in the 21st century. I'd say that being able to speak Hindi or various Chinese dialects just as well would also open up plenty of opportunities for people to work in other Asian countries. Let's face it: knowing more than just two languages (English and Malay), which is what most Malay students are fluent in, is an advantage, and I think it is an advantage that more should be given the chance of obtaining. From a political point of view, although it is not my priority, it would go some way towards convincing people that I'm not trying to stamp out their culture
I would also introduce Drama as a subject. I previously did this in secondary school for three years, and did not drop it lightly when I had to choose the two electives for my final exams (I eventually plumped for Media Studies and Information Technology, but continued taking drama lessons outside of school). What was done in the class was plenty of the things that would jump up off the top of your head. A fair amount of acting, a fair amount of script reading, a fair amount of improvisation. There's also the element of teamwork, where you had to coordinate with other people what to do (there's only so much space in the limelight, after all). Far more importantly, what all this amounted to was a fair amount of actually doing things in front of people. Ever had that fear of standing up and speaking in front of people? It was absolutely terrifying to begin with, and of course, your classmates didn't really help with their constant sniggering as you're trying to remember the Shakespeare line you were given. Nevertheless, over time, I got used to it. You probably won't become actors, singers, or dancers, but that's not really the main point at this level. Let's put it this way: doing drama will improve how you deal with people. There's not point being a straight A student if the confidence to get your ideas across is lacking. It will improve your communication skills, and it will improve your confidence. Once again, conducted properly, it could also be fun, making for a nice break from other, more monotonous subjects.
Something that's probably a lot less fun for you to hear is also the most controversial of my ideas. I would call for the abolishment of Islamic Studies and Moral Education. Fear not, for in its place will be one single subject that does exactly what it says on the tin: Religious Education (RE). One incredibly big issue I have with religion and morals in Malaysia it is seemingly stuffed down my throat at almost every corner I turn. It was an experience I had back when I was in primary school, and truth be told, I absolutely hated it. Perhaps it was just the way my teacher taught it at the time. Nevertheless, I believe that morals and religious piety shouldn't be forced. This is an education that perhaps should take its cue more from the family rather than from the school. Through my own research, study, and experience of having religion forced upon me (of my own religion and of others; I count five occasions on which people have tried to convert me), I am even more convinced that a heavy handed approach like this will do more to turn people away from religion rather than towards it. This, of course, is largely dependent on how you teach the subjects, and there are other factors that come into play, but ultimately, I believe that such subjects should be integrated into the one, single RE subject.
Through this subject, we will hopefully have a better chance of learning about the relevant religions in Malaysia in a more theoretical way. The aim is not to convert, but to better understand the various religions, and also the various denominations within these religions. It strikes me as interesting that in a country where religion is such a big factor, and where there are so many religions around, there's still a lot of people who rarely venture beyond their own religious, racial and cultural borders. I am still surprised by the number of Malaysians who do not know the difference between me not being able to eat pork and not being able to eat non-halal food. “You can eat the chicken, got no pork wan,” said a friend who was trying to convince me to eat in a Chinese restaurant in Ipoh recently (a Malay guy seeking for halal non-mamak food in Ipoh town on early Saturday morning: I might as well have been looking for the Holy Grail). Neither do I subscribe to the notion that studying the Torah pushes you towards Judaism, reading Mere Christianity pulls you towards the church, or that learning a bit more about Lord Krishna makes you more of a Hindu. If anything, it provides a very good chance for people to come together and better understand each other. These classes should not aim to inspire piety, but knowledge. We could even have a system whereby we'll learn different religions, before specialising in a few for the SPMs. Hopefully in this way, we will suffer less from ignorance. Should parents still feel the need for the children to learn more about their own religion, then they should chip in and pull their weight as well, because...
3. Family
...despite all the harping on that many parties have done about the good, the bad, and the weird of our education system, I believe that the family plays a far more important role. Within the modern day, especially, with both parents holding down jobs, I am nevertheless surprised at the lack of supervision and guidance that a lot of children receive from their parents. They should take charge (as many are wont to do these days, to be fair) in ensuring that children gets more of what they (the family) wants. For example, my parents used to arrange for an ustaz come over to spend time with me and my siblings. He led us one by one in reading the Qur'an, before we'd have a more general discussion on related issues. This would usually be rounded up with all of us praying together, before he'd motor on to another house down the street to do the same. Going back even further, when I was around still in primary school, me and my friends going together to a nearby ustazah, who would teach us how to read the Qur'an. These sessions were actually far more enjoyable and informative than any of the ones I received in school, and it was during this period of time that I felt a lot closer to God. Funnily enough, taking the RE classes at school didn't do the same, which convinces me even more that desire for religion should be cultivated from within, rather than be totally forced. Even in these days, a lot of my Christian friends are constantly meeting up every week for regular discussions at Church. This can be prayer meetings, Bible studies, or even organising Christmas plays. I believe that this is the way to go if truly understanding religion is the aim. It might even be rather fun (there's that word again!). I do not really see as much of the same things happening with children from other religions. Then again, I suppose telling people that you're part of an Islamic 'cell' group is probably not the best of ideas either. The point I am trying to make here is not to marginalise religion in any way, only that it is probably best taught and explored outside of the school rather than within.
All these ideas put forth are not perfect, as I have mentioned before. To begin with, class timetables are already jam-packed with other subjects. In introducing new ones like religion education and drama, I am not in any way trying to suggest things like history or geography should be shafted off the table. There are also other ways to inspire the same benefits as well; introducing debating as a compulsory after school activity, or even classifying drama as an co-curricular activity (as some schools have done already done; my little sister's school, St George's, have already done this), could also be other ways to inspire the same sort of confidence I was talking about. We could also argue for the inclusion of other subjects, like cultural and international studies. I didn't mention it here, because it wasn't something I had done before at that level. And no matter how many RE classes one may take, it won't completely wipe out racial discrimination and polarisation; if someone really wants to call you “a f*ck*ng Paki”, then I suppose there's nothing to stop them from doing so. Furthermore, no matter how great the plan is, it won't do much good if the execution of the plan is bungled. That much is as obvious as the importance of other institutes like family and friends. After all, statistically speaking, kids spend more time at home than they do at school; despite all the hard work that me and ministry(!) would put in to change the system, the advantages would be wiped out if kids come home to an atmosphere of “Don't trust the Chinese so much,” “Jangan beli nasi lemak dari India tu!” or “Fikri, no matter what...you must marry a Malay girl.” While the sentiments behind it may be sincere in people wanting to further protect their own 'turf', I don't think it really helps as much if increased tolerance and understanding of others is what we're aiming for.
Malaysian education being the complex animal that it is (I haven't even touched on teaching Science and Maths in English yet), this post will not really move us forward that much unless they're actually implemented. And they won't. You and I know that unless there are absolutely drastic changes not only to the education system, but also to Malaysia itself, I don't think most of the ideas I've put forth here would even be seriously considered by those in charge in a million years. Perhaps some will scoff, others will huff and puff their chests out, wield their keris and promises to fight for their race till their last drop of blood. Maybe some of you might nod along quietly to some of the ideas I've put forth here.
Nevertheless, I dare to dream of a day when people will truly be Malaysians first and foremost, when race and religion will truly fade away into the background. I dare to dream of a day when our future generations will no longer be the political toys that I sometimes feel it is.
I dare to dream of the day when we can all reach out for and actually touch that sky.
The politics of language
As we all probably know, the problem of language has flared up again and the police have had to restrain protesters campaigning for a repeal of the English policy in our school system. While I, and I think Kian Ming and Tony as well are sympathetic to the use of English in our school system, the case for teaching in pupils' mother tongues is a strong one. I have argued for a more balanced compromise in the past. But today I would like to draw our readers' attention to this fantastic piece by Jeremy Mahadevan about the national language.
The most salient point I think he makes is that Malay is really in a state of limbo right now. The government tells us we must use Malay, but it prevents the non-Malays from ever truly feeling like the language is our own. Our own cultural and historical revisionism even makes us forget the roots of our own language, and how it reflects the very plural nature of our country. Even more so than English, Malay borrows words and ideas from all sorts of languages. There is no reason that all of us should not be adopting Malay as our own language, except for the government's own intolerant policy of using it to force Malay culture upon non-Malays.
Speaking for myself, I really do feel like Malay is a language that is inexorably bound up with my own identity. This has especially come through to me abroad — when with other Malaysians, nothing truly makes us feel as satisfied and happy as speaking in Bahasa Malaysia and bahasa rojak with one another. Just as Malaysia is our country, Bahasa Malaysia is our language, and no government can take that away from us. What do you think?
The most salient point I think he makes is that Malay is really in a state of limbo right now. The government tells us we must use Malay, but it prevents the non-Malays from ever truly feeling like the language is our own. Our own cultural and historical revisionism even makes us forget the roots of our own language, and how it reflects the very plural nature of our country. Even more so than English, Malay borrows words and ideas from all sorts of languages. There is no reason that all of us should not be adopting Malay as our own language, except for the government's own intolerant policy of using it to force Malay culture upon non-Malays.
Speaking for myself, I really do feel like Malay is a language that is inexorably bound up with my own identity. This has especially come through to me abroad — when with other Malaysians, nothing truly makes us feel as satisfied and happy as speaking in Bahasa Malaysia and bahasa rojak with one another. Just as Malaysia is our country, Bahasa Malaysia is our language, and no government can take that away from us. What do you think?
What After SPM?
Sabtu, 28 Februari 2009
A plug for what I think is a really really great project spearheaded by a few young Malaysians - Chong Yong Wei Gabrielle, Goh Jing Pei, Kimberley Mei Kay, Tara Thean, Charis Loke - and project advisor Chen Chow (sorry Chen Chow, can't really call you young anymore). The aim of this project is to collect stories of 'young Malaysians who have pursued different pathways after SPM'. You can find out more details about the project here. I especially like this paragraph from the link above:
It does not matter whether you are a scholar with stellar results and a 3-inch thick resume, a typical student who went to a local university after finishing Form 6, or a youth who has to work in the pasar malam at night to foot your technical college fees in the day. It does not matter whether you have chosen the oft-beaten path or the road less travelled. We believe that there every education background offers its own boons and banes. And we believe that there are merits in telling any story.
It does not matter whether you are a scholar with stellar results and a 3-inch thick resume, a typical student who went to a local university after finishing Form 6, or a youth who has to work in the pasar malam at night to foot your technical college fees in the day. It does not matter whether you have chosen the oft-beaten path or the road less travelled. We believe that there every education background offers its own boons and banes. And we believe that there are merits in telling any story.
Guest Article: NS Observations and Thoughts (II)
Kamis, 26 Februari 2009
Part 2 of Mei San's article on the NS program.
M-16 Training
The M-16 training is one of the greatest “selling points” of the NS programme.
A day before the actual shooting session, trainees were given a briefing by the army. During the briefing session, we were taught the correct position to take while shooting, the instructions that we had to be aware of and how to walk to our respective positions. During the actual shooting session, each trainee was allowed thirty shots, using live bullets, of which 10 were for testing purpose while the remaining 20 counted for points. The shooting session lasted about five minutes for each trainee. Only trainees with a signed letter of consent by their parent or guardian were allowed to shoot.
What lesson is to be expected of this M-16 training?
During a Dewan Rakyat sitting, in a reply to Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah) who questioned the purpose of the M-16 training, the Deputy Defense Minister stated that the M-16 training “has helped to instill discipline among NS trainees”7.
In reality, there is not much space and opportunity for learning. The M-16 training only provided the trainees a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fire live bullets from an M-16. Nothing substantial was taught during both the briefing and actual shooting sessions. It cannot be said that the trainees have learned the proper way to handle firearms.
While some trainees may be excited with their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fire live bullets from an M-16, the public have not been very receptive with the idea of incorporating the M-16 training module in the NS programme.
Ronnie Liu of the DAP, has once issued a media statement “M16 training for NS trainees serves little purpose but poses high risks for all” in which he wrote that “The proposed additional M16 training for NS trainees may not serve much purpose, but it would inevitably increase the cost of the program besides posing high risks to the trainees and the society in general. I hate to think about the possibility of arms heists and vulnerability of accidents in the camps”.8
Jacqueline Ann Surin wrote for the Sun that “Arms usage training kills NS objectives”: “Does it teach our young constructive and respectful ways of dealing with misunderstandings and conflicts between the races? Does it promote the noble values of, among others, inner strength, patience, peace and justice?
“So, here's a question I have for our government: How does a government agency get away with proposing and then running a programme, albeit a trial one, that explicitly undermines all the three objectives that were set out by the government itself?
“The only reason I can think of for our teenagers to be given arms training is so that they will be prepared to use it one day.
“But, I remember very clearly a commitment made by our government that National Service in Malaysia was not about building a reserve army in the way that the Singapore National Services aims to do.”9
An online poll by The Star on 8 June 2006 found that more than two-thirds of readers disagreed with the move to train national service trainees in the use of the M16 assault rifle.10
NS Training Department deputy director-general Omar Abdul Rahman said “to avoid misunderstanding, we have changed the name from shooting lesson (kelas menembak) to light-arms usage training (latihan penggunaan senjata ringan).”11
TRANSPARENCY
The lack of transparency on the ways things are being managed in the NS programme has led to a serious decline of public confidence towards this programme.
Fatalities
As of today, there are 16 fatalities from the NS programme. However, not a single fatality was granted the appropriate inquiry or thorough investigation. Were the fatalities due to negligence by the instructors? Or did those tragedies occur because the trainees disobeyed instructions and were acting based on their own wills and desires? The public has no idea. “… Many of such reports are rarely published to the public”, wrote TE Cheah in his medical blog posting “National Service: A Death Trap?” 12. The vacuum of information only serves to create more uncertainties and fear towards the programme. To make things worse, the Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister of Defense, was even quoted in an occasion to remark that “only 14 have died”, indicating an attitude of indifference and insensitive towards the lives of the trainees13.
Camp Operations
There have been many reports of food poisoning in NS camps. Is the hygiene at all NS campsites regularly assessed by the authorities to be at a satisfactory and safe level?
Ricky Lim, a former NS trainee at Lagenda Gunung Ledang Asahan camp, passed away on 15 September 2008, fifteen days after he completed his training. An initial post-mortem could not identify the cause of death and health authorities are carrying out further tissue analysis which is expected to take between two and three months14. Ricky did not complain of any illness or pain prior to his death but he did complain about the camp’s hygiene and yellowish water supply15.
The writer herself can testify to yellowish water with sedimentation in the canteen as well as dormitories in her NS camp.
In September 2008, Penang state government has ordered the closure of three NS camps in Balik Pulau, Kampung Genting and Machang Bubok following an investigation showed that the three camps were built illegally16. A landslide occurred at the Sri Mutiara Balik Pulau camp after a heavy rain. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was quoted as saying that the three camps would not be allowed to operate until their planning permission was submitted and approved by local authorities17.
The assurances given by the NS Department are clearly contradicted by the events occurring in the camps.
Moreover, the 2007 Auditor-General’s report said that NS ‘shirkers’ and a very “rigid” contract have caused the Government losses of up to RM110.1million from 2004 to 2007.18 The 2007 A-G report also found that T-shirts, track pants, baseball caps and sports shoes supplied under contracts worth RM41.12mil were of low quality.19 But no appropriate inquiry or investigation has ever been conducted on this matter.
How much autonomy is given to each camp? Trainees have come back telling that different rules and regulations are enforced in different camps. Furthermore, there are also trainees who have said that certain camps have “more fun”.
The Different Batches
The yearly conscriptions of the NS programme are divided into three separate batches to undergo their trainings. The unofficial saying goes that the first and second batches of trainees are top scorers and good students while the third batch, on the contrary, are those with problematic backgrounds or are school dropouts. Many trainees, even NS instructors, have testified to this saying. Yet, there is never an official statement by the NS Department on this issue.
Will the NS Department be prepared to make it known to the public how trainees are appointed to their training groups? Will different approaches be adopted to approach the different groups of trainees? For instance, trainees of the third batch might not be accustomed to classroom activities such as Character Building. Will they, instead, be given vocational lessons to arm them with skills that will help them to earn an honest living in the near future?
The Military Issue
The NS Department has always been insisting that the NS programme is never meant to be military styled. Nevertheless, the reality is that there are much resemblance between the NS programme and military training. For instance, training activities such as obstacle course and M-16 training as well as the ways assemblies are conducted in camp. Furthermore, the majority of the instructors employed are formerly with the military and the camps are all administrated by military rank holders. These, coupled with the fatalities, create the confusion of whether the NS programme is truly “not military styled”. Will the NS Department make an attempt to reclassify the NS programme as “semi-military”, stating clearly which are the elements structured after the military, which are not and what are the purposes?
Training of Trainers
The majority of the instructors, particularly those of the physical module, are retired military rank holders. While their contributions and sacrifices for the country must be properly recognized, the NS Department must also acknowledge that they are not necessarily the ideal instructors for the NS programme, especially when the NS Department often emphasizes that the NS programme is “not military styled”. The writer has occasionally observed the burly attitudes of the instructors, including shouting unpleasant words to trainees (“if this is how you live your lives, you might as well die!”), which not only have the potential to hurt the trainees’ self-esteem and self- confidence, but can induce further anger in more rebellious trainees. There are also instructors who, sometimes, do not hesitate to issue threats in order to discipline the trainees (I can break this pillar in front of you!). Will the NS Department come up with a code of ethics for the instructors? Will they reconsider the employment of former military rank holders to train NS trainees?
The conflicts which often arise between the public and the NS Department are due to the statements and facts made by the NS Department which contradicts with their execution and enforcement. Addressing the above issues will help to resolve the conflicts. It will, in addition, help to create a healthy check-and-balance system for the NS Department.
Objectives & Benefits
The official objectives of the NS programme, as stated in its official website, are as followed:20
1. To heighten the spirit of patriotism among the younger generation
2. To promote racial unity and national integration
3. To build positive characters through practice of noble values
4. To inculcate spirit of volunteerism
5. To produce a generation of active, bright and confident youths
The first two objectives clearly cannot be perceived as achieved. C. S. Kuppuswamy wrote in his paper “Malaysia’s Racial Politics” that “a National Service Programme was launched in 2004 where youths of different races were nominated to undergo a camp for about three months for a training programme, during which they would come to know the culture and traditions of the other races. These small measures neither had the desired impact nor had the support of the general public.”21 The same was observed by Aliran - “national harmony and patriotism cannot be hammered into the youths via a three-month stint of military-type training and outward bound activities.”22 Furthermore, while the majority of the trainees who have completed their trainings have testified that the NS programme has allowed them to be more independent, to develop communication skills and to make socialize with new friends, they agree that the NS programme has little impact on patriotism as well as racial integration. The fourth objective cannot be achieved through the community service module, too.
Most importantly, we question the uniqueness and exclusiveness of the objectives set by the NS Department. Cannot these same objectives be achieved through our national education system or through the implementation of youth community programmes such as Rakan Muda?23 Is it justified to have a programme, which does not have any exclusive objective, but costs the government RM2.37 billion?
Conclusion
In 2009, the NS programme enters its sixth year since its launching in year 2004. Fifteen batches of trainees have completed their three month training. While the trainees have talked of the interesting and extraordinary NS experiences that have very much benefited them, the NS programme has also seen its fair share of controversies, with fatalities and the huge expenses heading the list. It is, therefore, urgent and crucial that a thorough review is done on the NS programme. This is also advocated by former NS council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, who said that a review was necessary after five years and it should cover all aspects, including training modules, training quality, health and hygiene, food quality and camp management.24 There is no excuse for a lack of available sample as fifteen batches of trainees have already completed their trainings. The review should be done by an independent panel and the report be debated in Parliament. Only through this channel can we justify the costs behind the NS programme.
References
1. “RM2.37bil spent on NS” retrieved on 18 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bc3tot.
Nevertheless, Palmdoc, in his blog posting “The Saving Private Ryan Clause for the NS” on http://medicine.com.my on 23 September 2008 wrote of the unclear number of fatalities which range from 16 to 21.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
5. Ibid.
6. Official textbooks of Integration Programme, National Service, Department of National Service, Ministry of Defense.
7. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
8. Ronnie Liu “M16 training for NS trainees serves little purpose but poses high risks for all” retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/cac7h2
9. Jacqueline Ann Surin “Arms usage training kills NS objectives” retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/dfnrex
10. “Poll: NS trainees and M-16 shouldn’t mix” (The Star Online) retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/ce5jtd
11. “NS trainees fire away” (Sun2surf) retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/au57x8
12. T. E. Cheah (2007, 4 March), “National Service: A Death Trap”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/de5ab7
13. “Government Won't Compromise On Negligence At NS Training Camps”, (Bernama.com) retrieved on 28 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/d6vas4
14. “Helping Jane Get Exemption from NS” (The Star Online) retrieved on 29 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/bec92c
15. Allison Lai (2008, 22 September), “Parents Say No to NS Stint After Son’s Death” (The Star Online), retrieved on 29 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/c6tq7c
16. K. Kasturi Dewi “Penang Orders Closure of Three Camps”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/afbl9q
17. Ibid
18. Royce Cheah, “NS deals led to RM110m loss” (The Star Online), retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bo8n9h
19. Ibid
20. “Objektif”, (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara), retrieved on 11 September 2008 from www.khidmatnegara.gov
21. C. S. Kuppuswamy (2006, 13 December), “Malaysia’s Racial Politics”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/absbu2
22. Aliran Executive Committee (2004, 27 April), “A Disservice to the Nation”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/2mx9y6
23. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
24. “Thorough Review of NS Programme Soon, Says Outgoing Chairman” (Malaysian National News Agency) retrieved on 21 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bhf5ko
M-16 Training
The M-16 training is one of the greatest “selling points” of the NS programme.
A day before the actual shooting session, trainees were given a briefing by the army. During the briefing session, we were taught the correct position to take while shooting, the instructions that we had to be aware of and how to walk to our respective positions. During the actual shooting session, each trainee was allowed thirty shots, using live bullets, of which 10 were for testing purpose while the remaining 20 counted for points. The shooting session lasted about five minutes for each trainee. Only trainees with a signed letter of consent by their parent or guardian were allowed to shoot.
What lesson is to be expected of this M-16 training?
During a Dewan Rakyat sitting, in a reply to Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah) who questioned the purpose of the M-16 training, the Deputy Defense Minister stated that the M-16 training “has helped to instill discipline among NS trainees”7.
In reality, there is not much space and opportunity for learning. The M-16 training only provided the trainees a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fire live bullets from an M-16. Nothing substantial was taught during both the briefing and actual shooting sessions. It cannot be said that the trainees have learned the proper way to handle firearms.
While some trainees may be excited with their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fire live bullets from an M-16, the public have not been very receptive with the idea of incorporating the M-16 training module in the NS programme.
Ronnie Liu of the DAP, has once issued a media statement “M16 training for NS trainees serves little purpose but poses high risks for all” in which he wrote that “The proposed additional M16 training for NS trainees may not serve much purpose, but it would inevitably increase the cost of the program besides posing high risks to the trainees and the society in general. I hate to think about the possibility of arms heists and vulnerability of accidents in the camps”.8
Jacqueline Ann Surin wrote for the Sun that “Arms usage training kills NS objectives”: “Does it teach our young constructive and respectful ways of dealing with misunderstandings and conflicts between the races? Does it promote the noble values of, among others, inner strength, patience, peace and justice?
“So, here's a question I have for our government: How does a government agency get away with proposing and then running a programme, albeit a trial one, that explicitly undermines all the three objectives that were set out by the government itself?
“The only reason I can think of for our teenagers to be given arms training is so that they will be prepared to use it one day.
“But, I remember very clearly a commitment made by our government that National Service in Malaysia was not about building a reserve army in the way that the Singapore National Services aims to do.”9
An online poll by The Star on 8 June 2006 found that more than two-thirds of readers disagreed with the move to train national service trainees in the use of the M16 assault rifle.10
NS Training Department deputy director-general Omar Abdul Rahman said “to avoid misunderstanding, we have changed the name from shooting lesson (kelas menembak) to light-arms usage training (latihan penggunaan senjata ringan).”11
TRANSPARENCY
The lack of transparency on the ways things are being managed in the NS programme has led to a serious decline of public confidence towards this programme.
Fatalities
As of today, there are 16 fatalities from the NS programme. However, not a single fatality was granted the appropriate inquiry or thorough investigation. Were the fatalities due to negligence by the instructors? Or did those tragedies occur because the trainees disobeyed instructions and were acting based on their own wills and desires? The public has no idea. “… Many of such reports are rarely published to the public”, wrote TE Cheah in his medical blog posting “National Service: A Death Trap?” 12. The vacuum of information only serves to create more uncertainties and fear towards the programme. To make things worse, the Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister of Defense, was even quoted in an occasion to remark that “only 14 have died”, indicating an attitude of indifference and insensitive towards the lives of the trainees13.
Camp Operations
There have been many reports of food poisoning in NS camps. Is the hygiene at all NS campsites regularly assessed by the authorities to be at a satisfactory and safe level?
Ricky Lim, a former NS trainee at Lagenda Gunung Ledang Asahan camp, passed away on 15 September 2008, fifteen days after he completed his training. An initial post-mortem could not identify the cause of death and health authorities are carrying out further tissue analysis which is expected to take between two and three months14. Ricky did not complain of any illness or pain prior to his death but he did complain about the camp’s hygiene and yellowish water supply15.
The writer herself can testify to yellowish water with sedimentation in the canteen as well as dormitories in her NS camp.
In September 2008, Penang state government has ordered the closure of three NS camps in Balik Pulau, Kampung Genting and Machang Bubok following an investigation showed that the three camps were built illegally16. A landslide occurred at the Sri Mutiara Balik Pulau camp after a heavy rain. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was quoted as saying that the three camps would not be allowed to operate until their planning permission was submitted and approved by local authorities17.
The assurances given by the NS Department are clearly contradicted by the events occurring in the camps.
Moreover, the 2007 Auditor-General’s report said that NS ‘shirkers’ and a very “rigid” contract have caused the Government losses of up to RM110.1million from 2004 to 2007.18 The 2007 A-G report also found that T-shirts, track pants, baseball caps and sports shoes supplied under contracts worth RM41.12mil were of low quality.19 But no appropriate inquiry or investigation has ever been conducted on this matter.
How much autonomy is given to each camp? Trainees have come back telling that different rules and regulations are enforced in different camps. Furthermore, there are also trainees who have said that certain camps have “more fun”.
The Different Batches
The yearly conscriptions of the NS programme are divided into three separate batches to undergo their trainings. The unofficial saying goes that the first and second batches of trainees are top scorers and good students while the third batch, on the contrary, are those with problematic backgrounds or are school dropouts. Many trainees, even NS instructors, have testified to this saying. Yet, there is never an official statement by the NS Department on this issue.
Will the NS Department be prepared to make it known to the public how trainees are appointed to their training groups? Will different approaches be adopted to approach the different groups of trainees? For instance, trainees of the third batch might not be accustomed to classroom activities such as Character Building. Will they, instead, be given vocational lessons to arm them with skills that will help them to earn an honest living in the near future?
The Military Issue
The NS Department has always been insisting that the NS programme is never meant to be military styled. Nevertheless, the reality is that there are much resemblance between the NS programme and military training. For instance, training activities such as obstacle course and M-16 training as well as the ways assemblies are conducted in camp. Furthermore, the majority of the instructors employed are formerly with the military and the camps are all administrated by military rank holders. These, coupled with the fatalities, create the confusion of whether the NS programme is truly “not military styled”. Will the NS Department make an attempt to reclassify the NS programme as “semi-military”, stating clearly which are the elements structured after the military, which are not and what are the purposes?
Training of Trainers
The majority of the instructors, particularly those of the physical module, are retired military rank holders. While their contributions and sacrifices for the country must be properly recognized, the NS Department must also acknowledge that they are not necessarily the ideal instructors for the NS programme, especially when the NS Department often emphasizes that the NS programme is “not military styled”. The writer has occasionally observed the burly attitudes of the instructors, including shouting unpleasant words to trainees (“if this is how you live your lives, you might as well die!”), which not only have the potential to hurt the trainees’ self-esteem and self- confidence, but can induce further anger in more rebellious trainees. There are also instructors who, sometimes, do not hesitate to issue threats in order to discipline the trainees (I can break this pillar in front of you!). Will the NS Department come up with a code of ethics for the instructors? Will they reconsider the employment of former military rank holders to train NS trainees?
The conflicts which often arise between the public and the NS Department are due to the statements and facts made by the NS Department which contradicts with their execution and enforcement. Addressing the above issues will help to resolve the conflicts. It will, in addition, help to create a healthy check-and-balance system for the NS Department.
Objectives & Benefits
The official objectives of the NS programme, as stated in its official website, are as followed:20
1. To heighten the spirit of patriotism among the younger generation
2. To promote racial unity and national integration
3. To build positive characters through practice of noble values
4. To inculcate spirit of volunteerism
5. To produce a generation of active, bright and confident youths
The first two objectives clearly cannot be perceived as achieved. C. S. Kuppuswamy wrote in his paper “Malaysia’s Racial Politics” that “a National Service Programme was launched in 2004 where youths of different races were nominated to undergo a camp for about three months for a training programme, during which they would come to know the culture and traditions of the other races. These small measures neither had the desired impact nor had the support of the general public.”21 The same was observed by Aliran - “national harmony and patriotism cannot be hammered into the youths via a three-month stint of military-type training and outward bound activities.”22 Furthermore, while the majority of the trainees who have completed their trainings have testified that the NS programme has allowed them to be more independent, to develop communication skills and to make socialize with new friends, they agree that the NS programme has little impact on patriotism as well as racial integration. The fourth objective cannot be achieved through the community service module, too.
Most importantly, we question the uniqueness and exclusiveness of the objectives set by the NS Department. Cannot these same objectives be achieved through our national education system or through the implementation of youth community programmes such as Rakan Muda?23 Is it justified to have a programme, which does not have any exclusive objective, but costs the government RM2.37 billion?
Conclusion
In 2009, the NS programme enters its sixth year since its launching in year 2004. Fifteen batches of trainees have completed their three month training. While the trainees have talked of the interesting and extraordinary NS experiences that have very much benefited them, the NS programme has also seen its fair share of controversies, with fatalities and the huge expenses heading the list. It is, therefore, urgent and crucial that a thorough review is done on the NS programme. This is also advocated by former NS council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, who said that a review was necessary after five years and it should cover all aspects, including training modules, training quality, health and hygiene, food quality and camp management.24 There is no excuse for a lack of available sample as fifteen batches of trainees have already completed their trainings. The review should be done by an independent panel and the report be debated in Parliament. Only through this channel can we justify the costs behind the NS programme.
References
1. “RM2.37bil spent on NS” retrieved on 18 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bc3tot.
Nevertheless, Palmdoc, in his blog posting “The Saving Private Ryan Clause for the NS” on http://medicine.com.my on 23 September 2008 wrote of the unclear number of fatalities which range from 16 to 21.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
5. Ibid.
6. Official textbooks of Integration Programme, National Service, Department of National Service, Ministry of Defense.
7. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
8. Ronnie Liu “M16 training for NS trainees serves little purpose but poses high risks for all” retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/cac7h2
9. Jacqueline Ann Surin “Arms usage training kills NS objectives” retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/dfnrex
10. “Poll: NS trainees and M-16 shouldn’t mix” (The Star Online) retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/ce5jtd
11. “NS trainees fire away” (Sun2surf) retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/au57x8
12. T. E. Cheah (2007, 4 March), “National Service: A Death Trap”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/de5ab7
13. “Government Won't Compromise On Negligence At NS Training Camps”, (Bernama.com) retrieved on 28 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/d6vas4
14. “Helping Jane Get Exemption from NS” (The Star Online) retrieved on 29 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/bec92c
15. Allison Lai (2008, 22 September), “Parents Say No to NS Stint After Son’s Death” (The Star Online), retrieved on 29 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/c6tq7c
16. K. Kasturi Dewi “Penang Orders Closure of Three Camps”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/afbl9q
17. Ibid
18. Royce Cheah, “NS deals led to RM110m loss” (The Star Online), retrieved on 19 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bo8n9h
19. Ibid
20. “Objektif”, (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara), retrieved on 11 September 2008 from www.khidmatnegara.gov
21. C. S. Kuppuswamy (2006, 13 December), “Malaysia’s Racial Politics”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/absbu2
22. Aliran Executive Committee (2004, 27 April), “A Disservice to the Nation”, retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/2mx9y6
23. Anthony Loke Siew Fook “RM2.37billion spent for National Service since 2004-2007” retrieved on 11 September 2008 from http://tinyurl.com/amtzsh
24. “Thorough Review of NS Programme Soon, Says Outgoing Chairman” (Malaysian National News Agency) retrieved on 21 February 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/bhf5ko
Guest Article: NS Observations and Thoughts (I)
Below is Part I of an excellent piece written by Mei San on the NS program. She's one of the many young Malaysians who have inspired me and given and continues to give me hope in our country.
84 Days in Camp – NS Observations and Thoughts
Ever since the National Service (NS) programme was launched in the year of 2004, 339,186 trainees have graduated1. Up till 2007, RM2.37 billion has been spent on the programme2. As of June 2008, 16 trainees have died3.
Due to the unexpected deaths and the large amount of expenses involved, there have been many calls, by parents as well as the Opposition, for the NS programme to be called off. Citing reasons such as patriotism and racial integration, the Ministry of Defense has been insisting on the importance and the benefits of the programme. The Defense Minister, also Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak was even quoted saying that the government wanted to continue with the programme as it was “becoming more popular”4. During a Dewan Rakyat sitting, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop also said studies on the effectiveness of the programme showed a positive response where success in instilling patriotism was 82 per cent, building confidence and leadership (88.3 per cent) and nurturing the spirit of community integration (86.7 per cent). 5
In the writer’s opinion, to call off or not to call off the NS programme, a thorough and transparent review of the programme will first have to be conducted. The review will then be brought up to the Parliament, where the relevance and the necessity of the NS programme to our youths will be decided through transparent, fair and constructive debates.
This piece of writing will present certain points, which, the writer opines, are worth included if any review of the NS programme is to be done in the future. Writing in the spirit of democracy, which appreciates the existence of checks and balances, the writer also hopes to create awareness about the necessity to question the realities behind the NS programme, as well as to invoke more debates and sharing of opinions regarding the NS programme. As a former NS trainee, the writer understands that her view might not be viewed as totally independent. Nevertheless, it should be kept in the minds of all readers that this piece of writing intends to ask questions, not to provide answers.
Integration Programme
The Integration Programme (Program Integrasi) was a one week programme aiming to promote racial integration among trainees and was conducted by external instructors. The daily sessions spanned from 9a.m. till 4.30p.m. Before the session started each day, trainees were first assembled to sing a song which comprised of greetings in five different languages commonly used in Malaysia- Bahasa Malaysia, English, Mandarin, Tamil and Bahasa Jawa. The programme was divided into three subtopics: culture (kebudayaan), religions (agama) and the roles of men and women (peranan lelaki dan perempuan). For each subtopic, a textbook was provided. The programme culminated with a closing ceremony consisting of both traditional and modern cultural performances by the trainees under the supervision of their respective instructors.
The syllabuses for each topic, as outlined in the textbooks, are as followed: 6
Culture (Kebudayaan)
This subtopic aims to educate the trainees about the various race-based cultures in Malaysia and the differences as well as the similarities that exist between them. It is hoped that this will help to reduce the conflicts and to create an integrated, established Malaysian society. The topics included in the textbook are traditional costumes, traditional food and traditional music of the respective cultures.
Religions (Agama)
This subtopic aims to educate the trainees about the different religions in Malaysia. Apart from the elaboration on the virtues called by the religions, there is also emphasis of the importance to respect all the religions in Malaysia, which, the textbook claims can be actualized by “avoiding in-depth discussions about the different religions in order to prevent sensitive issues being raised”. The topics included the traditional festivals and traditional practices of different religions, but are very much racial inclined.
Roles of Men and Women (Peranan lelaki dan perempuan)
This subtopic aims to educate trainees about gender stereotype, the need to overcome it, to be aware of their own perceptions on the roles of each gender and to understand the importance of inter-gender unity.
On a side note, the instructors in camp often stressed the importance of building racial integration in the NS programme. Henceforth, in all events and activities, including meal times and night patrol, trainees were instructed to sit in groups which comprised of “Malays, Chinese and Indians”. There was no mention of the other minorities, such as Eurasians or the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, which could easily be dismissed by their absence in the camp. If the trainees were to be found to have disobeyed such instructions, harsh warnings of punishment could be expected from the instructors. More than often, it also involved remarks such as “Do you want May 13 to repeat?” or “The Chinese trainees want to return to China?”
The syllabuses of this Integration Programme resembled much of the syllabus of our national education system for the subjects of Moral Education, Civic Education and a small part of History. If a decade of national education system utilizing these materials has failed to reduce racial polarization in Malaysian youths, why should a one week integration programme in the three month NS programme be expected to do the miracle?
If a decade of such teachings has failed to meet its objectives, why are we still moving in the same direction?
Moreover, the textbook on religions is misleading and confusing. The overall contents are very race-based. Instead of writing on the teachings of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity, it tells of the traditional practices and beliefs of the Malays, Chinese, Indians, Dayaks, Bajaus etc. The ambiguous distinction between races and religions only indicate the shallow mentality and insensitivity of the authorities towards the diversity that occurs within our dynamic Malaysian society. What is more, these are the very people who are preaching about integration.
Sports
Sports are the best ways to cut across all differences in order to achieve integration and unity. Hence, during the evenings, all trainees would be assembled and were allowed to play the different types of sports they like. During the writer’s training, a sports carnival was held from 9 July 2008 till 20 August 2008. The evenings were then spend on competitions for events which included netball, volleyball, football, cross-country run, tug-of-war, telematches (a.k.a. creative sports) and obstacle course.
There were two major problems with the sports carnival.
Firstly, no proper training was conducted and the players selected to participate were those who were already trained at school. The results was that those who were already skilled players continued to play in the field, dominating the games while those who did not know how to play continue to sit by the field, acting only as audience or supporters. No new player was produced. While unity and integration could also be inculcated and built through the players-supporters relationship, the teamwork that was supposed to be built and experienced in the field were only available to a certain group of trainees, who were fortunate to have received earlier training before NS.
Secondly, the trainees were taught a lopsided form of sportsmanship. Playing hard and giving your best in each game are the criteria of a good sportsman. Nevertheless, the respect for your opponents should also be instilled among trainees. During matches, trainees not only cheered for their own kompeni, but the cheers would occasionally turn into rowdy boos at their opponents. The instructors did little to quell those unruly name callings, as, most of the time, the instructors were themselves too engrossed in the proceedings of the games, too concern if their own kompeni would win the match.
Community Service
This module involved outings and visits to the various places as followed:
1. Maxwell Hill, Taiping. Trainees walked up 650m above sea level, approximately 6km.
2. Taiping Lake Gardens. Trainees participated in a Fun Walk and other activities, such as lucky draw, which were organized by the Taiping City Council (MPT).
3. Rumah Seri Kenangan Taiping. It is a governmental welfare home for the old folks. A presentation about the organization was given by one of the staffs to the trainees upon arrival. Trainees were later brought to visit some of the dormitories, doing a little cleaning up at the same time.
4. Bukit Gantang. The Great Durian Festival was held by the Ministry of Tourism and the event was launched by Dato Azalina Othman Said.
5. Kuala Sepetang mangrove swamp and charcoal factories. Trainees were given a presentation by an officer of the Perak State Forestry Department about the mangrove swamps and were later brought to the nearby charcoal factories by bus.
No explanation on the objectives of each activity was given to the trainees.
What were the trainees’ contribution and service to the community? Were the trainees anymore aware of their responsibilities as part of the community?
Outings to Maxwell Hill and Kuala Sepetang mangrove swamps can potentially serve to create more awareness about nature and the responsibility to preserve it. The visit to Rumah Seri Kenangan exposed trainees to the needs of old folks. Nevertheless, the visits were brief and provided little opportunities for the trainees to have practical experience in community service. The visit to Kuala Sepetang merely involved an audiovisual briefing without any venturing into the mangrove swamps. The dormitories in Rumah Seri Kenangan Taiping had little space for the large group of trainees. Furthermore, the dormitories were occupied by residents who were mobile and did their cleaning daily, prior to our arrival, thus offering the trainees little cleaning work.
What did the trainees’ participation in the Fun Walk and The Great Durian Festival teach them about community service?
Were trainees anymore wiser regarding the long term commitment and devout required in community service? Were trainees truly able to understand the importance of volunteerism and the spirit of serving above self?
84 Days in Camp – NS Observations and Thoughts
Ever since the National Service (NS) programme was launched in the year of 2004, 339,186 trainees have graduated1. Up till 2007, RM2.37 billion has been spent on the programme2. As of June 2008, 16 trainees have died3.
Due to the unexpected deaths and the large amount of expenses involved, there have been many calls, by parents as well as the Opposition, for the NS programme to be called off. Citing reasons such as patriotism and racial integration, the Ministry of Defense has been insisting on the importance and the benefits of the programme. The Defense Minister, also Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak was even quoted saying that the government wanted to continue with the programme as it was “becoming more popular”4. During a Dewan Rakyat sitting, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop also said studies on the effectiveness of the programme showed a positive response where success in instilling patriotism was 82 per cent, building confidence and leadership (88.3 per cent) and nurturing the spirit of community integration (86.7 per cent). 5
In the writer’s opinion, to call off or not to call off the NS programme, a thorough and transparent review of the programme will first have to be conducted. The review will then be brought up to the Parliament, where the relevance and the necessity of the NS programme to our youths will be decided through transparent, fair and constructive debates.
This piece of writing will present certain points, which, the writer opines, are worth included if any review of the NS programme is to be done in the future. Writing in the spirit of democracy, which appreciates the existence of checks and balances, the writer also hopes to create awareness about the necessity to question the realities behind the NS programme, as well as to invoke more debates and sharing of opinions regarding the NS programme. As a former NS trainee, the writer understands that her view might not be viewed as totally independent. Nevertheless, it should be kept in the minds of all readers that this piece of writing intends to ask questions, not to provide answers.
Integration Programme
The Integration Programme (Program Integrasi) was a one week programme aiming to promote racial integration among trainees and was conducted by external instructors. The daily sessions spanned from 9a.m. till 4.30p.m. Before the session started each day, trainees were first assembled to sing a song which comprised of greetings in five different languages commonly used in Malaysia- Bahasa Malaysia, English, Mandarin, Tamil and Bahasa Jawa. The programme was divided into three subtopics: culture (kebudayaan), religions (agama) and the roles of men and women (peranan lelaki dan perempuan). For each subtopic, a textbook was provided. The programme culminated with a closing ceremony consisting of both traditional and modern cultural performances by the trainees under the supervision of their respective instructors.
The syllabuses for each topic, as outlined in the textbooks, are as followed: 6
Culture (Kebudayaan)
This subtopic aims to educate the trainees about the various race-based cultures in Malaysia and the differences as well as the similarities that exist between them. It is hoped that this will help to reduce the conflicts and to create an integrated, established Malaysian society. The topics included in the textbook are traditional costumes, traditional food and traditional music of the respective cultures.
Religions (Agama)
This subtopic aims to educate the trainees about the different religions in Malaysia. Apart from the elaboration on the virtues called by the religions, there is also emphasis of the importance to respect all the religions in Malaysia, which, the textbook claims can be actualized by “avoiding in-depth discussions about the different religions in order to prevent sensitive issues being raised”. The topics included the traditional festivals and traditional practices of different religions, but are very much racial inclined.
Roles of Men and Women (Peranan lelaki dan perempuan)
This subtopic aims to educate trainees about gender stereotype, the need to overcome it, to be aware of their own perceptions on the roles of each gender and to understand the importance of inter-gender unity.
On a side note, the instructors in camp often stressed the importance of building racial integration in the NS programme. Henceforth, in all events and activities, including meal times and night patrol, trainees were instructed to sit in groups which comprised of “Malays, Chinese and Indians”. There was no mention of the other minorities, such as Eurasians or the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, which could easily be dismissed by their absence in the camp. If the trainees were to be found to have disobeyed such instructions, harsh warnings of punishment could be expected from the instructors. More than often, it also involved remarks such as “Do you want May 13 to repeat?” or “The Chinese trainees want to return to China?”
The syllabuses of this Integration Programme resembled much of the syllabus of our national education system for the subjects of Moral Education, Civic Education and a small part of History. If a decade of national education system utilizing these materials has failed to reduce racial polarization in Malaysian youths, why should a one week integration programme in the three month NS programme be expected to do the miracle?
If a decade of such teachings has failed to meet its objectives, why are we still moving in the same direction?
Moreover, the textbook on religions is misleading and confusing. The overall contents are very race-based. Instead of writing on the teachings of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity, it tells of the traditional practices and beliefs of the Malays, Chinese, Indians, Dayaks, Bajaus etc. The ambiguous distinction between races and religions only indicate the shallow mentality and insensitivity of the authorities towards the diversity that occurs within our dynamic Malaysian society. What is more, these are the very people who are preaching about integration.
Sports
Sports are the best ways to cut across all differences in order to achieve integration and unity. Hence, during the evenings, all trainees would be assembled and were allowed to play the different types of sports they like. During the writer’s training, a sports carnival was held from 9 July 2008 till 20 August 2008. The evenings were then spend on competitions for events which included netball, volleyball, football, cross-country run, tug-of-war, telematches (a.k.a. creative sports) and obstacle course.
There were two major problems with the sports carnival.
Firstly, no proper training was conducted and the players selected to participate were those who were already trained at school. The results was that those who were already skilled players continued to play in the field, dominating the games while those who did not know how to play continue to sit by the field, acting only as audience or supporters. No new player was produced. While unity and integration could also be inculcated and built through the players-supporters relationship, the teamwork that was supposed to be built and experienced in the field were only available to a certain group of trainees, who were fortunate to have received earlier training before NS.
Secondly, the trainees were taught a lopsided form of sportsmanship. Playing hard and giving your best in each game are the criteria of a good sportsman. Nevertheless, the respect for your opponents should also be instilled among trainees. During matches, trainees not only cheered for their own kompeni, but the cheers would occasionally turn into rowdy boos at their opponents. The instructors did little to quell those unruly name callings, as, most of the time, the instructors were themselves too engrossed in the proceedings of the games, too concern if their own kompeni would win the match.
Community Service
This module involved outings and visits to the various places as followed:
1. Maxwell Hill, Taiping. Trainees walked up 650m above sea level, approximately 6km.
2. Taiping Lake Gardens. Trainees participated in a Fun Walk and other activities, such as lucky draw, which were organized by the Taiping City Council (MPT).
3. Rumah Seri Kenangan Taiping. It is a governmental welfare home for the old folks. A presentation about the organization was given by one of the staffs to the trainees upon arrival. Trainees were later brought to visit some of the dormitories, doing a little cleaning up at the same time.
4. Bukit Gantang. The Great Durian Festival was held by the Ministry of Tourism and the event was launched by Dato Azalina Othman Said.
5. Kuala Sepetang mangrove swamp and charcoal factories. Trainees were given a presentation by an officer of the Perak State Forestry Department about the mangrove swamps and were later brought to the nearby charcoal factories by bus.
No explanation on the objectives of each activity was given to the trainees.
What were the trainees’ contribution and service to the community? Were the trainees anymore aware of their responsibilities as part of the community?
Outings to Maxwell Hill and Kuala Sepetang mangrove swamps can potentially serve to create more awareness about nature and the responsibility to preserve it. The visit to Rumah Seri Kenangan exposed trainees to the needs of old folks. Nevertheless, the visits were brief and provided little opportunities for the trainees to have practical experience in community service. The visit to Kuala Sepetang merely involved an audiovisual briefing without any venturing into the mangrove swamps. The dormitories in Rumah Seri Kenangan Taiping had little space for the large group of trainees. Furthermore, the dormitories were occupied by residents who were mobile and did their cleaning daily, prior to our arrival, thus offering the trainees little cleaning work.
What did the trainees’ participation in the Fun Walk and The Great Durian Festival teach them about community service?
Were trainees anymore wiser regarding the long term commitment and devout required in community service? Were trainees truly able to understand the importance of volunteerism and the spirit of serving above self?
Do We Really Learn?
One of the professors in my university's economics department runs an informal book club; you don't get academic credit for showing up, but you do get the satisfaction of intellectual exploration from reading the book we're assigned and discussing it. I bring this up, because it affords me a segue into an interesting tidbit I overheard from a senior at the meeting this week — of all the education systems around the world, most have one purpose: they either exist to suppress heresy by propounding the truth, or they exist to encourage freedom of thought and freedom to explore intellectually.
Now, I think we all can guess which category our very own school system falls under. Students are told not to question. The very atmosphere of our schools stifles the notion that one must be free to explore.
But sometimes I wonder if criticisms of our school system aren't really a problem with the idea that we should teach the one truth. The constant debate about Chinese schools is I think a good example. There's no question that the Chinese schools outperform national schools academically. But the problem I have with our school system in general is that all our schools follow the philosophy of teaching one thing as true, with no room to question it or go beyond it.
If we made all our schools more like Chinese schools, we'd do a fantastic job of indoctrinating our children against heresy and the wrong ideas. But the problem with this is that what is wrong is always changing. The whole point of the scientific method is that we never really know the truth; we always just get a little closer to it. Any theory can always be disposed of if it does not reflect the facts we observe; no scientific theory is truly indispensable.
I believe this is why we don't see much real innovation and actual learning coming out of Malaysia. Ultimately the point of education is to learn; and ultimately once you have exhausted what your teachers know, you must learn for yourself from observing the world around you. In our schools, we do a great job learning from our teachers; we just don't learn how to really learn by ourselves.
So when our scientists are called upon to come up with something new, something that's never been observed before, they can't do it. We know very well how to learn from other people; we don't know how to learn for ourselves from the world around us. That is the problem with the dominant educational philosophy in our schools.
How do we fix this? There's no clear answer for that. But we need to stop going through the motions of education. Let's be honest, really — when we do experiments in school, we're really learning from the teachers, not the experiment. We're not actually observing what's going on in the world; we're observing what our teachers say and parroting their answers.
Knowing how to parrot is a useful skill; our Chinese schools often turn out great parrots, and they go on to do pretty good things. But ultimately nothing can really substitute for knowing how to learn things for yourself, from observing what actually happens and learning from it. We need to reorient the way we teach and the way we run our schools if we want that to happen.
Now, I think we all can guess which category our very own school system falls under. Students are told not to question. The very atmosphere of our schools stifles the notion that one must be free to explore.
But sometimes I wonder if criticisms of our school system aren't really a problem with the idea that we should teach the one truth. The constant debate about Chinese schools is I think a good example. There's no question that the Chinese schools outperform national schools academically. But the problem I have with our school system in general is that all our schools follow the philosophy of teaching one thing as true, with no room to question it or go beyond it.
If we made all our schools more like Chinese schools, we'd do a fantastic job of indoctrinating our children against heresy and the wrong ideas. But the problem with this is that what is wrong is always changing. The whole point of the scientific method is that we never really know the truth; we always just get a little closer to it. Any theory can always be disposed of if it does not reflect the facts we observe; no scientific theory is truly indispensable.
I believe this is why we don't see much real innovation and actual learning coming out of Malaysia. Ultimately the point of education is to learn; and ultimately once you have exhausted what your teachers know, you must learn for yourself from observing the world around you. In our schools, we do a great job learning from our teachers; we just don't learn how to really learn by ourselves.
So when our scientists are called upon to come up with something new, something that's never been observed before, they can't do it. We know very well how to learn from other people; we don't know how to learn for ourselves from the world around us. That is the problem with the dominant educational philosophy in our schools.
How do we fix this? There's no clear answer for that. But we need to stop going through the motions of education. Let's be honest, really — when we do experiments in school, we're really learning from the teachers, not the experiment. We're not actually observing what's going on in the world; we're observing what our teachers say and parroting their answers.
Knowing how to parrot is a useful skill; our Chinese schools often turn out great parrots, and they go on to do pretty good things. But ultimately nothing can really substitute for knowing how to learn things for yourself, from observing what actually happens and learning from it. We need to reorient the way we teach and the way we run our schools if we want that to happen.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)