[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

Little did they know that people who can do well in examinations may not have high IQ and that people with high IQ may not be able to do well in examinations.

To me, this seems to imply one thing, that the standard of the SPM examinations I sat for in 2005 was supposedly lower than that for this year. Therefore, because we are not well armed with the knowledge required before going to universities, we have to either sit for the A Levels examination (if you plan on going to private universities), the Matriculation, Foundation studies, AusMAT, Canadian Pre-U, or the infamous Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia.

However, looks like that wouldn't be necessary anymore for SPM students now. Starting November this year, students who have sat for the SPM examinations can now apply for university entry. Although they did not state specifically whether these students would be first taken into the university to do any foundation studies or just absorbed immediately as undergraduates, as far as I am concerned, there are no universities that are offering foundation studies yet. If there are, I wonder why didn't the ministry tell us so, instead of us having to do STPM examinations. Logical, isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong.

Most of us have already gone through the SPM process, and upon doing our Pre-University studies, we would have found how much lacking our knowledge is so much so that we know the reason why we were not allowed to directly apply into universities as undergraduates. The issue now is: Since we know that the SPM syllabus is simply insufficient for students to directly apply for undergraduate studies in public universities, based on what grounds does the ministry now permit SPM students this year to apply for public universities purely based on their SPM results?

Are they going to, once again, say that selection of students from the SPM level into universities will be based on the results they obtain, and that only the creme de la creme would be chosen. It certainly shortens time a lot for students, having to skip the two years in STPM, but this is like a repetition of the PTS case. Back in those days when PTS examinations were still around, we saw some of our friends skipping Standard 4 into Standard 5 because they supposedly have higher IQ compared to us, and therefore could cope even without having to go through Standard 4.

That's true to some extent. Little did they know that people who can do well in examinations may not have high IQ and that people with high IQ may not be able to do well in examinations. Perhaps they had not heard of savants back then. Hey, no offense to those who have succeeded in the PTS examination, but my point is just that a great number of those who skipped Standard 4 have also flopped in their examinations later on. Many who were regarded as potential genius in Standard 3 could not secure a straight A1 streak in their SPM examinations. Nevertheless, I must also add that getting straight A1's in the SPM examinations does not even necessarily reflect our intelligence nowadays.

So, now we have a similar situation where students who could score excellent results in the SPM examination would stand a chance to further their studies immediately in public universities. It saves money for parents to bring their children to pursue their tertiary education as public universities are far cheaper, and it saves time because they would not need to undergo STPM studies.

However, is that a good move? Many students who have gone through Matriculation and STPM studies eventually flop while pursuing tertiary education, too. Is it not too big a risk for SPM students to pursue undergraduate studies immediately? If they want to pursue any course in biology (medicine, genetics, biochemistry), what would they know about taxonomy (from kingdom to species), detailed anatomy and so on? If they want to pursue any course in physics (engineering, automotive), what would they know about statics, mechanics, kinematics, etc.? If they want to pursue any course in information technology (computer science, business), what do they know about programming, network analysis, problem solving, etc.? If they want to deal with language, what do they know about didactics, semantics, etc.? Virtually nothing.

Being Malaysians in a competitive era, we seem to favour short-cuts. We want to be over with studying. We want to venture into the working world as soon as possible. We want to start earning our first big bucks. STPM examinations seem to be for losers only. It is that kind of mentality that sometimes poison and eventually kill our minds, giving us the unnecessary distress that we could have avoided simply by being more patient.

Have I regretted doing my Foundation studies in UTP? Certainly not. I was offered the ASEAN Pre-U Scholarship too but I rejected it, knowing somehow that I would get the better offer from Petronas. But if Petronas had not offered me the sponsorship and I had rejected the ASEAN Scholarship offer from Singapore; and also assuming that I had applied for other scholarships but failed to secure one, would I go for STPM? Yes, and without any resentment. I wouldn't even consider doing A Level studies on my own. That's flat.

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

We need to look back at why we need MPs for. Are they there in Parliament to discuss such irrelevant and sensitive issues? Have the MPs no sense for moderation of speech? While they are in need of wisdom, where has it gone?

If you answer yes to any of the questions above, then you do not belong to this country. Obviously, this country is not suitable for you, because you cannot even respect the traditions, culture and the theology of the various religions in the world. Also, you would believe that your own religion is the only correct religion in the world. People who think like this are the ones who will bring about social turmoil and unrest.

So, what has all this got to do with our Members of Parliament (MP)? Well, personally, I have nothing against them. It's just that sometimes it is indeed appalling to see how some of our representatives could not suppress their tongues from making foolish, baseless statements. It makes you think, "Have we chosen a wrong MP?"

On the 29th of October 2007, the Dewan Rakyat had its usual parliamentary meeting which started around 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. and ended at about half past eight at night. I managed to get a copy of the hansard which can be downloaded from www.parlimen.gov.my. I read most of the content (it was 147 pages long) and this one particular page got me interested. The following picture is a facsimile of one of the pages of the hansard:

Referring to the extract of the hansard above, you will see that there is this MP for Parit Sulong making an interesting statement. For those who do not know Malay, I shall tell you the gist of the extract. The MP for Parit Sulong made the following claims or allegations:

1. Missionary schools such as Convent, La Salle and Methodist schools have Board of Governors that are partially administered by the Vatican City.
2. The permission of the Board of Governors, in which part of it is controlled by the church, must be obtained first before a surau is permitted to be built within the premise of the school.
3. Muslim parents who send their children to missionary schools complain because school sessions begin with the singing of church hymns (or church songs).
4. Religious symbols are seen within the compound of the school and the MP for Parit Sulong feels disappointed to see the statue of the Virgin Mary right in front of the school should he be visiting, say, a Convent school.

The MP for Parit Sulong was then interrupted by the MP for Sri Gading, who stood up and said that a father informed the former that such missionary schools did not close during Hari Raya Aidilfitri. He then sat down, in which the MP for Parit Sulong continued to make the following statements:

1. Not only are statues seen within the premise of the school, but crosses are often found as well. What the MP for Parit Sulong could not comprehend was whether the Education Ministry officials failed to see them or is it that allowing such statues or crosses displayed is within the base of the Constitution.
2. Seeing it as his responsibility to himself, his religion, his race as well as his country, he proposed that the statues be demolished, the crosses destroyed and the church influence be stopped.

So much for his "factual" speech. Let me now correct all the above statements that the MP for Parit Sulong made and state them as facts:

1. The missionary schools do have a Board of Governors, but they are NEVER governed by the Vatican City. Why would the Vatican City be interested with schools that are built here in Malaysia? Would it bring any economic growth to the Vatican City? For all you know, it will be a headache to them. So why, would they bother?
2. No missionary school is unequipped with the surau. Permission to build a surau need not be obtained from the Board of Governors. It is just that perhaps relocating the surau from one section of the school to another section may not be approved so easily due to the lack of floor space available in the school. Face the fact, not all schools have plenty of space to waste. No school in Malaysia has a prayer room for non-Muslims AND non-Christians. So if you have one within the school premise, be contented about it and shut up (unless there are other reasons that would expedite immediate relocating of the prayer room). If you don't, then request for one.
3. Never in my eleven years of study life in St. Michael's Institution (a La Sallian school) had I sung any church hymns or church songs. Complaints stating that church hymns are sung are simply a complete farce. If the singing of hymns did take place, why is it that the mass media never covered such stories, and that the Education Ministry never reported such cases? Also, why is it that other missionary schools never receive any directives regarding that matter? We would have been informed about it, would we not? By the way, while having our weekly prayers during assembly, we have a Muslim prayer followed by a non-Muslim prayer. See for yourselves how such schools actually respect and care for every religion and culture. The least you could do is show some respect to these schools and not just blurt out any baseless arguments in the Parliament.
4. Not all symbols or statues are religious ones. The Paterfamilias statue standing at the foyer of St. Michael's Institution is not for a religious purpose. It represents a teacher imparting knowledge to a student. It also represents the commitment and the dedication that academicians in SMI would portray. Even if some of the structures, such as the cross, are religious symbols, does it kill you to look at them even if you are not a Christian? Also, why is it that you cannot enjoy and appreciate the diversity of culture and tradition that we have in architecture? Such structures are rare and some of them have even been sanctioned by the state governments as valuable historical sites. What the MP for Parit Sulong proposed was to eliminate such history! This is atrocity at its worst!
5. The Education Ministry has nothing against the cross and the statues displayed in the compound of missionary schools. They have the wisdom in knowing that such tradition and display is rare and bear a meaningful beginning or legacy of the school. Thus, they should be left alone. If the Education Ministry does not even have anything against those structures, why should the MP for Parit Sulong even bother in the first place?
6. His proposing to have the statues demolished and crosses destroyed is outrageous. Assume that a school is built with all the Islamic features available in a non-Islamic country. Now, here is then an MP who proposes that the dome be removed and replaced by a flat roof and the crescent moon be replaced by the symbol of a lion. I wonder how will the MP for Parit Sulong feel? If he is angered, what about the Christians who have now heard of his proposal to have the crosses and statues removed?

Ladies and gentlemen, did you know that many of our politicians, royalty and great personalities hailed from such missionary schools? I will name some: YAB Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia), His Highness Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah (the Raja Muda of Perak), YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik (Minister for Energy, Water and Communications), YAB Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye (former MP), Mr. Koo Kien Keat (Badminton champion), Mr. Ralph Marshall (CEO of Astro), Ahmad Farid Ridzuan (CEO of TV3) and many more! Why is it that the MP for Parit Sulong never bothered to inquire from the people available in the politicians sphere in which many came from missionary schools as well?

We need to look back at why we need MPs for. Are they there in Parliament to discuss such irrelevant and sensitive issues? Have the MPs no sense for moderation of speech? While they are in need of wisdom, where has it gone?

Members of Parliament have been chosen and elected by the people to represent them for various constituencies. They are there to see that our welfare and the economic needs are met. They are to report to the government whatever dissatisfaction that have occurred. The MPs are also responsible to help resolve certain dilemmas that are happening in their constituencies. We don't need MPs who can talk a lot of nonsense, we need MPs who can speak up for the people's rights and walk the talk!

The fact that they have been elected by the people as their representatives mean that the people put a certain amount of trust in them to lead them. However, from what we can see from the hansard, it's clearly a misuse of trust. We have elected MPs who go to the Parliament to invoke racial and religious sentiments and are so desensitised to the fact that people are hurt by such remarks. Do we need such people in the Dewan Rakyat? Clearly, ladies and gentlemen, we should vote them OFF from the Parliament. Why should we have such people wasting everybody's time with absurd, baseless, appalling remarks? It's time we get to see a show of maturity within the august House.

Our MPs really need to think first before they say anything in the august House. If they have nothing to say, it is far better that they just don't attempt to find a convenient (yet offensive) topic to speak about and just shut up. Nobody is going to penalise them for just keeping their tongue still. It is far better to keep quiet, rather than to let the tongue damage one's reputation. Better be led by wisdom rather than be led by the heart.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, my most important advice is THINK!

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]

[ Read more! ]

[ Hide post ]