Malaysians Say "YES" To PPSMI

I received the message below from PAGE Malaysia. Please support this worthy cause to alert the Malaysian Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Education that it must respect the rights of Malaysian parents on the choice of PPSMI-

Dear parents and friends,

The quality of Malaysian education has deteriorated to an alarming level, with our schools and local universities churning out TOO MANY unemployable graduates who possess a severe lack of ability to communicate or correspond in English despite numerous A's scored in examinations, and producing ‘professionals’ of worryingly poor calibre especially in the fields of science and mathematics.

The former Prime Minister took steps to rectify the situation by implementing the policy of English for the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics and Science (Malay acronym: PPSMI) in 2003. The policy was fully embraced by the Government of the day, and ICT, hardware and software were acquired and designed and teachers were trained. Parents were greatly relieved that finally something concrete was being done to arrest the decline of the Malaysian education system.

Shortly after that, the general election was held and a new minister took over the Education Minister’s portfolio.

Shockingly, after only 6 years of implementation, without even allowing the first cohort of students who started with PPSMI in Primary 1 to complete the full cycle of schooling, the new Education Minister decided to abolish PPSMI in 2012, mainly for political reasons, despite

• huge public outcry and protests from parents and students alike;
• a massive number of letters and articles in newspapers and cyberspace from people in support of PPSMI, far outnumbering those against PPSMI;  
• support for PPSMI from various professional bodies, business concerns and numerous concerned groups both local and international; and
• solid evidence that PPSMI has improved student outlooks and is advantageous for the future of our children and the country.

The Education Minister has IGNORED the pleas of parents and has blatantly disregarded the provision of the Education Act 1996 which stipulates that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

The world is moving forward but yet Malaysia is going backward. We are going to remain stagnant in terms of progress and development.

Students in Form 1 next year will have to study Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Melayu after learning these subjects in English in primary school. Worse, for those who are going to Form 4, after learning Maths and Science in English for 9 years, they will be forced to switch to Bahasa Melayu for 2 years and then back again to English for their tertiary education!

Parents and friends, enough is enough. We are the Rakyat. The days of ‘the Government knows best’ are OVER! A democratic government must abide by the wishes of the majority.

We believe the majority of parents in Malaysia would choose PPSMI for their children if given the option. Unfortunately many choose to remain silent. Why? WE MUST MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD! Our numbers must be significant so that the Minister has no choice but to heed our wishes!

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. CLICK HERE AND SAY YES TO PPSMI OPTION !

If you want your children’s school to be given the option of continuing PPSMI in 2012, attached is a simple form for you to REGISTER YOUR SUPPORT. It will take only a few minutes of your time to fill in. We urge you to register immediately as 2012 is just around the corner.

Please also help to forward the email to as many people as possible.

Please be assured that all information you provide will be carefully guarded and we will take great care to ensure that your personal information remains confidential.

Thank you for showing that you care about your children's future AND the future of Malaysia!

Parent Action Group for Education (1266-10-WKL)pagemalaysia@gmail.comwww.pagemalaysia.orgFor Our Children. Demi Anak Kita

-- PAGE Parent Action Group for Education (1266-10-WKL)pagemalaysia@gmail.comwww.pagemalaysia.orgFor Our Children. Demi Anak Kita

Referendum on PPSMI (updated)

I wish to offer my congratulations and my wholehearted support to PAGE and JMM for their joint call upon the Government to hold a nationwide referendum on whether PPSMI should be reversed.

Think about it. This proposal de-politicises the whole PPSMI issue.

No political party will win.

Only the rakyat wins.

Is that a bad thing?

____________________________

Sourced from The Star-

Two groups are calling for a referendum to determine if there is enough public support for the option of having Science and Mathematics taught in English in schools.

The Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE) and Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) are appealing to the Education Ministry to consider the voices of parents who want the option to have PPSMI in schools.

PAGE chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim said this at a joint press conference with JMM president Azwanddin Hamzah yesterday.

The PPSMI policy was initiated by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and implemented in phases, beginning with Year One, Form One and Lower Six students in 2003.

Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassinannounced in 2009 that the Government would reverse the PPSMI policy and revert to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools; and Chinese and Tamil in vernacular schools, while more emphasis would be placed on English.

However, he said in August that the Government was keeping its options open on the matter.

Noor Azimah said to date, PAGE had handed over six memorandums three each to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Muhyiddin but added she had not received any reply.

Noor Azimah said a letter requesting to meet with Najib was handed to him in late August, appealing to the Prime Minister to intervene in the long-standing issue.

Azwanddin said JMM and PAGE were not asking for a change in the official language.

“We are only asking for our children to be given the opportunity to study Science and Mathematics in English,” he said.

Noor Azimah said parents wanted their children to be educated according to their wishes as stipulated in the Education Act 1996.

She said students heading into Form One in national secondary schools in January next year were the ones most affected by the policy reversal.

Noor Azimah advised parents whose children will go to Form Four next year to urge principals to continue with PPSMI in their schools.

“It should be the parents who decide on the medium of instruction, not the principals.”

PPSMI - An election issue?

If ever there was even the remotest possibility of the existence of a Silent Majority, it would have to be Malaysian parents whose children are in the Primary and Secondary schools that are subjected to the National Syllabus.

Education is a perpetually hot issue in every country anywhere in the world. Malaysia is no different.

The Education Ministry has sought to offer free text books. Under the 2012 Budget, it is seeking to remove school fees. All these, in an effort to pander to parents.

In the life of Malaysian parents, we wear many hats, of course. At work, we wear one hat. With friends, we wear another hat. 

Surely the most important hat that we wear must be that of a parent to school-going children.

Children are a constant reminder to parents that there is a need to protect the future. The future of our children are the future of Malaysia. Malaysian children embody the future of Malaysia. They personify the Malaysian future.

So, it is not hyperbole when I say that I am angry with the Minister of Education. Yes, I'm very angry.

When Najib ascended to the Prime Ministership of Malaysia he was quoted as saying that the era of Government knows best is over.

Obviously the Minister of Education didn't read about it. Or, maybe he doesn't believe that statement to be true. Possibly, he thinks the Prime Minister was making a lighthearted, jocular remark. Maybe he doesn't care what that statement was intended to mean.

Whatever. 

The fact is that the position of the Minister of Education is that PPSMI is a policy that will be revoked.

This is the thing that pisses me off.

WHY was a policy change made, in the wake of a strong electoral message in 2008, without prior consultation with all stakeholders in Malaysia's Primary and Secondary education?

WHY was the consultation restricted to some doctrinal and dogmatic and myopic few, whoever they may be?

There is recent evidence to show that so-called experts or academics in Malaysia are wobbly in their reasoning. An immediate example would be the Council of Professors who declared that Malaysia was never colonised. They did not understand the difference between a de jure position and a de facto reality. 

Were these some of the people that the Ministry of Education consulted with in deciding to reverse the PPSMI?

The revocation of the policy on PPSMI is, to my mind, a clear and unequivocal sign that the ruling coalition or, at the very least, the Minister of Education, believes that the "Government knows best" philosophy is still the way to go. 

I, for one, am making PPSMI an election issue.

In this coming GE13, I am voting as a PARENT.

I'm not going into the polling booth with any other hats. I'll only be wearing the hat of a PARENT.

I can only hope that the rest of the Silent Majority of PARENTS (and all other concerned Malaysian voters) will do likewise.

When is enough, enough?

When you're already a tycoon the acquisition of additional assets is a mere intellectual challenge in a game where winners are measured objectively in the form of dollar value.

The problem arises when in chasing for superlative success in this game the tycoon's normally excellent judgment is clouded by the hunger to beat out the competition and grab the trophy.

And, suddenly, unwittingly(?), the line is crossed.

In the test of character, it is a fail.

In the measure of success, it is still a win because the desperate moves that crossed the line from being competitive and skillful to one who is felt to use underhand tactics that crosses the legal line, still results in the increase of net worth in dollar terms.

Sadly, in ethical and moral terms it means bankruptcy.

Which is to be treasured? High net worth in dollar terms? Or, high regard and a sterling reputation to take to the grave?

Which is better? The ignominy of being the richest S.O.B. who ever lived? Or, to be the greatest pillar of integrity that is held up forever as the ultimate role model of business leadership?

These are questions that should haunt those of us who have any pretension of ambition.

A "sweet" Budget 2012

I will say this, Najib is nimble.

Big Dog has declared it an Election Budget. I am in agreement. The Budget contains a lot of sweets for many categories of Malaysians; from the civil servants to parents.

The fact that the "kaya" of goodies is spread quite thin must surely be because Treasury is mindful that one of the greatest concerns of financial observers, local and international, is the fiscal deficit. Well, the deficit is not expected to increase in spite of the goodies. In this sense, Najib is nimble.

Neither corporate tax nor personal income tax was touched. This, to me, is a prelude to the expected rollout of the GST after GE13. In this sense, Treasury has to hold the keel steady until more revenues can be extracted from the Malaysian economy when GST is rolled out.

Real Property Gains Tax

The part I quite like is the tweaking of the Real Property Gains Tax. From next year, anyone who buys a piece of property and flips it within 2 years must pay 10% of any gains. If he or she sells the property between 3 to 5 years later, the tax is 5% on any gains. There is no RPGT if the property is sold more than 5 years later.

I like it because a reversion to the much earlier 3-tier structure where the top RPGT rate was 30% is likely to have created a bubble-bursting effect (yes, I believe there is a bubble or, if you like understatement, then, "excessive frothiness" might be a substitute phrase). 

So, this is an attempt to effect a controlled release of air from the property bubble. 

Liberalisation of 17 services subsectors

An interesting matter is that among the 17 sub-sectors that will be liberalised include private hospital services, medical and dental specialist services, architectural, engineering, accounting and taxation, legal services, courier services, education and training services, as well as telecommunication services.

The one subsector that stands out is legal services. This is one sector that has been cloistered forever. The  other one is architecture. These 2 service areas will see major structural changes.

I foresee that the immediate impact is not so much that a lot of foreign lawyers will literally parachute into Malaysia so much as foreign law and architectural brands will become more prominent. They will hire lots of Malaysians and a sprinkling of expat (remember, there's still the issue of work permits...aha!!!).

I see this as a good thing because the work processes for the legal and architecture professions will be immeasurably improved over time.

No, I don't see the loss of too much market share by local players to foreign service providers because, from my observation, foreign service providers are mainly interested to handle international work entering Malaysia in the form of foreign investments, direct or indirect. And, they are also interested in doing work for Malaysian companies investing or exporting overseas. This is their cachet...the international reach. 

Malaysian-based clients can't afford to pay these international firms anyway!

The accounting firms won't feel a thing with this liberalisation because Malaysian accounting firms from Tier-1 to Tier-3 are already under foreign brands and varying legal ownership structures.

Anyway, this move has been a long time coming. Some say, it's overdue.

To borrow Stan Lee's expression, "Nuff said".

BN: Downsizing to be nimble and true

While most people like to plunge into the rough and tumble of cat-calling and invective of happenstance events such as movies with food themes that contain socio-political commentaries, I find it more useful to examine our key political players for structure and process.

The 3 major components of the BN are facing a spot of bother.

They each have bloated memberships.

I use the word "bloated" most deliberately because, I dare say, two-thirds of their membership are filled with passive "hangers-on" who became members in the hope of material gain.

I have experienced several times, a situation where prior to meetings with certain MCA Ministers, I was asked whether I was a party member. 

Such a question typifies the 3 major BN component parties.

This is based on the paradigm established in the 1980s when BN's hegemony writ large and the patronage game was all the rage.

It is likely that in that era (which may have ended in March 2008), the leadership perception was that a large membership base will guarantee a large base of human capital that can be tapped whenever required.

The question that should rightly haunt BN leaders is, what happened to the millions of members in March 2008?

Malaysia has changed from the times when it was important for political parties to enter into business directly to institutionalise the warchest to fight all future political battles. Such a move is now questioned by all and sundry - from the rarefied air of the corporate suites of GLCs to the warungs.

Malaysia's population has become better educated and, some say, wealthier. And, there is also that Pandora's Box that will never ever close again, the Internet and social media.

Troglodytes in the BN ranks, particularly those in charge of multimedia, see the Internet and social media as a threat. They constantly attack the medium with appalling results. For, the Internet and social media behaves exactly like the mythical Hydra.

So, what to do?

I will provide a simple example that will address both the issue of bloated memberships (and, therefore, the need to downsize) and the strategy to engage the Internet and social media.

Just study the wildly successful Obama Presidential Campaign of 2008. That's the key.

The other is, to slowly pare down the bloated "inventory" that are the passive memberships. 

The third key takeaway should be to discard the treasure chest - yes, discard it by making earnest and sincere gifts of these valuable assets, such as controlling stakes in publicly-listed companies - and makes gifts of them to established and credible non-profit and charitable institutions - give it back to the people, so to speak.

Then and, I believe, only then, can the BN components re-engage the body politic with positive outcomes.

The key is how to engender the spirit of volunteerism in the mass of voters.

There are many, many, many examples of political parties with small membership bases that attract throngs of volunteers in the run-up to each political election - usually young voters - who are attracted to and, buys into the platform and manifesto of the political party in question.

The irony is that it is difficult for BN to find volunteers because everyone called upon by the BN expects to be paid. That used to be a good thing. Post-Match 2008, it's become a shitty situation.

A volunteer internalises the choice to support you. They are invested in you and your cause.

Paid party hacks and their fellow travellers have no heart because they're only in it for the money.

If BN components cannot see the difference, then, they're cooked.

This is a tough and stark choice.  

MCA: Get the emotional connection going

The MCA almost lost its underpants in the General Elections of 2008.

With GE13 looming its luminaries are attempting (belatedly) to enter into cyberspace more aggressively.

The MCA has also offered to buy Menara Multi-Purpose in KL as a long-term investment.

What do these two disparate actions mean?

Let's not forget the cat-calling and trading of barbs between the ex-President and the sitting President.

I'm not about to psychoanalyse the MCA. That would be the stuff of serious academic analysis. I will not presume to trivialise a political institution as important as the MCA.

Yes, the MCA is a political institution. It has a long and distinguished history. Hell, "renegade" MCA guys like Ong Yoke Lin in the KL Branch went against Tan Cheng Lock in 1951 to tie-up with UMNO at a time when Onn Jaafar's Independence of Malaya Party was the preferred flavour of the British colonial administration. Historical records confirm this.

So, how the heck did MCA's leaders lose the plot? How did they get the party so emasculated that it is now a mere eunuch? 

During the 1974 General Elections (yes, the one where all Chinese Malaysians were entreated to the photo-op of Tun Razak shaking hands with Chairman Mao), my father's car was festooned with mini BN flags. My father was an MCA Branch Chairman.

Where is this leading to?

I think I read somewhere that the MCA has a net asset worth in excess of RM2 billion (or, maybe more).

With that kind of deep pockets, the MCA can spend on some serious marketing and advertising campaign.

This is no time to be parsimonious. 

Come GE13, the MCA will be fighting for its political life.

It's time to sprinkle some magic dust.

My humble suggestion to the great egos at the MCA (yes, I've met some of them. And, yes, I did have to look up to the heavens for some of them. Though, to be fair, many MCA leaders were suitably modest...which is one of the minor reasons why I'm even bothering to write this.) is to consider an advertising and public relations campaign.

MCA has the financial resources. It has deep enough pockets to execute a good pre-GE13 campaign.

Whatever MCA has been doing to-date is too little and too lost in the cacophony of Malaysian politics.

And, by the way, getting nubile young Wanita MCA lasses to do tweets won't be enough. They'll either be too cheesy and effusive or, worse, become tweet-bitches if they are too aggressive. 

What the MCA needs is to tell its story.

The MCA story needs to be told at several levels.

To the mature demographic, the emotional connection is to MCA's role in the founding of the nation. Hearken back to the days when the MCA had Ministers holding substantive portfolios such as Trade and Commerce and Finance. Apart from the populace, there's no harm reminding big brother UMNO that when there was an MCA guy in charge, the Finance portfolio was well-run.

To the middle-class demographic, the MCA needs to create an emotional connection.

To the entry-level voting demographic, the MCA needs to provide an edgy message beyond just whacking the DAP and whacking hudud. The MCA has to go beyond making lame appeals to UMNO. The MCA has to realise that saying that there will be no MCA Ministerial representation if it gets less than the number of seats it currently has won't cut it with the voters.

The entry-level voting demographic needs to get an emotional connection with the MCA. They need to get beyond the cynical view that everyone who joins the MCA is in it for the money alone and, everything else are platitudes.

I don't have the answers as to what emotional messages need to be created. Nobody is paying me to think that hard about the MCA! 

I can only give clues. 

By the way, although my father was an MCA Branch Chairman many, many moons ago, I don't have any emotional connection to the MCA. I felt something momentarily in the late 1980s. But, since then I've lost it. Nada. Nothing.

But, wait a minute, the fact that I constantly write about the MCA, UMNO and BN, less about the DAP and Pakatan, should give you a clue.

Needless to say, I am jaded with BN as a whole because of Perkasa and PPSMI. Both matters reek of manipulative opportunism by a desperate BN machinery. The rakyat can see through the ruse and, they ain't buyin.

My humble view is that there was never any need for BN "to go there" - to the darkest recesses of the Malaysian psyche.

So, back to the MCA.

The MCA needs to ratchet up its emotional connection to Malaysians, Chinese or otherwise.

That's the key...the emotional connection.

Get the message right and Malaysians like me may give it a real, hard look.

Federation of Europe

The EU has 2 stark roads to take. It is at the fork in the road.

One road leads to the dismantling of the EU itself, starting with the break-up of the common currency, Euro. It's a bad outcome.

The other road is further integration. The formation of a federation. Or, a confederation.

The second road emerges because of the need for the stronger EU members to support (bailout) the weaker ones.

The second road is consistent with the vision offered by Bertrand Russell many, many years ago. Lord Russell wrote (which I have extracted from his essay, Political Ideals)-

The whole conception of trade, which has been forced upon
us by manufacturers who dreaded foreign competition, by trusts which
desired to secure monopolies, and by economists poisoned by the virus
of nationalism, is totally and absolutely false. Trade results simply
from division of labor. A man cannot himself make all the goods of
which he has need, and therefore he must exchange his produce with
that of other people. What applies to the individual, applies in
exactly the same way to the nation. There is no reason to desire that
a nation should itself produce all the goods of which it has need; it
is better that it should specialize upon those goods which it can
produce to most advantage, and should exchange its surplus with the
surplus of other goods produced by other countries. There is no use
in sending goods out of the country except in order to get other goods
in return. A butcher who is always willing to part with his meat but
not willing to take bread from the baker, or boots from the bootmaker,
or clothes from the tailor, would soon find himself in a sorry plight.
Yet he would be no more foolish than the protectionist who desires
that we should send goods abroad without receiving payment in the
shape of goods imported from abroad.

............

Our economic system is topsyturvy. It makes the interest of the
individual conflict with the interest of the community in a thousand
ways in which no such conflict ought to exist. Under a better system
the benefits of free trade and the evils of tariffs would be obvious
to all.

Apart from trade, the interests of nations coincide in all that makes
what we call civilization. Inventions and discoveries bring benefit
to all. The progress of science is a matter of equal concern to the
whole civilized world. Whether a man of science is an Englishman, a
Frenchman, or a German is a matter of no real importance. His
discoveries are open to all, and nothing but intelligence is required
in order to profit by them. The whole world of art and literature and
learning is international; what is done in one country is not done for
that country, but for mankind. If we ask ourselves what are the
things that raise mankind above the brutes, what are the things that
make us think the human race more valuable than any species of
animals, we shall find that none of them are things in which any one
nation can have exclusive property, but all are things in which the
whole world can share. Those who have any care for these things,
those who wish to see mankind fruitful in the work which men alone can
do, will take little account of national boundaries, and have little
care to what state a man happens to owe allegiance.

................................

What is to be desired is not cosmopolitanism, not the absence of all
national characteristics that one associates with couriers,
wagon-lit attendants, and others, who have had everything
distinctive obliterated by multiple and trivial contacts with men of
every civilized country. Such cosmopolitanism is the result of loss,
not gain. The international spirit which we should wish to see
produced will be something added to love of country, not something
taken away. Just as patriotism does not prevent a man from feeling
family affection, so the international spirit ought not to prevent a
man from feeling affection for his own country. But it will somewhat
alter the character of that affection. The things which he will
desire for his own country will no longer be things which can only be
acquired at the expense of others, but rather those things in which
the excellence of any one country is to the advantage of all the
world. He will wish his own country to be great in the arts of peace,
to be eminent in thought and science, to be magnanimous and just and
generous. He will wish it to help mankind on the way toward that
better world of liberty and international concord which must be
realized if any happiness is to be left to man.

.................................

The principle espoused by Lord Russell, if you didn't catch the drift, is that, in the current context, EU members need not fear the loss of nationalism or local culture as they gravitate towards a federal formula. It is akin to having a sense of being part of a huge village. It's going back to the roots of why people chose to live close to each other in the first place.

Mental masturbation on the socio-economic Catch-22

I'm writing about something that has bothered me for a long time. I've actually blogged about it intermittently when I started blogging, particularly in 2008 when the U.S. sub-prime crisis unfolded.

It's about the Catch-22 of modern capitalism.

As with all things, there's a Yin and Yang view (how wise the ancient sages were).

From the perspective of the leaders of modern large corporations, the KPI is the mantra of "shareholder value".

Shareholder value

What is shareholder value? It's about generating profits. Not just profits, mind you. The target is profit growth year-on-year.

Just read the financial news. Just watch the financial media. Just read analyst reports. 

If a large corporation made a billion last year and made another billion this year, the watchers and analysts and, yes, shareholders start decrying the zero profit growth year-on-year. This makes the company boring. The only consolation is if the company declares some higher dividend payout than from the year before.

Hell, unlisted companies have serious orgiastic parties if they record good profits every year. But, no, it's just not good enough for the shareholders of modern large corporations.

Flat is bad?

Flat growth is decried...even if it is still a highly profitable enterprise.

And, who are these shareholders?

Well, it's you and me.

Even if you hold up your hands to sanctimoniously cry aloud that you have never bought a single share of a publicly-listed company in your entire life, you would still be wrong.

We've all got money stashed away in pension funds, superannuation, or whatever one call it. So, indirectly, we're all complicit.

We bitch about poor returns, poor yields.

Where does that yield come from? Why, from the modern large corporations, of course.

Whether we like it or, not, we're in a carousel that is spinning out of control.

I have no idea how to stop the carousel. Do you?

Changed social values

All I know is that the correct social values as it existed in a village or kampung has disappeared in the era of modern capitalism.

Countries like our own Malaysia are caught in this awful carousel.

Our government is told that we need to reduce taxes in order to attract FDIs. FDIs are typically in the form of modern large corporations looking for cost-effective venues to produce goods and services at competitive prices. Competitively-priced products are attractive to consumers. Consumption of these products generate revenue and profits to the modern large corporations whose KPI is to generate growing year-on-year profits. And, the cycle is complete and, it repeats itself, year-on-year.

If only there was a better way to harness these great surpluses to plough into public amenities like more parks, community centres, welfare, public health, education, and so on.

We know that public finance comes in the form of tax revenues. But, wait a minute, aren't governments being told that taxes must be reduced in order to ensure competitiveness to attract FDIs?

If we peer across the Pacific Ocean to the U.S., we will see President Obama struggling to convince the American public that a tax regime that attempts to extract greater public revenue from modern large corporations and high net worth individuals is a good thing. Many believe that he is committing political suicide, because the U.S. is the citadel of modern capitalism.

Voluntary tax

Another equally ironic situation is when a bunch of tycoons in Malaysia buys out a lottery company owned by another tycoon in order to distribute welfare to non-Muslim Malaysians.

A lottery is what economists call a "voluntary tax". 

I've blogged about this before. 

The irony is that the Malaysian government was very enlightened up until the 1980s when Islamism and privatisation policies became the rage.

That spelled the death knell for the Social Welfare Lottery (remember that?) and Toto (remember that?).

As I said, it's ironic.

So, where does all this meandering lead to?

It leads to the one key takeaway that is good to mentally masturbate over.

The futile hope

A significant portion of the surplus of modern large corporations should be extracted for the public good.

If there were better social amenities, like public parks, sports complexes, sports programmes, academic instituions, vocational training institutions, better roads and pavements, better maintenance of public facilities all around ... and better public institutions to help farmers grow better fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, meat (which is an excellent way to control food inflation)... then, we may not need to fret so much about savings and investment returns.

Then, we may leave the leave the modern large corporations to do more R&D on products and services that improves the human condition instead of generating the desire to consume at an irrational rate.

Maybe....

As I declared earlier, it's mental masturbation. But it does have some pleasurable side effects...

Govt revenue from taxes unch over 3-4 yrs

It's always useful to capture vital statistics. Sourced from here-

The government's revenue from taxes has not been increasing for the past three to four years, Deputy Finance Minister Senator Datuk Donald Lim Siang Chai said.

He said on Tuesday, Sept 20 the amount was around RM160 billion a year even though expenditure was on an increasing trend.

He said one third of the government's revenue came from oil and gas, one third from taxes from companies and individuals while the remaining one third from indirect taxes such as stamp duties and Customs duties.

"There is a need to increase the number of skilled labour so that the government would be able to collect more taxes and increase its revenue," he said at the launch of a new Malaysian Financial Planning Council (MFPC) secretariat office and signing of a memorandum of agreement between MFPC with UCSI University and UMSLink Sdn Bhd on registered financial planner (RFP) programmes here.

In Malaysia, Lim said, out of the 12.8 million workers, only 29% were skilled labour as compared to developed countries where 40% of their workers were skilled labour.

"Out of the 12.8 million workers in Malaysia, only 1.65 million pay taxes," he said.

The finance sector, he said, was one sector which has a lot of potential to create skilled professionals with its certification standards.

He said the government was looking at ways how Form 5 school leavers could gain certain skills such as to be a mechanic.

Federalism in Malaysia

Tomorrow, we celebrate the 47th Anniversary of the formation of Malaysia. All Malaysians know that Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and the Federal territories. But, what is a "federation"? What does it mean?

Daniel Elazar has described it as follows-

“The contractual sharing of public responsibilities by all governments in the system appears to be a central characteristic of federalism. Sharing, broadly conceived, includes common involvement in policymaking, financing, and administration of government activities. 

In contemporary federal systems, it is characterized by extensive intergovernmental collaboration. Sharing can be based on highly formal arrangements or informal agreements. 

In federal systems, it is usually contractual in nature. The contract – politically a limited expression of the compact principle – is used in formal arrangements as a legal device to enable governments responsible to separate polities to engage in joint action while remaining independent entities. 

Even where government agencies cooperate without formally contracting to do so, the spirit of federalism that pervades an ongoing federal system tends to infuse the participating parties with a sense of contractual obligation."

This view permeates the Cobbold Report (1962) and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report (1962) which formed the basis for the formalisation of the Federation of Malaysia in the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Malaysia Act 1963 and the 1963 amendments to our Federal Constitution.

Going back to Elazar's description, we are reminded, from time to time, by various communities and groups in both Sarawak and Sabah that the central government has short-delivered its end of the contractual bargain.

Is this sentiment a fair appraisal of the federal experience of Sarawak and Sabah?

This question is a most difficult one.

In the past decades, there has been substantial vocalisation on federalism by the likes of the late Datuk Amar James Wong of Sarawak (one of the founders of the now defunct Sarawak National Party or SNAP) and  Datuk Jeffrey Kitingan of Sabah.

Fairness in allocation of economic resources

Many of my Sarawak and Sabah friends privately express cynicism about the fairness in allocation of economic resources by the central government to their states.

This sentiment is precisely the matter that dogs the federal centre. This sentiment is also a source of frustration for the federal centre.

There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, on the part of many Sarawakians and Sabahans that their state governments have been under, what Gordon P. Means called, "federal tutelage" from the inception of Malaysia.

Is this a true and fair view? The jury is still out.

What cannot be denied is that such a perception colours the sentiment of Sarawakians and Sabahans.

This is especially true when the topic of petroleum resources comes about.

The perception is that the petroleum largesse is transferred to the federal centre and trickles back to the states of Sarawak and Sabah in the form of capitation grants and road grants.

Is this a true and fair view? The jury is still out. But, the perception is strong.

Race and community relations

All my Sarawakian and Sabahan friends are aghast at how separate the communities are in Peninsular Malaysia. They are fearful that such a way of life will infect the happy inter-ethnic and inter-communal ambience that still exists in Sarawak and Sabah (though signs of invisible walls being built are growing).

This is not the federal influence they want.

The challenge for the federal centre

Apart from the acculturation issue (which all Sarawakians and Sabahans should rightly reject), the core issue must surely be whether Sarawak and Sabah can lay claim to a fair share of the economic resources generated from within their states.

I recall being told by a Sabahan friend some time ago that when they watch the tv and see the images of sparkling skyscrapers of glass and steel and well-lit multi-tiered highways in KL, they cannot feel any sense of excitement or share the pride that such images were intended to inspire. Such images actually engender an opposite emotion.

So, beyond the temporal politics of today, the federal centre must renew and redouble its efforts to win the hearts and minds of the people of Sarawak and Sabah that their forebears did the right thing when they signed on to the Malaysian adventure; not a nightmare.

The importance of consultation

I have written extensively (in an academic context) about the importance of consultation as a feature of federalism. Consultation is, in fact, the MAIN feature of federalism.

Our Federal Constitution has many references to the need for consultation. Some of it are formal on issues such as-

• Appointment of judges
• Land
• Local Government

Others are informal but, still, constitutionally necessary. These include the issue of natural resources such as water and minerals.

The importance of federalism for Malaysia's democracy

Malaysians have a narrow view of the democratic process as something that we eat kuaci and sip teh tarik over when any political elections loom.

We also should be aware and be constantly reminded that each of the thirteen states, particularly the states of Sarawak and Sabah, are sovereign in their own right and, they chose to form the Federation of Malaysia. In any way that we may wish to look at it, the undeniable fact is that we have a set of contractual relationships between the federal centre and its 13 partners.

This is as it should be.

For the states of Sarawak and Sabah, they signed onto the federation with stronger conditions than the other 11 states. It gives Sarawak and Sabah greater say over many aspects of the affairs of their states.

But all 13 states have residual sovereign rights. These sovereign rights may be limited by the Federal Constitution; but they still exist.

This is what Malaysia is. 

British Malaya: Balik ke pangkal jalan

Better hit the iron on the anvil while the metal is still hot. In this instance, the hot topic is our history involving the role of the British. As with all things historical, one must approach the matter with full objectivity and free oneself as far as reasonably possible from the taint of bias.

We are fortunate to have reprints of the source documents from which the British sought and obtained a legitimate legal presence in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Among the more significant treaties entered into between the British and the Malay Rulers was the Treaty of Pangkor that was signed in 1874. The preamble to the Treaty is an interesting read-

Whereas, a state of anarchy exists in the Kingdom of Perak owing to the want of settled government in the Country, and no efficient power exists for the protection of the people and for securing to them the fruits of their industry, and,

Whereas, large numbers of Chinese are employed and large sums of money invested in Tin mining in Perak by British subjects and others residing in Her Majesty's Possessions, and the said mines and property are not adequately protected, and piracy, murder and arson are rife in the said country, whereby British trade and interests greatly suffer, and the peace and good order of the neighbouring British Settlements are sometimes menaced, and,

Whereas, certain Chiefs for the time being of the said Kingdom of Perak have stated their inability to cope with the present difficulties, and together with those interested in the industry of the country have requested assistance, and,

Whereas, Her Majesty's Government is bound by Treaty Stipulations to protect the said Kingdom and to assist its rulers, now,

His Excellency Sir Andrew Clarke, Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, in compliance with the said request, and with a view of assisting the said rulers and of affecting a permanent settlement of affairs in Perak, has proposed the following Articles of arrangements as mutually beneficial to the Independent Rulers of Perak, their subjects, the subjects of Her Majesty, and others residing in or trading with Perak, that is to say:-

(I have just selected the pertinent Article for you)

VI. Sixth. - That the Sultan receive and provided a suitable residence for a British Officer to be called Resident, who shall be accredited to the Court, and whose advice must be asked and acted upon on all questions (emphasis mine) other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom.

The next extract that I offer you is the Treaty of Federation that was signed in 1895. This treaty created the Federated Malay States comprising Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan.

I reproduce two pertinent paragraphs of the Treaty-

1. In confirmation of various previous Agreements, the Sultan of Perak, the Sultan of Selangor, the Sultan of Pahang, and the Chiefs of the States which form the territory known as the Negri Sembilan, hereby severally place themselves and their States under the protection (emphasis mine) of the British Government.

4. The above-named Rulers agree to accept a British Officer, to be styled Resident-General, as the agent and representative of the British Government under the Governor of the Straits Settlements. They undertake to provide him with suitable accommodation, with such salary as is determined by Her Majesty's Government, and to follow his advice on all matters of administration (emphasis mine) other than those touching the Muhammadan religion.

Everything needs a proper context. The Treaties mentioned above and the background to which each of the Treaties were arrived at has been studied and, is being studied by historians as they should rightly be.

Does the language of the Treaties effectively make the role of the British that of a colonial master?  

What is the difference between a "Protectorate" and a "Colony"?

I have my views. But, some times it is more fun to leave rhetorical questions.

Body and Soul: Tony Bennett and Amy Winehouse

No need for intros...here's Tony and Amy...Amy's last recorded song. Sadly we have to wait for the full version in October:

How the hell did you get here? - Prof Khoo Kay Kim on Malaysian History

The level of dumbing down of Malaysia's education system is beginning to take its toll. Ignorance and indolence are now worn as badges of honour. 

So-called political leaders are confidently screaming out statements that are completely wrong when set against historical records.

In the wee hours that I am writing this blog entry I am unable to wax lyrical nor am I able or inclined to show indignance. 

I prefer to lead you to the video below where there the venerable Malaysian historian, Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Dato' Khoo Kay Kim, continues his noble quest to remind Malaysians about the wealth of our heritage, the meaning of our polyglot society, the danger of ignorance, the despair of indolent minds, the frustration of having lazy historians, and the list goes on...

I have had the immense pleasure in having met Prof Khoo some time ago. And, every time I have the opportunity to read his writings or listen to his lectures, I am reminded of how utterly ignorant I still am about so many aspects of Malaysia's history.

In a sense, this realisation gives me great motivation to dig a little deeper.

But, being an armchair history buff makes me reliant on the efforts of historians. And, if, like me, you browse the bookstores around Malaysia, you will find so few works on Malaysian history that provide any real depth of research or analysis. The sad truth is that there are more republished materials and works on Malaysian history done aeons ago by British scholars and historians than there are recent works that are of any significance or objectivity or depth.

I hope this situation will change. Otherwise, we will still have to depend on British scholars (or, *shock* *horror* *shudder* Singaporean scholars) to conduct research and write about us and how we are suffering from collective societal amnesia and how mockingly amusing it is for non-Malaysians to observe how we Malaysians look at each other and wonder how the hell the other guy got here... because whatever our level of amnesia, we are unanimous on the fact that it is the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia and the numerous suku kaum in Sabah and Sarawak that were here before the rest of us.

So, unless we're happy to call ourselves bastards, we should pause before calling others that and, more importantly, start reading REAL works on Malaysian history.

Credit Growth v Asset Bubble

I am bothered by a report in Star Online containing this statement, "Analysts expect property loans to maintain their position as a key growth driver of credit expansion with some estimating them to grow between 10% and 12% this year due to the low interest rate environment and ample liquidity in the banking system.". 

Where does "credit growth" end and "asset bubble" begin?

This is something that should trouble Bank Negara Malaysia and Malaysia's economic planners. 

I have always believed that property-led credit growth implies asset-bubble formation since there are really no material salutary effect from property booms to the wider economy.

And, why do I say that?

If housing property booms are linked to genuine economic growth led by, say, manufacturing or commodities, then, we can safely assume that there is a growth in income to the nation's workforce who can then invest their surplus income to buy their dream home or invest in property. 

If there is loan growth from borrowings by businesses to fund expansion, then, there is some real economic action going on.

But, if loan growth or credit growth is led by property purchases, not led by business expansion, then, alarm bells should be ringing in the head of all rational people.

This phenomenon strongly suggests that Malaysians with savings are fed-up with low yields from fixed deposits. They are desperately looking for alternative things to park their savings with. 

These people seem to have found that buying properties in recent years gives them better financial returns in the form of capital appreciation.

Because of this series of transactions between and amongst these people, there is a perceived demand for properties above and beyond the norm.

People are buying properties, expensive properties, purely for investment in expectation of capital gains. They don't intend to live in these residential properties. They look down at the rental yields, which are paltry. They only want the capital gains. But, how long can this game go on for?

Banks are fueling this mania.

This is just my humble opinion. 

1963: Swatches of history

By now any reasonably regular visitor to this blog would know how much of a history buff I can be. This is especially so at this time of the year, every year. It is the most important fortnight for our nation.

Here's 2 articles on Malaysia written in 1963 for Time magazine. It has an immediacy that I find very appealing. And, it's interesting to bear in mind that in 1963 the Cold War was raging in its full frozen fury. The feeling that there were Commies under every blade of grass was very real.

Nations were being formed, including Malaysia.

There was much concern in the U.S. as to whether the enlarged Malaysian nation could withstand the domino-effect that Communism could catalyse from Beijing to Hanoi to Vientiane to Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur to Jakarta. This was the nightmare scenario. 

As an aside, writing the sentence above reminded me of the late Nordin Sopiee's Ph.D thesis on the formation of Malaysia, which, made pretty cogent arguments along the above lines as one of the primary motivations for U.S. and British support for the formation of Malaysia.

It is in this context that the 2 articles below should be read.

Malaysia: Tunku Yes, Sukarno No

Friday, Sept. 06, 1963

In steamy, palm-shaded Kuching, capital of Sarawak, the day's biggest excitement is the firing of the 8 p.m. cannon on the lawn of government house. "What a dull place," said a United Nations official. "I don't know how we're going to survive three weeks here." At the insistence of Indonesia's President Sukarno, an eight-member U.N. team is present to "ascertain" whether Sarawak and North Borneo really want to join the Federation of Malaysia, which Sukarno bitterly opposes. As the U.N. ascertainers began to sample opinions around Sarawak, they were nearly stoned, not bored, to death.

In the Chinese-dominated town of Sibu, the Red-infiltrated Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) staged a demonstration that turned into a 90-minute, stone-throwing riot. Only after police fired warning shots to disperse the mob could the U.N. team sit down —amidst broken glass in a Methodist schoolhouse—to interview local councilors. In Miri, Sarawak's oil-refining center, 3,000 Chinese-SUPPorted youths, wielding stones and bottles, screamed anti-Malaysia slogans until the police opened fire, wounding two, and tear gas forced them to scatter.

Date Set. Such outbursts will slightly delay but not derail the formation of Malaysia, originally scheduled for Aug. 31. In last summer's general elections, voters in both Sarawak and North Borneo decisively defeated anti-federation parties. 

Although Indonesia's shadow looms large, the Borneo people know they have nothing to gain from Djakarta but economic chaos and demagoguery. Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys, who hastily flew to the scene, last week set Sept. 16 as the new birth date for the federation —two days after the U.N. mission's findings will be made public. Both are sure that the U.N. will find a clear majority in favor of Malaysia, but they insist that the federation will come into being regardless of the report. The British last week also turned over internal self-government to Borneo and Sarawak.

In a wrangle over details with the British, Indonesia failed to send observers to the U.N. mission, thus giving Sukarno an excuse to question the U.N. findings later. But faced with British determination to defend Malaysia by force, if necessary, Sukarno said: "If the Borneo peoples agree to join Malaysia, we will have to bow our heads and obey." But, added Sukarno, in an unbowed postscript: "Indonesia maintains its opposition to Malaysia."

Book Learning. An Indonesian guerrilla campaign against Borneo and Sarawak may well continue, since Djakarta always needs a foreign diversion to draw attention from domestic difficulties. In Indonesian Borneo, which adjoins Sarawak, Sukarno has set up guerrilla camps along 200 miles of border, and is training 1,000 Red-lining Chinese from Sarawak, following the guidelines of Indonesian Defense Minister General Abdul Haris Nasution, an expert on guerrilla warfare who has written his own book on the subject. Bands of his guerrillas pushed across the border to raid Dyak villages, clashed with patrols of British-led Gurkhas and Sarawak police. In a fire fight ten miles inside Sarawak, the Indonesians killed a British lieutenant and wounded several Gurkhas before being routed with heavy losses. Meanwhile, British officers are studying Nasution's book for clues to stop further Indonesian incursions.

So far, Indonesian terrorist attacks have only served to create a surge of pro-Malaysia feeling in Borneo and Sarawak. Almost nightly, the Indonesian embassy in North Borneo is plastered with slogans reading "Tunku Yes, Sukarno No." Although his people stopped head-hunting years ago, one Dyak chief told the U.N. fact finders that "if any more Indonesian bandits come into our territory, they may lose their heads."

Malaysia: Hurray for Harry

Friday, Sept. 20, 1963

When pretty Catherine Loh was elected Miss Malaysia last April, the pert beauty from the oil-rich British protectorate of Brunei fully expected to preside over the independence ceremonies of the newly formed Federation of Malaysia. But that was before Brunei withdrew from the planned federation in a state of pique, leaving Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo to go it alone. Brunei's defection not only left this week's joyous celebrations without a beauty queen but it also took Malaysia out of the running for the Miss Universe contest.

The beauty queen flap was low on the list of last-minute labor pains attending the long-awaited birth of Malaysia. At the insistence of Indonesia's belligerent President Sukarno, who bitterly opposes the federation, Malaysia's independence had been postponed two weeks beyond the original Aug. 31 starting date, while a United Nations team investigated whether or not North Borneo and Sarawak really wanted to join. Hoping to influence opinion against federation, Sukarno began moving paratroopers into Indonesian Borneo along his 900-mile-long border with the two territories. Some Indonesian guerrillas even sneaked through the jungles into Sarawak to stir up trouble; they were relentlessly hunted down by tough little British army Gurkhas, aided by half-naked Iban tribesmen, who hung up at least one Indonesian head in the rafters of their longhouses.

Fearful that Indonesia might extract further delays out of Malaya's easygoing Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, the architect of the federation, Singapore's brilliant, shifty Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who regards Sukarno as "an international blackmailer," swung into action. Flying to Sarawak and North Borneo, "Harry" Lee picked up the chief ministers of both territories and brought them back to Kuala Lumpur to stiffen up the Tunku. Britain's Commonwealth Secretary Duncan Sandys was also on hand, working hard to get agreement. Threatening to declare Singapore an independent state, Lee pressured Abdul Rahman into holding firm for the federation's Sept. 16 deadline.

Last week the final obstacle to independence was cleared away when the U.N.'s Malaysia team reported that both North Borneo and Sarawak favored the federation. As the new nation prepared to unfurl its red-and-white-striped flag, Harry Lee was quick to capitalize on the occasion. With his popularity at its zenith for his major role in bringing the federation about, he scheduled immediate elections in Singapore.