Hopefully, I'll be able to blog about the latest announcement by the Education Minister in regards to the progress the Ministry has made in fulfilling the objectives of the Education Blueprint (2006-2010) and the 9MP (especially after the full report is out on the Ministry's website). But for now, I'll focus on one element of that progress report which is to make Tamil schools all fully government supported.
According to a recent report in the Star (taken from Malaysian Nanban), " There are 524 Tamil schools in the country with about 150 of them in rural areas and estates, and being partly aided by the government." I'm not sure if this is saying that only 150 out of 524 Tamil schools are partly aided schools or that 150 Tamil schools that are in rural areas and estates are partly aided (there might be other Tamil schools in urban areas which are also partly aided).
As far as I know, partly aided schools (mostly SRJK(C) and SRJK(T)) are schools were the government / MOE pays the salaries of the teachers and staff but does not allocate money for improving or building new infrastructure in these schools e.g. computer labs, upgrading of facilities, new buildings etc... This means that the physical state of many of these partly aided schools, especially those in rural areas and the estates, is very poor.
My impression is that Tamil schools, on the whole, lack the community support which many of the Chinese schools have. Some of this can be explained by the income levels of the parents in the estates where many of these Tamil schools are located. There are other institutional explanations as well such as the better organized Chinese education movement and the larger numbers of Chinese who send their children to the Chinese primary schools.
According to a report by MIED (Maju Institute for Education Development), dated from 2004, "There are 376(71.5%) out of 526 Tamil schools classified as partially aided schools." This may have changed over the past 3 years or so but the announcement by the Education Minister, Hishammudin Tun Hussein, to have all Tamil schools eventually moved to a fully aided status is certainly welcome news for the Indian community, especially those living in the estates.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
An Introduction to the Residential Liberal Arts College
The following article was written by Yap Yaowen, currently a sophmore at Kenyon College. You can access his personal blog here. Frankly, I think that more Malaysians should apply to and study in liberal arts colleges. It's a great place to find a great education and to expand your horizons.
An Introduction to the Residential Liberal Arts College
I dread it whenever someone asks me where I am studying in.
“Kenyon College? Why do you want to go to a college instead of a university?” people usually give me that concerned look, as if I am wasting four years of my time in a college. Many Malaysians fail to understand that the word “college” is used very much interchangeably with the word “university” in the United States, so much so that you can be in Princeton and still be going to a “college”.
In the US education system, colleges are broadly classified into two categories: a two-year college, or what normally known as a community college and a four-year college. Both big, research universities (i.e. Princeton, MIT and Stanford) and liberal arts colleges belong to the category of a four-year college. In this article, I will seek to explain what a liberal arts college is, what makes a liberal arts college distinctive and how to finance a liberal arts education.
A liberal arts college is primarily a college that focuses entirely (usually) on an undergraduate education. Most of them provide a high quality undergraduate experience. You may or may not hear of colleges like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and Wellesley. But you might want to know that these liberal arts colleges ranked side-by-side with top research universities like Yale, Princeton and MIT.
Distinctiveness of a liberal arts college
A difference between a liberal arts college and a research university is its size. A typical liberal arts college is small, with a school population ranging from 850 (Wabash) to 2700 (Wesleyan). This also translates into small classes. The average class size at Kenyon for instance is 14 and the faculty to student ratio is 9:1.
Another difference of a liberal arts college, as mentioned before, is the fact that the school devotes entirely of its resources on its undergraduates. You will be taught solely by professors, people who have earned a PhD and people who can probably inspire you and make you want to be like them. Teaching is central at liberal arts colleges and professors are rewarded based on their teaching ability as opposed to the number of research publications they churn out. They are also highly accessible and diligently keep to their office hours.
Liberal arts colleges also tend to be fully residential. Everyone lives on campus and eat at the dining hall. You will form close relationships with your friends as you meet them everyday in residential halls, classrooms, athletic center, dining hall, parties, at a lecture or a play etc. Being fully residential also means that learning can take place beyond the allocated classroom time. At Kenyon for instance, there are German, French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese and Italian tables at the dining hall each week, giving students an opportunity to practice their newly acquired language skills.
The foremost distinction of a liberal arts college however, is the majors they offer. According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, liberal arts is defined as “The areas of learning that cultivate general intellectual ability rather than technical or professional skills. The term liberal arts is often used as a synonym for humanities, although the liberal arts also include the sciences. The word liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, meaning suitable for a free man, as opposed to a slave”. You probably wouldn’t find business or engineering in most liberal arts colleges (Note: there are always exceptions though. Smith and Swarthmore do offer engineering!). A liberal arts education does not equip you with vocational skills, but rather life, analytical and critical thinking skills. Simply put, a liberal arts education teaches you how to live your life to the fullest.
Financing a liberal arts education
Let’s face it, a liberal arts education isn’t going to be cheap with all the small classes, close faculty interaction and superb facilities one enjoys. The 2006-2007 cost of attendance (inclusive of tuition, room and board) at Kenyon amounts to USD 44390. But fortunately, liberal arts colleges also tend to be well endowed (i.e. RICH)! Most international students at Kenyon are on some sort of need-based financial aid which can go up to full cost of attendance. Many of the top liberal arts colleges are committed to the principle of diversity and ensuring that qualified students are granted access regardless of one’s financial circumstances.
Discover US Education Fair ‘07
At this upcoming Discover US education fair, a total of nine liberal arts colleges will be represented. Some are all male while some are all female. Some are located next to cornfields while some are closer to civilization. They are: Bates, Kenyon, Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, Smith, Swarthmore, Wabash, Wesleyan and Wellesley. So be sure to check us out!
Yaowen is a rising sophomore at Kenyon College, a four-year private liberal arts college in Gambier, Ohio. He loves the school and the cornfields surrounding it.
An Introduction to the Residential Liberal Arts College
I dread it whenever someone asks me where I am studying in.
“Kenyon College? Why do you want to go to a college instead of a university?” people usually give me that concerned look, as if I am wasting four years of my time in a college. Many Malaysians fail to understand that the word “college” is used very much interchangeably with the word “university” in the United States, so much so that you can be in Princeton and still be going to a “college”.
In the US education system, colleges are broadly classified into two categories: a two-year college, or what normally known as a community college and a four-year college. Both big, research universities (i.e. Princeton, MIT and Stanford) and liberal arts colleges belong to the category of a four-year college. In this article, I will seek to explain what a liberal arts college is, what makes a liberal arts college distinctive and how to finance a liberal arts education.
A liberal arts college is primarily a college that focuses entirely (usually) on an undergraduate education. Most of them provide a high quality undergraduate experience. You may or may not hear of colleges like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and Wellesley. But you might want to know that these liberal arts colleges ranked side-by-side with top research universities like Yale, Princeton and MIT.
Distinctiveness of a liberal arts college
A difference between a liberal arts college and a research university is its size. A typical liberal arts college is small, with a school population ranging from 850 (Wabash) to 2700 (Wesleyan). This also translates into small classes. The average class size at Kenyon for instance is 14 and the faculty to student ratio is 9:1.
Another difference of a liberal arts college, as mentioned before, is the fact that the school devotes entirely of its resources on its undergraduates. You will be taught solely by professors, people who have earned a PhD and people who can probably inspire you and make you want to be like them. Teaching is central at liberal arts colleges and professors are rewarded based on their teaching ability as opposed to the number of research publications they churn out. They are also highly accessible and diligently keep to their office hours.
Liberal arts colleges also tend to be fully residential. Everyone lives on campus and eat at the dining hall. You will form close relationships with your friends as you meet them everyday in residential halls, classrooms, athletic center, dining hall, parties, at a lecture or a play etc. Being fully residential also means that learning can take place beyond the allocated classroom time. At Kenyon for instance, there are German, French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese and Italian tables at the dining hall each week, giving students an opportunity to practice their newly acquired language skills.
The foremost distinction of a liberal arts college however, is the majors they offer. According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, liberal arts is defined as “The areas of learning that cultivate general intellectual ability rather than technical or professional skills. The term liberal arts is often used as a synonym for humanities, although the liberal arts also include the sciences. The word liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, meaning suitable for a free man, as opposed to a slave”. You probably wouldn’t find business or engineering in most liberal arts colleges (Note: there are always exceptions though. Smith and Swarthmore do offer engineering!). A liberal arts education does not equip you with vocational skills, but rather life, analytical and critical thinking skills. Simply put, a liberal arts education teaches you how to live your life to the fullest.
Financing a liberal arts education
Let’s face it, a liberal arts education isn’t going to be cheap with all the small classes, close faculty interaction and superb facilities one enjoys. The 2006-2007 cost of attendance (inclusive of tuition, room and board) at Kenyon amounts to USD 44390. But fortunately, liberal arts colleges also tend to be well endowed (i.e. RICH)! Most international students at Kenyon are on some sort of need-based financial aid which can go up to full cost of attendance. Many of the top liberal arts colleges are committed to the principle of diversity and ensuring that qualified students are granted access regardless of one’s financial circumstances.
Discover US Education Fair ‘07
At this upcoming Discover US education fair, a total of nine liberal arts colleges will be represented. Some are all male while some are all female. Some are located next to cornfields while some are closer to civilization. They are: Bates, Kenyon, Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, Smith, Swarthmore, Wabash, Wesleyan and Wellesley. So be sure to check us out!
Yaowen is a rising sophomore at Kenyon College, a four-year private liberal arts college in Gambier, Ohio. He loves the school and the cornfields surrounding it.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
KYUEM - An Interesting Model
KYUEM (Kolej Yayasan UEM) has been on my radar ever since I found out that Nik Nazmi, a close aide to an opposition leader in Malaysia, did his A levels in that school. The Star reported recently that 11 out of the 183 graduating class from KYUEM were accepted into Oxford or Cambridge (6% of all students). This prompted me to take a closer look at KYUEM's website.
This is how KYUEM is described in its website:
KYUEM, owned by Yayasan UEM and part of the UEM Group, is a fully-residential college that is modeled upon the top British boarding schools. It has a very active student life on campus and a caring pastoral care system, run by an internationally diverse staff of widely-experienced Malaysian, British and Indian teachers. Occupying a purpose-built site at Lembah Beringin, just 70km north of Kuala Lumpur, and enjoying easy access to the North-South Highway, the College offers tranquil surroundings in which able and highly-motivated students can study without distractions.
Given that many UEM executives probably studied in the UK (not Halim Saad, who is a graduate of Victoria in New Zealand), it is not surprising that KYUEM was modeled after a British boarding school system. (The other such school in Malaysian which I know if is Kolej Tuanku Ja’far which is located in Negeri Sembilan)
What I find interesting about KYUEM is that is it genuinely multi-racial. Nothing in its admissions pages states that there is a racial quota for entry into the school and from its alumni listing and past high achievers, one can immediately see that this school is well represented by all ethnic groups, at least in Peninsular Malaysia (perhaps lacking Sabahans and Sarawakians). Its seems to be a genuinely meritocratic place.
Its residential system also seems to be genuinely multi-racial (unlike the de factor segregated housing in our public universities) and encourages students of different races to engage with each other and to have activities with one another. It's probably easier in a school with 200 to 300 students compared to a public universities with 20,000 students.
While it is not cheap (a year's fees cost 60,000RM, close to what you'd pay for one year's university fees in the UK), its website indicates that most students obtain scholarships from major corporations (it doesn't say which corporations though).
The only thing I would slightly criticize KYUEM's website it that it doesn't provide any information on how one can obtain these scholarships to study in KYUEM. Perhaps this is only revealed after the students send in their applications and are accepted.
Kudos to UEM and the other backers of KYUEM in setting up KYUEM in the way that it was set up. It could have easily set up an exclusive boarding school to cater only to Bumiputeras in Malaysia (much like MCKK) but it chose to take a more progressive path and opened the doors of KYUEM to all, on a merit basis.
Hopefully, the experience of studying at KYUEM will produce future leaders who are as progressive in their thinking and in how they will lead their respective organizations be it corporations, educational institutions or political parties. (If Nik Nazmi is any indication, we need more Nik Nazmis in Malaysia!)
Update: Both Bakri Musa and Nik Nazmi have written about this topic.
This is how KYUEM is described in its website:
KYUEM, owned by Yayasan UEM and part of the UEM Group, is a fully-residential college that is modeled upon the top British boarding schools. It has a very active student life on campus and a caring pastoral care system, run by an internationally diverse staff of widely-experienced Malaysian, British and Indian teachers. Occupying a purpose-built site at Lembah Beringin, just 70km north of Kuala Lumpur, and enjoying easy access to the North-South Highway, the College offers tranquil surroundings in which able and highly-motivated students can study without distractions.
Given that many UEM executives probably studied in the UK (not Halim Saad, who is a graduate of Victoria in New Zealand), it is not surprising that KYUEM was modeled after a British boarding school system. (The other such school in Malaysian which I know if is Kolej Tuanku Ja’far which is located in Negeri Sembilan)
What I find interesting about KYUEM is that is it genuinely multi-racial. Nothing in its admissions pages states that there is a racial quota for entry into the school and from its alumni listing and past high achievers, one can immediately see that this school is well represented by all ethnic groups, at least in Peninsular Malaysia (perhaps lacking Sabahans and Sarawakians). Its seems to be a genuinely meritocratic place.
Its residential system also seems to be genuinely multi-racial (unlike the de factor segregated housing in our public universities) and encourages students of different races to engage with each other and to have activities with one another. It's probably easier in a school with 200 to 300 students compared to a public universities with 20,000 students.
While it is not cheap (a year's fees cost 60,000RM, close to what you'd pay for one year's university fees in the UK), its website indicates that most students obtain scholarships from major corporations (it doesn't say which corporations though).
The only thing I would slightly criticize KYUEM's website it that it doesn't provide any information on how one can obtain these scholarships to study in KYUEM. Perhaps this is only revealed after the students send in their applications and are accepted.
Kudos to UEM and the other backers of KYUEM in setting up KYUEM in the way that it was set up. It could have easily set up an exclusive boarding school to cater only to Bumiputeras in Malaysia (much like MCKK) but it chose to take a more progressive path and opened the doors of KYUEM to all, on a merit basis.
Hopefully, the experience of studying at KYUEM will produce future leaders who are as progressive in their thinking and in how they will lead their respective organizations be it corporations, educational institutions or political parties. (If Nik Nazmi is any indication, we need more Nik Nazmis in Malaysia!)
Update: Both Bakri Musa and Nik Nazmi have written about this topic.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tunku Scholarships
The following report from the Star on the Tunku Scholarships.
Tunku scholarships increased to 50
PETALING JAYA: Fifty scholarships will be available under the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation this year.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said there would be 50 recipients this year, 30 more than last year.
They would be selected from first-year undergraduates in public and private universities who had obtained excellent results.
“Students must have finished their first year with a cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 3.5,” he said in a statement yesterday.
Other criteria include having excellent Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM), Matriculation or Foundation results, leadership skills and being active in co-curricular activities.
When Mustapa took over as foundation chairman last year, it was decided that the help previously offered in the form of educational loans be changed to scholarships instead, and that the recipients be known as Tunku scholars.
The first batch of Tunku scholars, from various races, are excellent students as well as active in co-curricular activities, he added.
He said the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation was set up in 1966 in honour of the country’s first prime minister.
Applications for the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation scholarships are now open, and must be supported by the institution’s deputy vice-chancellor (Academic).
Students can download application forms from www.yayasantar.org.my.
The closing date is July 15.
I checked out the website and found the following additional information:
SYARAT-SYARAT PERMOHONAN
(a) Syarat Asas
(i) Warganegara Malaysia.
(ii) Umur tidak melebihi 25 tahun pada tarikh tutup permohonan.
(iii) Baru tamat Tahun Pertama Ijazah Pertama di mana-mana Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Tempatan.
(b) Syarat Kelayakan Akademik dan Ko-kurikulum
(i) Memperoleh keputusan cemerlang dalam SPM / STPM / Matrikulasi/ Asas.
(ii) Kepujian dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris di peringkat SPM.
(iii) Memperolehi PNGK / CGPA minimum 3.50 dalam peperiksaan Tahun Satu (1),program Ijazah Sarjana Muda.
(iv) Memiliki kualiti kepimpinan dan penyertaan yang cemerlang/ aktif dalam ko-kurikulum.
(c) Syarat Tambahan
(i) Penerima BIASISWA TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN diperlukan berkhidmat dalam negara sekurang-kurangnya lima (5) tahun selepas tamat pengajian yang ditaja.
KADAR BIASISWA
Kadar Biasiswa adalah seperti berikut:
(i) Yuran Pengajian mengikut kadar yuran sebenar yang dituntut oleh IPT.
(ii) Elaun Sara Hidup bernilai RM1,000 sebulan.
(iii) Elaun Buku bernilai RM300 / semester.
(iv) Elaun-elaun berkaitan pengajian seperti tesis, elaun latihan amal / kertas projek, elaun alat perkakas (sekali setahun).
(v) Tambang penerbangan kelas ekonomi (2 hala) sekali setahun (untuk pelajar Semenanjung yang belajar di Sabah & Sarawak dan pelajar Sabah & Sarawak yang belajar di Semenanjung).
I think the terms of this scholarship are quite generous. RM1000 for a student is more than sufficient for living expenses especially in a non-urban campus. And the flight tickets is a nice bonus.
I thought it was interesting that the 'bond' requirement is that one needs to work in Malaysia for at least 5 years after one graduates. While this is a good idea in theory, in practice, it is almost impossible to enforce in a cost effective manner.
Deadline is July 15th, so 1st year students, get your VC's approval and apply quickly.
Tunku scholarships increased to 50
PETALING JAYA: Fifty scholarships will be available under the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation this year.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said there would be 50 recipients this year, 30 more than last year.
They would be selected from first-year undergraduates in public and private universities who had obtained excellent results.
“Students must have finished their first year with a cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 3.5,” he said in a statement yesterday.
Other criteria include having excellent Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM), Matriculation or Foundation results, leadership skills and being active in co-curricular activities.
When Mustapa took over as foundation chairman last year, it was decided that the help previously offered in the form of educational loans be changed to scholarships instead, and that the recipients be known as Tunku scholars.
The first batch of Tunku scholars, from various races, are excellent students as well as active in co-curricular activities, he added.
He said the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation was set up in 1966 in honour of the country’s first prime minister.
Applications for the Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation scholarships are now open, and must be supported by the institution’s deputy vice-chancellor (Academic).
Students can download application forms from www.yayasantar.org.my.
The closing date is July 15.
I checked out the website and found the following additional information:
SYARAT-SYARAT PERMOHONAN
(a) Syarat Asas
(i) Warganegara Malaysia.
(ii) Umur tidak melebihi 25 tahun pada tarikh tutup permohonan.
(iii) Baru tamat Tahun Pertama Ijazah Pertama di mana-mana Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Tempatan.
(b) Syarat Kelayakan Akademik dan Ko-kurikulum
(i) Memperoleh keputusan cemerlang dalam SPM / STPM / Matrikulasi/ Asas.
(ii) Kepujian dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris di peringkat SPM.
(iii) Memperolehi PNGK / CGPA minimum 3.50 dalam peperiksaan Tahun Satu (1),program Ijazah Sarjana Muda.
(iv) Memiliki kualiti kepimpinan dan penyertaan yang cemerlang/ aktif dalam ko-kurikulum.
(c) Syarat Tambahan
(i) Penerima BIASISWA TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN diperlukan berkhidmat dalam negara sekurang-kurangnya lima (5) tahun selepas tamat pengajian yang ditaja.
KADAR BIASISWA
Kadar Biasiswa adalah seperti berikut:
(i) Yuran Pengajian mengikut kadar yuran sebenar yang dituntut oleh IPT.
(ii) Elaun Sara Hidup bernilai RM1,000 sebulan.
(iii) Elaun Buku bernilai RM300 / semester.
(iv) Elaun-elaun berkaitan pengajian seperti tesis, elaun latihan amal / kertas projek, elaun alat perkakas (sekali setahun).
(v) Tambang penerbangan kelas ekonomi (2 hala) sekali setahun (untuk pelajar Semenanjung yang belajar di Sabah & Sarawak dan pelajar Sabah & Sarawak yang belajar di Semenanjung).
I think the terms of this scholarship are quite generous. RM1000 for a student is more than sufficient for living expenses especially in a non-urban campus. And the flight tickets is a nice bonus.
I thought it was interesting that the 'bond' requirement is that one needs to work in Malaysia for at least 5 years after one graduates. While this is a good idea in theory, in practice, it is almost impossible to enforce in a cost effective manner.
Deadline is July 15th, so 1st year students, get your VC's approval and apply quickly.
Update on JJ
This issue was first brought up on this blog in early May. A letter written to Malaysiakini alleged that the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, Jamaludin Jarjis (or JJ), had made insulting remarks towards an Indian student (and Indians in general) in a speech made to students in LA. There's been a couple of updates on this so I though I'd highlight them for the benefit of our readers.
First update - MP for Ipoh Barat M. Kulasegaran was reported to have asked JJ about this issue in parliament and JJ replied that he had already apologized to the person in question (student Sheena Moorthy) although Kula still insisted that JJ had not apologized directly.
Second update - a letter written in Malaysiakini defending the actions of JJ. It seems like such a passionate defense that I thought I'd reproduce it here in full:
JJ didn’t mean to insult student
Abdul Kadir Azhari
I refer to the report Minister taunted over remarks made to student and the letter Apology demanded from racist minister by Dr Sheela Moorthy.
I am surprised by the recent escalation of the situation revolving around the allegedly discriminated Sheena Moorthy and the Science, Technology and Innovation Minister, Dr Jamaludin Jarjis (JJ). I have read Sheela’s letter regarding JJ's remarks and feel I should clarify the incident.
I believe Sheela was exaggerating the facts; I was present at the dinner at the Belacan Grill in Los Angeles in April together with 40 Cal Poly, Pomona, University of Southern California, Cal-Tech and International Islamic University of Malaysia students and representatives of the Malaysia Students Department in Los Angeles. I would like to make it clear that Sheela was not in attendance at the dinner. Though her action of sending the letter on behalf of her sister, Sheena, is with good intention, I do not believe she could provide context to what had happened that night.
I have read Lim Kit Siang's blog regarding the incident and find that he best summarises Sheena's grievances over JJ's comments. His blog can be read here. From this point and further, I will use his blog, as well as Sheela's letter above as my references.
Through Sheela’s letter, Lim identified Sheena's three complaints as listed below. I will describe each incident chronologically and provide an actual description of each incident within context.
Incident 1 - ‘Each student had to briefly introduce themselves. When it came to her turn, while speaking, he interrupted her and asked if she knew Samy Vellu, because he knows him. She did not see any relevance in that and he mentioned it a few times for no apparent reason’.
The only reason why I could see this as discriminatory or why Sheena took offence was because of the reputation that S Samy Vellu carries and the fact that they are both Indians, insinuating that because she is Indian she is like Samy Vellu. It's true that JJ interrupted her and asked her if she knew Samy Vellu. However, Sheela failed to mention JJ's comments on Samy Vellu's importance in scholarship distribution. After asking if she knew him (Samy Vellu) or had talked to him before, JJ said he knows him very well and would get Samy Vellu's help in sorting out scholarships.
Samy Vellu is the president of the MIC, and therefore in charge of the distribution of scholarships and grants to Indian Malaysians. His assistance would be beneficial to Indian students. Sheena failed to realise the relevance of Samy Vellu to the further education of Indian Malaysians.
Incident 2 - ‘He gave a speech regarding how agriculture started in Malaysia. He mentioned how the British invested in Malaysia and made farmers work. Due to the lack of a work force, ‘buruh India’ were brought in. While mentioning this, he looked at her saying ‘That's how we get Indians in Malaysia’.
JJ did not give a speech on how agriculture started in Malaysia. Rather, he gave a speech on the development of Malaysia's biotech industry. He talked about our abundance in natural resources and its potential for utilisation and began his speech with Malaysia's agricultural industry. He explained how Malaysia has progressed from an agricultural-based economy to becoming a leader in the biotech industry.
He wanted to stress the leap from an agricultural-based economy to one that has taken a cutting-edge science to the forefront. To further emphasise that leap, he stressed the importance of the Indians in the agriculture industry which contributed to the progression of our country.
During his speech he did not mention ‘buruh India’ nor did he say ‘that's how we got Indians in Malaysia’. Instead, he used the term ‘pekerja India’. JJ said neither of the two remarks attributed to him during the dinner. So then, giving Sheela and Sheena the benefit of a doubt, I will assume then there was a communication mix-up. It is understandable that a speech on the immigration of Indians be summarised as ‘how Indians came to Malaysia’ and from that to JJ saying ‘that's how we get Indians in Malaysia’.
JJ was standing in the middle of the restaurant; it is almost impossible to say that JJ was directing his remarks towards Sheena because he was looking at all of us during the time.
Incident 3 - ‘After saying he is going to get Mara to help the bumiputera students, he looked at her and asked ‘How many Indians are here?’ Sheena did not keep track of the number of Indian students so she mentioned that in the room there were two (pointing to another Indian Malaysian friend, who is fair skinned) and Jamaludin looked at him and asked ‘Oh. You are an Indian? Which means you are an upper-class Indian and she is the lower-class one’ (pointing at her). Jamaludin went on to say that, ‘Oh, I am not going to help upper-class Indians, I only help the lower-class ones. They are the ones that need it'.’
All that is written above is true, and I will not dispute that. However, I'd like to mention that there is no distinction between light-skinned and dark-skinned Indians. Can you say that lighter-skinned Indians are more prosperous than darker-skinned Indians? You cannot. If you believe so, then you are misleading your mind from the truth. In Malaysia, we do not have that kind of distinction with the Indians.
And you should see Sheena and the other Indian guy - both of them are equally fair. JJ did not make his statement based on their skin colour but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves. Neither did he make any remark based on their skin colour or race. He has even clarified it was meant to be a joke, though it may sound rude. I believe he had no intention to offend anyone including Sheena.
As far as I am concerned, the student delegates were not surprised at all with his speech. How is it possible that he could make remarks based on their skin complexion? During the dinner, the Indian guy was wearing a very nice collared shirt, unlike Sheena who wore a simple and dull black shirt with a skirt (which I would say doesn't suit her at all).
Nonetheless, JJ, in Boston, a few days later clarified that he had said some things in jest and he wished to apologise to ‘the student in LA’ if he had offended her. And that is a great and generous gesture from our honourable minister.
It is interesting to note the writer 'implies' the underlying rational for JJ saying certain things without being clear on whether JJ tried to explain the things which he said in context (I don't think he did).
My response to his letter would be that many times, when our 'own' race is not being insulted or denigrated, it is often easy to overlook these insults as oversights on the part of the speaker. But if Sheena, as one of two Indians in that room felt insulted and aggrieved, then I think that the said Minister (as well as other politicians) should be more sensitive and careful in his speech.
Perhaps all our politicians should undergo some sort of gender (reference to the 'bocor' incident) and race 'sensitization' class!
Last update - In response to the above letter, the following letter was posted on Malaysiakini.
Minister both racist and elitist
Subashini
I refer to Abdul Kadir Azhari's letter, JJ didn't meant to insult student. I am in awe of the intellectual sophistication on display in this particular letter, especially the way in which Kadir manages to conflate two issues that are particularly controversial within the Indian community - skin colour and class.
After confirming that Jamaludin Jarjis did indeed make a crass and insensitive remark by associating (however ludicrously) skin colour with economic standing, Azhari says, ‘All that is written above is true, and I will not dispute that.
owever, I'd like to mention that there is no distinction between light-skinned and dark-skinned Indians. Can you say that lighter-skinned Indians are more prosperous than darker-skinned Indians? You cannot. If you believe so, then you are misleading your mind from the truth. In Malaysia, we do not have that kind of distinction with the Indians’.
So what is your point, Kadir? The fact is, your ‘honourable Minister’ did indeed make that distinction; it is obvious to anyone with a brain that Jamaludin, at least, views Indians in terms of binaries like fair-skinned - upper-class; dark-skinned - lower class. I do not want to reduce my intellectual capacities to rubble by deigning to argue this point by further scrutinising the complex racist beliefs that underlie those remarks.
My comments should be reserved for this particular gem: ‘And you should see Sheena and the other Indian guy - both of them are equally fair. JJ did not make his statement based on their skin colour but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves. Neither did he make any remark based on their skin colour or race. He has even clarified it was meant to be a joke, though it may sound rude. I believe he had no intention to offend anyone including Sheena’.
Jamaludin did not make his statement based on skin colour, but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves? That makes complete sense. So what Kadir is saying is essentially this - Jamaludin didn't mean to cause offence by being a racist dimwit, but instead, by being an elitist dimwit. Okay, point taken.
Kadir continues: ‘During the dinner, the Indian guy was wearing a very nice collared shirt, unlike Sheena who wore a simple and dull black shirt with a skirt (which I would say doesn't suit her at all)’.
So if a person is viewed as wearing unflattering clothes, for whatever reasons (it could very well be that she couldn't afford better clothes, or it could very well be that the choice of garment was not unflattering to the person wearing it), it is perfectly acceptable for someone like Kadir to write and publicly ridicule the person by making a comment such as ‘which I would say doesn't suit her all’, (I'm sure Kadir's fashion sensibilities are far superior to anyone else's).
And then by some strange twist of logic, he uses that very reason to defend the ‘honourable’ Jamaludin, exempting both himself and Jamaludin from accusations of racism and class prejudice.
And to top it all off? After hearing Jamaludin's remarks, ‘the students were not surprised at all with his speech’.
Brilliant. My faith in Malaysian politicians (our esteemed leaders) and Malaysian students (our bright hope for the future) has been duly restored. Am I glad to be Malaysian.
The last couple of sentences are noteworthy. I think that most of us are no longer surprised by the kind of racist and sexist language that emanates from the mouths of our politicians. I think we should demand a higher standard. And I think we should keep our politicians accountable until the day when such speech is a rarity and is politically costly rather than the status quo of being acceptable.
First update - MP for Ipoh Barat M. Kulasegaran was reported to have asked JJ about this issue in parliament and JJ replied that he had already apologized to the person in question (student Sheena Moorthy) although Kula still insisted that JJ had not apologized directly.
Second update - a letter written in Malaysiakini defending the actions of JJ. It seems like such a passionate defense that I thought I'd reproduce it here in full:
JJ didn’t mean to insult student
Abdul Kadir Azhari
I refer to the report Minister taunted over remarks made to student and the letter Apology demanded from racist minister by Dr Sheela Moorthy.
I am surprised by the recent escalation of the situation revolving around the allegedly discriminated Sheena Moorthy and the Science, Technology and Innovation Minister, Dr Jamaludin Jarjis (JJ). I have read Sheela’s letter regarding JJ's remarks and feel I should clarify the incident.
I believe Sheela was exaggerating the facts; I was present at the dinner at the Belacan Grill in Los Angeles in April together with 40 Cal Poly, Pomona, University of Southern California, Cal-Tech and International Islamic University of Malaysia students and representatives of the Malaysia Students Department in Los Angeles. I would like to make it clear that Sheela was not in attendance at the dinner. Though her action of sending the letter on behalf of her sister, Sheena, is with good intention, I do not believe she could provide context to what had happened that night.
I have read Lim Kit Siang's blog regarding the incident and find that he best summarises Sheena's grievances over JJ's comments. His blog can be read here. From this point and further, I will use his blog, as well as Sheela's letter above as my references.
Through Sheela’s letter, Lim identified Sheena's three complaints as listed below. I will describe each incident chronologically and provide an actual description of each incident within context.
Incident 1 - ‘Each student had to briefly introduce themselves. When it came to her turn, while speaking, he interrupted her and asked if she knew Samy Vellu, because he knows him. She did not see any relevance in that and he mentioned it a few times for no apparent reason’.
The only reason why I could see this as discriminatory or why Sheena took offence was because of the reputation that S Samy Vellu carries and the fact that they are both Indians, insinuating that because she is Indian she is like Samy Vellu. It's true that JJ interrupted her and asked her if she knew Samy Vellu. However, Sheela failed to mention JJ's comments on Samy Vellu's importance in scholarship distribution. After asking if she knew him (Samy Vellu) or had talked to him before, JJ said he knows him very well and would get Samy Vellu's help in sorting out scholarships.
Samy Vellu is the president of the MIC, and therefore in charge of the distribution of scholarships and grants to Indian Malaysians. His assistance would be beneficial to Indian students. Sheena failed to realise the relevance of Samy Vellu to the further education of Indian Malaysians.
Incident 2 - ‘He gave a speech regarding how agriculture started in Malaysia. He mentioned how the British invested in Malaysia and made farmers work. Due to the lack of a work force, ‘buruh India’ were brought in. While mentioning this, he looked at her saying ‘That's how we get Indians in Malaysia’.
JJ did not give a speech on how agriculture started in Malaysia. Rather, he gave a speech on the development of Malaysia's biotech industry. He talked about our abundance in natural resources and its potential for utilisation and began his speech with Malaysia's agricultural industry. He explained how Malaysia has progressed from an agricultural-based economy to becoming a leader in the biotech industry.
He wanted to stress the leap from an agricultural-based economy to one that has taken a cutting-edge science to the forefront. To further emphasise that leap, he stressed the importance of the Indians in the agriculture industry which contributed to the progression of our country.
During his speech he did not mention ‘buruh India’ nor did he say ‘that's how we got Indians in Malaysia’. Instead, he used the term ‘pekerja India’. JJ said neither of the two remarks attributed to him during the dinner. So then, giving Sheela and Sheena the benefit of a doubt, I will assume then there was a communication mix-up. It is understandable that a speech on the immigration of Indians be summarised as ‘how Indians came to Malaysia’ and from that to JJ saying ‘that's how we get Indians in Malaysia’.
JJ was standing in the middle of the restaurant; it is almost impossible to say that JJ was directing his remarks towards Sheena because he was looking at all of us during the time.
Incident 3 - ‘After saying he is going to get Mara to help the bumiputera students, he looked at her and asked ‘How many Indians are here?’ Sheena did not keep track of the number of Indian students so she mentioned that in the room there were two (pointing to another Indian Malaysian friend, who is fair skinned) and Jamaludin looked at him and asked ‘Oh. You are an Indian? Which means you are an upper-class Indian and she is the lower-class one’ (pointing at her). Jamaludin went on to say that, ‘Oh, I am not going to help upper-class Indians, I only help the lower-class ones. They are the ones that need it'.’
All that is written above is true, and I will not dispute that. However, I'd like to mention that there is no distinction between light-skinned and dark-skinned Indians. Can you say that lighter-skinned Indians are more prosperous than darker-skinned Indians? You cannot. If you believe so, then you are misleading your mind from the truth. In Malaysia, we do not have that kind of distinction with the Indians.
And you should see Sheena and the other Indian guy - both of them are equally fair. JJ did not make his statement based on their skin colour but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves. Neither did he make any remark based on their skin colour or race. He has even clarified it was meant to be a joke, though it may sound rude. I believe he had no intention to offend anyone including Sheena.
As far as I am concerned, the student delegates were not surprised at all with his speech. How is it possible that he could make remarks based on their skin complexion? During the dinner, the Indian guy was wearing a very nice collared shirt, unlike Sheena who wore a simple and dull black shirt with a skirt (which I would say doesn't suit her at all).
Nonetheless, JJ, in Boston, a few days later clarified that he had said some things in jest and he wished to apologise to ‘the student in LA’ if he had offended her. And that is a great and generous gesture from our honourable minister.
It is interesting to note the writer 'implies' the underlying rational for JJ saying certain things without being clear on whether JJ tried to explain the things which he said in context (I don't think he did).
My response to his letter would be that many times, when our 'own' race is not being insulted or denigrated, it is often easy to overlook these insults as oversights on the part of the speaker. But if Sheena, as one of two Indians in that room felt insulted and aggrieved, then I think that the said Minister (as well as other politicians) should be more sensitive and careful in his speech.
Perhaps all our politicians should undergo some sort of gender (reference to the 'bocor' incident) and race 'sensitization' class!
Last update - In response to the above letter, the following letter was posted on Malaysiakini.
Minister both racist and elitist
Subashini
I refer to Abdul Kadir Azhari's letter, JJ didn't meant to insult student. I am in awe of the intellectual sophistication on display in this particular letter, especially the way in which Kadir manages to conflate two issues that are particularly controversial within the Indian community - skin colour and class.
After confirming that Jamaludin Jarjis did indeed make a crass and insensitive remark by associating (however ludicrously) skin colour with economic standing, Azhari says, ‘All that is written above is true, and I will not dispute that.
owever, I'd like to mention that there is no distinction between light-skinned and dark-skinned Indians. Can you say that lighter-skinned Indians are more prosperous than darker-skinned Indians? You cannot. If you believe so, then you are misleading your mind from the truth. In Malaysia, we do not have that kind of distinction with the Indians’.
So what is your point, Kadir? The fact is, your ‘honourable Minister’ did indeed make that distinction; it is obvious to anyone with a brain that Jamaludin, at least, views Indians in terms of binaries like fair-skinned - upper-class; dark-skinned - lower class. I do not want to reduce my intellectual capacities to rubble by deigning to argue this point by further scrutinising the complex racist beliefs that underlie those remarks.
My comments should be reserved for this particular gem: ‘And you should see Sheena and the other Indian guy - both of them are equally fair. JJ did not make his statement based on their skin colour but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves. Neither did he make any remark based on their skin colour or race. He has even clarified it was meant to be a joke, though it may sound rude. I believe he had no intention to offend anyone including Sheena’.
Jamaludin did not make his statement based on skin colour, but instead on the way they dressed and represented themselves? That makes complete sense. So what Kadir is saying is essentially this - Jamaludin didn't mean to cause offence by being a racist dimwit, but instead, by being an elitist dimwit. Okay, point taken.
Kadir continues: ‘During the dinner, the Indian guy was wearing a very nice collared shirt, unlike Sheena who wore a simple and dull black shirt with a skirt (which I would say doesn't suit her at all)’.
So if a person is viewed as wearing unflattering clothes, for whatever reasons (it could very well be that she couldn't afford better clothes, or it could very well be that the choice of garment was not unflattering to the person wearing it), it is perfectly acceptable for someone like Kadir to write and publicly ridicule the person by making a comment such as ‘which I would say doesn't suit her all’, (I'm sure Kadir's fashion sensibilities are far superior to anyone else's).
And then by some strange twist of logic, he uses that very reason to defend the ‘honourable’ Jamaludin, exempting both himself and Jamaludin from accusations of racism and class prejudice.
And to top it all off? After hearing Jamaludin's remarks, ‘the students were not surprised at all with his speech’.
Brilliant. My faith in Malaysian politicians (our esteemed leaders) and Malaysian students (our bright hope for the future) has been duly restored. Am I glad to be Malaysian.
The last couple of sentences are noteworthy. I think that most of us are no longer surprised by the kind of racist and sexist language that emanates from the mouths of our politicians. I think we should demand a higher standard. And I think we should keep our politicians accountable until the day when such speech is a rarity and is politically costly rather than the status quo of being acceptable.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Liberal Arts Colleges
Descartes Higher Education Counselling Centre (DECC) is pleased to be holding the following seminar on the Top American Liberal Arts Colleges. The details for the seminar are as follows:
Parents of students, and students in pre-university or high school are most welcome to attend the session. Please spread the message to those interested parties ;)
For more information, feel free to contact me @ tonypua(at)yahoo.com ;)
Date: 23rd June 2007 (Sat)The panelists of the seminar comprises of Malaysian students at the top universities in the United States. They include:
Time: 2.00pm – 5.00pm
Venue: DECC, 55-1 Jalan SS21/1A, Damansara Utama, 47400 Petaling Jaya
- Eng Han Ng, Dartmouth '10
- Andrew Loh, Swarthmore '10
- Zhou Hau Liew, Princeton '10
- Nicholas Khaw, Harvard '09
- Hui Hsing Su, Smith '10
- Sabrina Chan, Tufts '10
- Yang Jerng Hwa, Bates '05
- Joyce Tagal, Yale '09
Parents of students, and students in pre-university or high school are most welcome to attend the session. Please spread the message to those interested parties ;)
For more information, feel free to contact me @ tonypua(at)yahoo.com ;)
JPA Overseas Scholarship Policy
Based on a report published in The Star on March 5th, 2007, as blogged here earlier, the Minister stated that overseas scholarships will only be offered to “students who are accepted by renown foreign universities”.
In addition, no mention of qualifying for the top universities in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia was made as a criteria for these countries.
In the pursuit of the quantity of scholars, have we decided once again, to forgo “the move to produce high quality graduates” as expressed by the Minister of Higher Education himself?
I've actually called a press conference on this issue last week and it was reported in most Chinese press. Thanks to VTKY for the heads up ;)
...the move was to produce high quality graduates.However, based on the latest circular issued by Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA), scholarships will continue to be awarded to students who fail to qualify to the top universities, particularly those from the United States.
“Tertiary education in Britain and the United States is very costly. We do not want to send our scholars to any overseas university randomly. It’s better if we only send them to renowned universities and in return, we produce high quality graduates,” he said.
Selepas berjaya di peringkat persediaan dan memenuhi had kecemerlangan akademik yang ditetapkan, pelajar-pelajar yang berjaya mendapat tawaran daripada universiti-universiti bertaraf Ivy League atau Ivy League Standard akan meneruskan pengajian di Amerika Syarikat selama 4 tahun.Hence it is clear that the Government will continue to finance students with scholarships irrespective of the universities which they manage to secure places in despite what the Minister of Higher Education has promised earlier.
Bagi pelajar-pelajar yang tidak mendapat tawaran daripada universiti-universiti bertaraf Ivy League atau Ivy League Standard, mereka akan meneruskan pengajian Ijazah Pertama di bawah American Credit Transfer Programme (ACTP) di mana pelajar-pelajar akan mengikuti pengajian 1 tahun pertama di dalam negara dan seterusnya meneruskan pengajian selama 3 tahun lagi di universiti-universiti di Amerika Syarikat.
In addition, no mention of qualifying for the top universities in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia was made as a criteria for these countries.
In the pursuit of the quantity of scholars, have we decided once again, to forgo “the move to produce high quality graduates” as expressed by the Minister of Higher Education himself?
I've actually called a press conference on this issue last week and it was reported in most Chinese press. Thanks to VTKY for the heads up ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
