Recognition of universities – Mustapha’s very strange request to Chinese govt

The
request
by the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha  Mohamed, currently on a seven-day visit to China to promote Malaysia as an educational hub and to strengthen ties with some of the top Chinese universities, makes for strange reading.

Mustapha wants the Chinese government to recognize more Malaysian universities and colleges.

At present, China only recognizes 50 institutions in the public and private sector in Malaysia when their total numbers more than 500.

Mustapha wants more of our educational institutions to be recognized by the Chinese government for obvious reasons. Students from China form the second largest number of foreign students in the country after Indonesia and the Higher Education Ministry  is marketing Malaysia aggressively to lure more Chinese students to Malaysia.

There is nothing wrong  with such objective or marketing but Mustapha’s request is nonetheless very strange and extraordinary.

Firstly, it has come as news as well as shocker too  to Malaysians that the Chinese government has recognized 7 IPTAs (public institutions of higher learning)  and 43 IPTSs (private institutions) for two reasons:

	The Chinese government recognizing more Malaysian universities and colleges than the Chinese universities and colleges recognized by the  Malaysian government, although many Chinese universities are internationally recognized for their academic merit and excellence while Malaysian universities have disappeared from the international radar of academic excellence as well as the vast  difference in numbers of educational institutions between the two countries.

	When China recognizes 43 IPTS and only 7 IPTAs, it is a clear and indisputable sign that the IPTAs, despite their head-starts and public funding, have been overtaken bhy IPTSs in terms of international recognition of academic excellence  and repute.

In the recently-released World’s 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Top 200 University Rankings, six Chinese universities made into the Top 200 list while Malaysian universities had been suffering free fall in international rankings in recent years, with not a single one making into the prestigious 200 Top ranking.

The six Chinese universities are:

36.   Peking University

40.   Tsinghua University

85.   Fudan University

125. Nanjing University

155. University of Science and Technology of China

163. Shanghai Jiao Tong University

The THES-QS survey also ranked the Top 100 Universities for five subject areas – Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; Life Sciences and Biomedicine; and Engineering and Information Technology.

China has two universities, Peking University and Tsinghua University, which are ranked as among the Top 100 Universities in all the five categories.  Malaysia is not only excluded from the overall list of the World Top 200 Universities, but completely excluded in all the five categories for  Top 100 Universities — when Chulalongkorn University of Thailand made into the Top 100 Universities for  Engineering and IT.

Yet Malaysia refuses to accord recognition to the degrees of Peking University and Tsinghua University, ready  only to recognize  its degrees for  Chinese language studies.  Isn’t this the height of the ludicrous?

In fact, China has six universities  in the Top 100 Life Sciences & Biomedicine (Peking 18, Tsinghua 51, Fudan 52, Nanjing 78, Science and Technology of China 84 and Shanghai Jiao Tong 92); four in the Top 100 Engineering & IT (Tsinghua 16,  Peking 36, Science and Technology of China 49  55); and five in the Top 100 Natural Sciences  Peking 15, Tsinghua 34,  Science and Technology of China 40, Nanjing 76 and Fudan 80).

Why has the Malaysian government not recognized these internationally-acclaimed  Chinese universities for their world-class studies and degrees, when Malaysia does not have any equivalent whatsoever?

Isn’t it most strange that a country which has dropped out of world-class university rankings is asking for more recognition for its universities from  another country with universities of international repute but  which it has refused to recognize?

The Malaysian government should promptly and forthwith recognize all the degrees of Chinese universities which are internationally-recognised as among the world’s top universities, and not just the Chinese Language Studies of four Chinese universities before we can righteously ask China for more recognition of Malaysian universities by Chinese government.

The Malaysian government can impose a condition that such recognition is subject to fluency in English language or Bahasa Malaysia, but it is the height of the ridiculous for the Malaysian government to continue to refuse to accord recognition to the internationally-recognised degrees of Chinese universities — which is a joke in the era of globalization but also  self-defeating in losing out in the long run to lure Chinese students to come to Malaysia to further their tertiary studies.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 November 2007, 3:41 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM70 m Brickendonbury Sports complex – bury idea and probe why RM2 million wasted

Now that the British East  Herts Council had
rejected
 the Malaysian government’s application to establish a RM70 million Sports High-Performance Training Centre (HPTC) at the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre (TARRC) in Brickendonbury outside London, the siren proposal to appeal against the decision must be decisively  resisted and struck down.

The Cabinet next Wednesday should  just bury the idea of the RM70 million Brickendonbury Sports HPTC and establish an  inquiry to ascertain who were responsible for the folly of wasting RM2 million in pursuing the project and who had really benefited.

The Council had publicly said that the Malaysian government had been consistently advised of the constraints in developing the Brickendonbury site due to the Green Belt policy, the site’s remoteness, the listed mansion and the historic park land. The Council had been doubtful about how outdoor sports facilities would assimilate satisfactorily and be accommodated within the historic garden landscape.

Why then was the Sports Minister, Datuk Azalina Othman and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Sports, so stubborn in ignoring these objections to the extent of throwing RM2 million of public funds down the drain, when good governance and good sense would have advised against it?

The Brickendonbury Sports complex, originally costed at about RM490 million but later scaled down and projected to cost RM70 million, should be an object lesson as to how public funds should not be misspent and wasted.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 November 2007, 5:23 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Sports
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Yet another book banned

Letters

by Zainah Anwar

We have just been alerted to another round of book bannings by the Book Censhorhip DIvision of the INternal Security Ministry.

This time it includes a very important book by a very progressive religious scholar from Indonesia, Kyai Hussein Muhammad who runs a pesantren in Cirebon and sits on the Women’s Commission, appointed by the President of Indonesia.

This is really disgraceful as the govt is sending out the message that anything written about equality and justice for women in Islam is considered a threat to national security!

And yet the PM goes on and on talking about a rational and progressive Islam that is open to reinterpretation to meet the challenge of change; the 9th Malaysia Plan and the cabinet committee on gender equality has set a minimum quota of 30%women in decision making positions, Islam Hadhari promises to eliminate injustice agianst women – are these all empty words?

SIS has translated Kyai Hussein’s book into BM as we find it most useful to help Muslims understand that Islam stands for justice and equality and there is much within the tradition that is progressive and supportive of women’s rights.

The version banned is the original Indonesian version. I do hope you and your colleagues would be able to raise this issue in Parliament

                This entry was posted on Friday, 16 November 2007, 7:58 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Letters
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Emergency Parliament debate –  collapse of  RM4.5 million Perak State Park complex in  Belum

I have given notice to the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah for an emergency motion in Parliament on Monday on the collapse of the RM4.5 million Perak State Park Corporation complex in the Royal Belum State Park, Perak.

Only two days ago, in his visit to Sarawak, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  was calling on state governments to contribute positively to his campaign to improve the government delivery system.

The Perak State Government seems to have delivered a response with the collapse of the complex in Belum Park.

It is unfortunate but true that  in his four years as Prime Minister, there are increasing evidence of Malaysia degenerating from  “First-World Infrastructure, Third-World Mentality” to “Third-World Infrastructure, Fourth-rate Mentality” where there are not only cracks galore in public buildings, but we seem to have entered  into a new phase of collapsing buildings!

Never before in the 50-year history of the nation has the public service been seen as more inept and incompetent — with the unending list of “crack-ups” of new government buildings and public construction projects, whether the brand-new administrative capital of Putrajaya, the RM270 million world’s second largest court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur, the repeated leaks in the  Parliament Building after RM100 million renovation,  the safety of the 15-storey Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry in Precinct 4, Putrajaya and the latest, the “implosion” and collapse of the RM4.5 million Royal Belum State Park administrative complex.

Who is going to be responsible for the RM4.5 million losses following the collapse of the Royal Belum State Park complex? Will it be the long-suffering taxpayers who will have to be the suckers again to foot the bill — while everyone else, whether the contractor, the government supervisor and those in authority who had a cut in the RM4.5 million project, enjoy impunity with some  laughing  all the way to the bank with their profits?

Heads must roll, and roll immediately, for the shameful “implosion” of the Tasik Banding complex — or are there no one to be held responsible?

In my motion in Parliament on Monday, I will press for an independent public inquiry to probe into the causes of the disgraceful collapse of the complex at Royal Belum state park and the parties responsible for it.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 November 2007, 6:56 am and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rashid knows when is next general election – why Chua Soi Lek so angry as to call him a “liar”

Election Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahmat has made many Barisan Nasional leaders hot under the collar with his claim in Malacca on Thursday that he
knew
 when the general election  would be held — but he would not tell.

Even Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak says he  is
clueless
, though he would like to know.

However, nobody could be as incensed as the MCA Ministers and leaders as it must be a tremendous loss of face for  them to be caught on the wrong footing, unable to answer what must be asked them umpteenth times everyday by their supporters  as to when is the next general election when a lowly government functionary like the Election Commission Chairman is fully privy to.

Such manifest ignorance could not be more embarrassing at this time as it   drives home what all MCA Ministers are most sensitive about — their continued  irrelevance,  impotence and marginalization  in government!

This explains the Cabinet rage  (like road-rage of Mat Rempits) of the Health Minister and MCA National Vice President,  Datuk Chua Soi Lek who as good as called Rashid a  “liar”
(China Press)
 in making such a “preposterous claim”.

Does Rashid really know when is the next general election or was he simply lying or just posturing omniscience?

 Rashid had told reporters after the launch of the state-level Election Commission briefing and course for returning officers and assistant returning officers  in Malacca two days ago that the next general election will be conducted after the end of the state-level series of Election Commission courses which concludes on January 29.

If Rashid knows when is the next general election, then only one person could have told him — the Prime Minister himself.

Abdullah should speak up whether he had told Rashid when the general election would be held to end the anger building up among the MCA Ministers and leaders.

Instead of creating a furore among Barisan Nasional leaders with his tease that he knew more than them about the date for the next general election, Rashid would have done a greater service to the nation and  greater justice to his job as Election Commission Chairman to put in place an electoral system which is clean, free and fair, covering all aspects of elections — including clean and comprehensive electoral roll, level playing field for election campaign by all contestants including strict check on money politics and fair media coverage, and eradication of electoral abuses like massive  phantom and postal voting.

After all, this was precisely  why 40,000 Malaysians had gathered in  the unprecedented massive but peaceful rally on Nov. 10 to present a petition to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for electoral reforms to ensure clean, free and fair elections in Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 November 2007, 2:39 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on Lingam Tape – hold your welcome with disturbing indication it will be very restricted inquiry

The welcome for  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s announcement of a
Royal Commission of Inquiry
into Lingam Tape scandal will have to be conditional as there is disturbing indication that it will be a very  restricted and circumscribed  inquiry  denied the task to resolve the long-standing national and international crisis of confidence in  the independence and integrity of the  judiciary which had gone from bad to worse for nearly two decades.

It is most unusual and not a very good sign that Abdullah’s announcement of a royal commission  came solely from a
Bernama
report instead of a proper media conference before a battery of local and foreign journalists.

Abdullah had stumbled  from one faux pax to another in the mishandling of the Lingam Tape scandal, taking two full months to arrive at the decision to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry, when such a decision should  have been made right  from the very beginning when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made public the first eight minutes of the 14-minute Lingam Tape if the Prime Minister had been serious with his pledges of integrity and  a trustworthy government, two of the ten principles of Islam Hadhari.

Abdullah said in the Bernama report that the Cabinet had decided at its last meeting on Wednesday to set up the  royal commission and the Cabinet will decide next Wednesday on the commission’s terms of reference.  The members of the royal commission will be determined after its terms of reference were finalized.

Something is clearly amiss, which does not reflect well on the Cabinet with regard to the   professionalism, competence or  high standards  of the Cabinet decision-making process.

For 55 hours  after the Cabinet meeting, i.e. Wednesday to Friday until the Bernama report released at 7.01 pm yesterday, Malaysians were told that every Cabinet Minister would be provided with a copy of the Haider Report to study so that the Cabinet next Wednesday can decide  whether a Royal Commission should be established.

If the Cabinet had already taken the decision last Wednesday to establish a Royal Commission — as disclosed by Abdullah yesterday –  then what is the purpose of giving all Cabinet Ministers a week’s homework to read the Haider Report?

In fact, what is the purpose of setting up a three-man Ministerial Committee, comprising three senior Cabinet Ministers, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Home Affairs Minister  Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad  and Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim to give  the “legal perspective” — which, in any event, should be before and not after the decision to set up a Royal Commission!

I had been baffled when Nazri had told the press on Thursday that the three ministers tasked with looking into the Haider Report will not meet, and neither will they consult or correlate their findings before Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, wondering how this Nazri Ministerial Committee was going to function or operate. Now, I understand, as there is nothing for it to function, so nothing to meet when the Cabinet has already decided to establish a Royal Commission!

The MCA Youth was extraordinarily courageous yesterday when after its 14th MCA Youth Central Committee meeting yesterday, the MCA Youth leader, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai summoned a press conference to call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.  But this was apparently two days after the Cabinet had decided to set up such a Royal Commission!  What courage!

The question that pops up immediately is why the Prime Minister has not made public the Haider Panel Report when the Cabinet has already made the decision to set up a Royal Commission.

I am doubly concerned however whether the Royal Commission that Abdullah has in mind will be a serious response from the government to get to the root of the Lingam Tape scandal and the important corollary issue of the long-standing crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, or a charade just to try to shut up rising public clamour for government action on the Lingam Tape scandal.

My first concern stemmed from a comment by Nazri after Abdullah’s announcement of a Royal Commission reported by Utusan Malaysia, where he said: “Penubuhan suruhanjaya ini tidak ada kaitan dengan persoalan mahu mengembalikan kredibiliti badan kehakiman. Sebaliknya, penubuhan suruhanjaya ini adalah cara bagi mengenal pasti dan mengambil tindakan terhadap mana-mana pihak yang didapati bersalah.”

Nazri cannot be more wrong. The core objective  of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape must be  to restore public confidence in the judiciary.  If this is not the overriding agenda, then why have a Royal Commission of Inquiry at all?

If the Royal Commission is to be estopped from probing into the deep-seated causes for the crisis of judiciary which had rocked the country for close to two decades, and which had again been brought to national and global limelight  by the Lingam Tape,  and to make recommendations for the immediate and effective restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, then I must forewarn the Prime Minister that such a Royal Commission of Inquiry  would be a complete let-down, utterly  useless and totally unacceptable.

This gives rise to my second concern. If its terms of reference are  going to be so restrictive and unacceptable, then it is unlikely that public hopes and expectations of credible, legitimate and eminent Malaysians being appointed as Commissioners would be met.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 November 2007, 11:09 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rehabilitation for whom?

By
Farish A. Noor

He’s trying to make me go to rehab;

I said no, no, no.

I ain’t got the time

And if my daddy thinks Im fine…

He’s trying to make me go to rehab;

I said no, no,no.

– Amy Winehouse, ‘Rehab’ (2007)

So now its ‘political rehabilitation’, is it? As a corrective measure for kids who go to demonstrations and who have been ‘bad’ in the eyes of the government? That Malaysia’s leaders can even suggest such a thing speaks volumes about the extent to which the space of alienation between the state and the nation has grown over the years, and points to the lack of contact, communication and understanding between the powers-that-be and the real Malaysian nation made up of the rest of us.
(1)

But are we surprised? After all this is the same country whose geography is now cluttered with a smattering of ‘faith rehabilitation centres’ that have been set up under the auspices of an Islamist project said to promote some skewered vision of a modern, pluralist, democratic Islam that is benevolent and accommodative: So accommodative in fact that it can accommodate dozens, if not hundreds, of Malaysian citizens deemed ‘immoral’, ‘deviant’, ‘apostate’ and out of the ordinary according to the norms set by an invisible and unaccountable cabal of Islamic experts in the pay of the state. We already have rehabilitation centres whose job it is to ‘turn over’ these alleged deviants and misfits and force them to conform to the normative praxis of Islam that is deemed correct by the state, so should we be surprised if the leaders of UMNO and the government can go one step further and call for the rehabilitation of children as well?

From the viewpoint of an academic who studies the development of modern postcolonial states, Malaysia seems to be a textbook example of postcolonial development turned awry. What began as a country with so much promise — its plural racial and ethnic composition, blessed with plentiful resources that was also strategically located at the cross-roads between East and West –has been squandered for the sake of one ruling party that seems to cater primarily to the needs and demands of one specific ethnic-religious constituency.

That Malaysia’s leaders still cannot understand and appreciate the extent of dissatisfaction, frustration and cynicism among the Malaysian public points to a state that has concentrated all power — including educational and mediatic — in the hands of an alienated ruling elite. Since the 1980s practically every institution of the state has undergone a serious compromise thanks to the dominance of the Executive at the expense of all other arms of the state apparatus: The emasculation of the judiciary, the tighter and tighter controls on the press, the depoliticisation of the universities (and the educational system in general), the promotion of a sectarian divisive politics based on race and religious communitarianism, the politicisation of institutions like the police, etc. have all created an increasingly small and narrow political arena that has come to be dominated by a small clique of power-hungry politicians and ruling families.

Worst still is the fact that the ruling elite of the country — made up as it is by a handful of key families of the UMNO fraternity — has come to believe its own rhetoric and the story they have spun for themselves: that they are the protectors of the Malay community and identity, that they and they alone are responsible for the fate and future of the Malaysian nation. Their continued reliance on the state-controlled media to disseminate this inbred

propaganda they have invented for themselves fails to note the fact that the very same Malay community they purport to represent is now fragmented, hybrid and plural, and that the younger generation of Malay youth, like their other Malaysian counterparts, no longer buy the stale and insipid narrative of a cohesive united nation led by a handful of Malay ruling families.

Dismissive accounts of demonstrations as being ‘un-Malay’ and ‘un-Malaysian’ have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as the younger generation of Malaysians could not care less about courtly protocol, the symbolism of UMNO and its nationalist rhetoric, the appeals to racial superiority and unity, etc. Despite the now tiresome brandishing of the keris and frothy speeches about Malay unity at the recent UMNO assembly, many of the thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur last weekend happened to be Malay: the very same community that is no longer beholden to UMNO and immune to its fanciful appeals to racial cohesion and unity.

So what does the future hold for Malaysian society and where will the events of 10th November lead us? It is clear that the Bersih demonstration had managed to do the one thing that the leaders of the Barisan Nasional dread above all: to bring together Malaysians from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds on one neutral issue that unites rather than divides their interests. The fact that the Islamists of PAS and the secular leftists of DAP could come together along with the activists of PKR and the NGOs suggests that the civic spirit of Malaysians is not quite dead, despite all attempts to squash any attempt at multi-racial and cross-communal political activism in the country.

Unable and unwilling to accept the new realities on the ground the political elite of Malaysia has resorted to the same worn out clichés and the call to rehabilitate the younger Malaysians who were present at the demonstration reveals the extent to which this ruling elite is so thoroughly bankrupt of ideas. No, it is not the younger Malaysians who are in need of rehabilitation- In fact the activist in me would say that activism and civic responsibility should begin from our school days and that every young citizen should be made aware of her and his rights and responsibilities as early as possible, as a rite of civic membership.

If anyone is in need of rehabilitation, it is the politicians and ruling elite of Malaysia themselves, who should learn that this diverse and plural society of ours happens to be a complex nation undergoing a slow democratic transformation and that the future of Malaysian politics should reflect this multicultural diversity. So I strongly suggest that the right-wing communitarian leaders of Malaysia sign up for their own rehab courses as soon as possible, for their and our own good, and learn the following:

       That Malaysian citizenship, and not race or religious identity, should serve as the basis of political participation and political rights;

       That the language of racial superiority and racial exclusivism is not only morally repugnant, racist and dangerous but outdated and has no resonance with the Malaysian public today;

       That the fundamental duty of all citizens is to demand that the state serves the interests of the nation as a whole and not just a coterie of landed elites living in their comfortable and alienated paradise of select privileges and luxury;

       And that the right to speak one’s mind and to demand that the state carries out its fundamental democratic functions are among the basic rights of all citizens, and not some outrageous demand by anarchists, mobsters and unruly nihilists.

And while taking these basic lessons in democracy, do leave the kids alone. At least they don’t go on the stage brandishing weapons and screeching about racial superiority…  They are too matured to do such stupid things!

Note: (1): ‘Detained Children to be ‘Rehabilitated’- NST, 14 Nov 2007.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 November 2007, 6:35 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.5 m Belum complex collapse – pass-the-buck begins as Tajol blames Ramli Ngah

The
“passing-the-buck”
 game over the collapse of the  RM4.5 million Perak State Park Corporation complex in the Royal Belum State Park, Perak has begun, with the Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohd Tajol Rosli Ghazali blaming his predecessor Tan Sri Ramli Ngah for the debacle.

Who is really responsible for the collapse of the RM4.5 million Belum complex — Tajol or Ramli?

After visiting the Pulau Banding site of the collapsed structure  in Grik yesterday, Tajol
described
the complex as a project that had never been viable and had been problematic from the start.

This is what he said in the New Straits Times report today:

“How can you spend RM4.5 million for a complex that has only 14 rooms?

“I am really frustrated (with the whole project). As an accountant, I knew that it would be a problem to manage due to the limited number of rooms. You need at least 50 rooms for such a place to be economically viable.”

Tajol  said there were developers in Ipoh who could build a complex or resort with 100 rooms on a budget of only RM8 million.

He cited poor interior design as one of the problems of the complex, which was to be a one-stop centre for tourists.

He said: “It was too late for me to stop the project as it was already being constructed then (when he became MB).”

Tajol made no mention of the real cause of the collapse of the complex, which cannot be its lack of economic viability, but can only be due to failures of engineering design or construction as well as irresponsibility of contractor/sub-contractor  and government supervision.

So who is at fault — Tajol or Ramli.  Tajol took over as Perak Mentri Besar  from Ramli Ngah in December 1999.

Is it possible for Tajol  just to wash his hands of  responsibility  so easily simply on the ground that it was “too late” for him to intervene in the project.

If so, this should be additional reason for him to support an independent public inquiry into the collapse of the RM4.5 million Belum complex, to fully exonerate him of any responsibility for the collapse of the building.

Ramli, who is Speaker of Parliament, should not object to a emergency debate in Parliament on Monday on the collapse of the RM4.5 million Belum complex, which will be his strong defence that he has nothing to hide.

With the collapse of the Belum complex, sub-standard government delivery system in Malaysia has entered a new phase from new public buildings “cracking up” or leaking to simply collapsing.

Although this is unprecedented, it is nothing to be proud but cause for shame for  the government, whether at state or national level.

As Tajol has openly passed the buck and put the blame on his predecessor, it is also time for Ramli to  present to the public  his case as to whether he accepts or refutes the Perak Mentri Besar’s kicking the ball to him.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 17 November 2007, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


End NEP in universities – why Malaysia has fallen out of Top 200 Ranking

Just as Vice Chancellors must be held responsible for the poor rankings of their universities, the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad must bear personal responsibility for the dismal international ranking of Malaysian universities –  particularly for Malaysia falling completely out of the list of the world’s Top 200 Universities this year in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings.

I find it scandalous that the shocking fall of the ranking of Malaysian universities  THES-QS 2007 world Top 200 Universities was totally ignored by last week’s Umno General Assembly, whether by Umno delegates or leaders, although the 2007 THES-QS rankings were  revealed when  the Umno General Assembly was in session.

This shows the superficiality of the commitment of Umno leaders to the slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemilang and Terbilang” and to transform Malaysia into a knowledge-based innovative economy marked by a world-class university system.

Further details and studies have shown that Malaysian universities  have suffered a very serious drop in the international league of the world’s best universities, virtually undergoing a free fall when compared to other Top Universities.

For the first time, there is not a single university in the op 200 Universities list.

Both Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Malaya (UM) had fell  out of the Top 200 Universities ranking, with UKM plunging from 185th slot last year to 309th while University fo Malaya plunged from 89th in 2004 to 169th in 2005, 192nd in 2006  to 246th in 2007.  Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), which was ranked as the only “outstanding” five-star university in a recent government survey, fell  to 307th spot from 277 last year. In 2005, USM was in the 326th spot.

But this is not the only dismal result for Malaysian universities in the THES-QS 2007 ranking.  Also for the first time, there is not a single Malaysian university in the separate listing  of Top 100 Universities for five subject areas — Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; Life Sciences and Biomedicine; and Engineering and Information Technology.

Last year Malaysia was placed in four of the 500 slots in the five Top 100 Universities for the five subjects – University of Malaya  ranked 49 in Social Sciences and 95 in Natural Sciences,  UKM No. 62 in Natural Sciences and USM at  No. 96 for Life Sciences and Biomedicine.

This year, Malaysia was completely excluded in all the five listings of  Top 100 Universities for the five categories.

There are 38 “elite of elite” universities, which are not only ranked in the Top 200 Universities list, but also ranked in every one of the five Top 100 subject list. The country breakdown and details for these 38 “elite of elite” universities are:

United States –		15

United Kingdom  – 		  4

Australia	 –		  6

Canada	–     	          	 5

China    	–	              2

Japan       	–            2

S. Korea   	–            1

Taiwan   	–                      1

Spore    	–                      1

Hong Kong	–            1

    Total         	–         38

United States  — (Ranking in Top 200 Universities in bracket)

Harvard  (1)

Yale (2)

Princeton (6)

Chicago (7)

MIT (10)

Columbia (11)

John Hopkins (15)

Stanford (19)

Carnegie Mellon (20)

Cornell (20)

California, Berkeley (22)

Brown (32)

Boston (47)

Texas at Austin (51)

Illinois (73)

United Kingdom

Oxford (2)

Cambridge (2)

UCL (University College London) (9)

Edinburgh (23)

Canada

McGill (12)

British Columbia (33)

Toronto (45)

Montreal (93)

McMaster (108)

Australia

ANU  (16)

Melbourne (27)

Sydney (31)

Queensland (33)

Monash (43)

New South Wales (44)

Japan

Tokyo (17)

Kyoto (25)

Hong Kong

Hong Kong (18)

Singapore

National University of Singapore (33)

China

Peking (36)

Tsinghua (40)

South Korea

Seoul National (51)

Taiwan

National Taiwan (102)

I am very  surprised that the Higher Education Minister, who is currently on a visit to universities in China, had asked the Chinese government to recognize more Malaysian universities and colleges  for two reasons.

It was news to me and to most Malaysians that  China  has recognized 50 institutions in the public and private sector in Malaysia — 7 IPTAs (public institutions of higher learning) and 43 IPTSs (private institutions). This is a clear indicator that public universities in the country are losing out in terms of academic excellence and international recognition to private institutions.

Secondly, the Chinese government  has recognizing more Malaysian universities and colleges than the Chinese universities and colleges recognized by the  Malaysian government — when  many Chinese universities are internationally recognized for their academic merit and excellence while Malaysian universities have disappeared from the international radar of academic excellence.

In the 2007 THES-QS) World Top 200 University Rankings, six Chinese universities were ranked  but  not a single one from Malaysia.

The six Chinese universities are:

36.   Peking University

40.   Tsinghua University

85.   Fudan University

125. Nanjing University

155. University of Science and Technology of China

163. Shanghai Jiao Tong University

China has two universities, Peking University and Tsinghua University, which are among the 38 “elite of elite” universities, as they are also  listed in all the  Top 100 Universities in all five  different categories.

Altogether, Chinese universities occupy 21 spots in the 500 slots in the five Top 100 Universities for five categories — but Malaysia does not recognize anyone of them although we do not occupy a single spot in the 500 slots for the five lists of Top 100 Universities.

Malaysia even  refuses to accord recognition to the degrees of Peking University and Tsinghua University, two of the “elite of elites” universities as the  Malaysian government only recognizes  their  degrees for  Chinese language studies.

Details of the 21 spots occupied by Chinese universities in the five Top 100 lists are:

	6 in the Top 100 Life Sciences & Biomedicine (Peking 18, Tsinghua 51, Fudan 52, Nanjing 78, Science and Technology of China 84 and Shanghai Jiao Tong 92);

	5 in the Top 100 Natural Sciences  (Peking 15, Tsinghua 34,  Science and Technology of China 40, Nanjing 76 and Fudan 80);

	4  in the Top 100 Engineering & IT (Tsinghua 16,  Peking 36, Science and Technology of China 49 and Shanghai Jiao Tong   55);

	3 in the Top 100 Social Sciences — (Peking 23, Tsinghua 44 and Fudan 62); and

	3 in the Top 100 Arts & Humanities — (Peking 18, Fudan 45 and Tsinghua 91).

Why has the Malaysian government not recognized these internationally-acclaimed  Chinese universities for their world-class degrees and courses, when Malaysia does not have any equivalent whatsoever?

It is  most strange and extraordinary  that a country which has dropped out of world-class university rankings is asking for more recognition for its universities from  another country with universities of international repute but  which it has refused to recognize?

The Malaysian government should promptly and forthwith recognize all the degrees of Chinese universities which are internationally-recognised as among the world’s top universities, and not just the Chinese Language Studies of four Chinese universities, before we can righteously ask China for more recognition of Malaysian universities by Chinese government.

If the government is serious about its slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” to create a world-class university system to transform Malaysia into a knowledge-based innovative economy, it must end the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the universities and fully restore the policy of meritocracy and academic excellence coupled with social need to provide university education opportunities to economically-backward Malaysians regardless of race.

It is the NEP policy and mentality which caused University of Malaya to fall 213 rankings behind University of Singapore in less than four decades as both universities had started on the same footing some 50 years ago. University of Malaya is ranked No. 246 as compared to the 33rd ranking for National University of Singapore.

The government must recognize that so long as the NEP is kept in place in the universities, there would be no way for any Malaysian public university to compete with other universities from other countries.  This is why Malaysia is also losing out to universities from Thailand and Africa  — which was unthinkable four decades ago!

If Malaysia is to get back to the trail of world-class academic excellence, all universities should be allowed to enroll the most qualified students, employ the most competent professors and researchers with competitive remunerations and restore a culture of academic excellence and freedom.

One simple test of whether the government is seriously committed to abandon the baggages of past NEP policies to create a world-class university system is whether it has the political will to end the annual  brain drain depriving Malaysia of the best and brightest for the development of the country.

For a start,  the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should  check the  annual four-figure brain-drain of the best and brightest STPM students and Chinese Independent Secondary school students to Singapore  by providing them equitable higher education opportunities at home to demonstrate that the government is serious in wanting to build a world-class university system.

(Speech  at the DAP Bukit Bendera Dinner at Cheah Association, Penang on Saturday 17th  November 2007)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 18 November 2007, 7:27 am and is filed under
Education
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Citizens’ Low Expectations of Their Government

by
M. Bakri Musa

It is a sad reflection of the citizens’ low expectations of their government and public institutions that the recent collapse of the Perak State Park Corporation’s building in Tasik Banding, Gerik, no longer provokes an outrage.  The general reaction seems to be, “What’s new?” At this rate, soon only the buildings that stand would make the headlines!

Yes, Works Minister Samy Vellu feigned shock and anger, while Mentri Besar Tajol Roslin promised a “full investigation” of this latest disaster.  We have heard those promises and reassurances too often before.  Yet these new buildings keep collapsing or leaking, and half-baked projects like the crooked bridge to replace the causeway have to be scrapped.

       From yet another perspective, or to “spin” it differently, it was indeed a blessing that such government facilities as the new Kuching Prison were not completed.  With such shoddy constructions, it would have been a massive and tragic human trap, not a prison.

       Only a few years ago there was a serious breach of security at the nearby Grik Army Base.  The heist was perpetrated not by a gang of superbly trained infiltrators rather a rag tag bunch of sarong-clad village bums.  Then too there was the promise by Defense Minister Najib Razak of a White Paper to get to “the bottom of the issue.”  There was only one problem:  It was only a promise.

About the only redeeming feature is that thus far these collapsed buildings involved no casualties.  One view is that these structures are so poorly built that they collapse literally after the last nail was hammered and before they could be occupied.  I wished these buildings would last just a wee bit longer, at least until the official opening ceremony when they could take down with them some important personalities, like the Prime Minister.  It would that kind of tragedy to knock some sense into those in charge.

       When such disasters happen, whether it is a flyway collapsing or a building tumbling down, I yearn for someone in authority to take full charge and do something sensible like what I suggest below.

He should order all those responsible, including the officers involved in awarding the tender, the building inspectors who certified the various stages of the construction, the contractors and main sub-contractors, architects, and engineers to come to his office to hear their side of the story and to ask them some tough questions.

At the end of that private meeting and preferably at an open press conference, he should declare that an independent investigation would be initiated, and pending the outcome of that inquiry he would:

 Put all public officials responsible with the project on immediate administrative leave without pay;

 Freeze all current and withdraw all awarded but not started public projects involving any of the contractors, consultants, and professionals;

 Send an immediate team of engineers to inspect the structural integrity of all government projects in which these principals were involved during the past ten years;

 Publicly announce the names of the public officials suspended as well as all the contractors, consultants and professionals involved so members of the public would be appropriately apprised of potential problems.

       At the same time he would set up an independent investigative committee of experts to analyze the failures.  The committee should meet in the open and its reports released to the public upon its submission to the government.

Alternatively contract out the forensic investigations to an outside expert consulting firms that specialize in these “failure analyses.”  Caution is needed however.  These forensic experts are used to being paid for by their clients, usually insurance companies or defense lawyers.  Thus their forte often is less with finding the truth and more with shifting liabilities away from their clients.

As most of the failed structures are public properties, the government would inevitably be a party to any subsequent dispute or lawsuit.  At the same time the government would be funding these investigative firms.  The only way to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation and forestall any charges of conflict of interest would be to have the committee work in the open and thus subject to public scrutiny during their hearings.

Anything less, and we have seen too many of those, and our officials and leaders would be derelict in their duties to the public.  So far we have seen only the red faces of these officials.; the next time it could be their dead bodies in the rubbles.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 19 November 2007, 8:35 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kee Thuan Chye on Kerismuddin and “spaceman”

(Thanks Kee Thuan Chye for drawing my attention to his excellent conversation with Malaysiakini columnist Helen Ang, which I had missed. It is  so good  that I am putting it up on this blog as I believe many had missed it too – including his brain-storming theory that Malaysian sports have started going downhill from the 70s because of the NEP and Helen’s provocative nudges.)

Kee to deciphering Umno semiotics

Helen Ang

Nov 15, 07 12:51pm

Kee Thuan Chye is an author, actor-director and dramatist. He has written four major political plays: ‘1984 Here and Now’, ‘The Big Purge’ [read at the Soho Theatre in London, 2005], ‘We Could ****You Mr Birch’ and ‘The Swordfish, Then the Concubine’ [adjudged one of the top 5 entries to the International Playwriting Festival 2006 organised by the Warehouse Theatre in the UK.

He’s also a journalist of 30 years’ standing, beginning his career at The National Echo in 1977.

Q & A follows
: (The views expressed here are strictly the interviewee’s own and do not reflect the stand of any organisation that he is with)

Helen: You’re someone who works intimately with language and having broad experience of the mass media — which in Malaysia is the channel for communicating the dominant narrative. As such, I’d like to get your reading on the ideas behind some of the things said and done at the recently concluded Umno general assembly.

Let’s start with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi saying: “The act of unsheathing and kissing a keris is part of our cultural heritage but its meaning has been twisted to spread fear among non-Malays, and the image of Umno and Malaysia has been smeared overseas.”

The PM was referring to Youth chief Hishamuddin Hussein who at the wing’s assembly in 2005 started his so-called ‘tradition’ of brandishing the keris. He has since said he expects non-Malays to eventually become “de-sensitised” to his waving this ‘symbol’, and in fact pronounced that naysayers should get used to it.

Deputy PM Najib Abdul Razak believes the act should be celebrated by all races. What do you make of the semiotics of the Umno keris? Is it a “symbol of protection for everyone” as Hisham and the local media would have us think?

Kee: I certainly don’t think it is a symbol of protection for everyone. This kind of talk is typical of Umno politicians who often twist semantics for the purpose of fooling the people. Well, it can fool those who are easily swayed by superficialities but not the intelligent public. Many Umno politicians appear to be pretty superficial themselves and therefore tend to misperceive that the thinking of the rakyat is mainly of the lowest common denominator.

The keris is a striking visual image. When it was first brandished in 2005, it naturally sent fear waves among the non-Malays. The body language of the person wielding it and the words uttered in accompaniment and, more significantly, the tone in which they were uttered combined to even more dramatic effect.

In 2006, the second time it made its appearance, the event looked choreographed — with Hishammuddin raising the unsheathed keris heavenwards and his Umno Youth brethren raising their fists in unison alongside him, in rows of solidarity. It was fearsome, like a military phalanx. All the signs pointed to aggression.

Hishammuddin was theatricalising a moment, and it was theatre with a powerful message — all the more effectively communicated because it was televised ‘live’ and it went out to millions of viewers.

And when you unsheathe a keris and hold it in that way, you’re bound to incite certain sentiments among your followers and to provoke them to ask when you are going to use it, as Hashim Suboh did. This inevitably recalls the moment of a day 20 years ago when Najib reportedly wielded a keris and vowed that there would be Chinese blood on its blade by the end of that day.

In Hishammuddin’s theatrics, the context was clear. It was an Umno Youth assembly, which is a strictly Malay gathering. The aggressive stance, the iconic Malay keris and the invocation to uphold the Malay struggle — all these pointed to an ethnocentric concern.

Other races were certainly not being defended; on the contrary, they were implied to be the enemy.

With weapon in hand, Hishammuddin was unequivocal in his assertion that Umno Youth wanted the return of policies favouring the Malays and would take action against those who opposed the movement’s proposal to revive the NEP. He later said that the keris represented Umno Youth’s “renewed spirit in empowering the Malays”.

So now for Hishammuddin to say that he would use the keris again in 2007 as a protector of all Malaysians — not just Malays — is disingenuous. Any intelligent Malaysian can see through the doublespeak.

What is even worse — and insulting — is what he said about “desensitizing” non-Malays to the issue of the keris. Only a person with a supercilious attitude would behave that way. What he implies by that statement is that non-Malays must accept what he does, no matter how revulsed they are by it. It’s like slapping someone in the face and then slapping him again and again, and telling him that he has to tolerate it each time until he gets used to it. What arrogance!

The arrogance surely stems from the idea of ketuanan Melayu that has been the focus of Umno’s propagation the last few decades. One could read into that “protection” doublespeak an implicit statement of Malay supremacy lording over the other races. This is the same kind of arrogance exhibited by Puteri Umno in its recent criticism of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). A mere wing of Umno had the gumption to tell a partner of the Barisan Nasional to “stop making noise”.

This is the same kind of arrogance exhibited by Hishammuddin when he issued a warning to the MCA leadership last July to stop saying that Malaysia is a secular state. The leader of a Youth wing had the gumption to tell a senior partner of Umno’s in the BN to shut up. On an issue of national significance, to boot.

In supporting Hishammuddin’s keris antics, Abdullah reveals himself to be contrary to what the mainstream media have hailed him as — “a Prime Minister of all Malaysians”.

It undoes what he had been trying to do throughout this year’s Umno general assembly, which was to be conciliatory towards the other races by not bringing up issues that would be sensitive and threatening to them, particularly religion. No doubt Abdullah knows he cannot afford to alienate the non-Malay voters in light of the upcoming general election. He could have reminded the Umno delegates about this on the eve of the assembly when he briefed them on what issues to avoid. He could also have advised Hishammuddin to take that soft approach with the keris this time.

It was all rather predictable. Umno is inadvertently transparent that way!

In any case, how could Abdullah be considered a PM of all Malaysians when he was the one who stopped any further discussion of Article 11 of the Constitution; did little to clear the air about whether Malaysia is not a secular state; did nothing to quash a proposal by none other than the Chief Justice (then) to replace common law with Syariah law; rejected a proposal to set up an inter-faith council; told ministers within his own Cabinet to withdraw their memo to him calling for a review of laws that affect the rights of non-Muslims? One could go on.

Well, to go on to next in the hierarchy, Najib’s address this year was themed ‘Reaching for the Stars — Elevating a National Civilisation’, doubtless to ride on the “Malaysians walking a few inches taller” hype generated by the first Malay to go into space. I note a resolute semantics when one man’s ‘space tourist’ is another man’s ‘angkasawan’, while a cynic’s ‘joyride’ is the administration’s ambitious ‘space programme’.

The use of  ‘angkasawan’ is blatantly deliberate; I find the English papers parroting this Malay word too. I’d read earlier that Nasa does not see Dr Sheikh Mustaphar Sheikh Abdul Shukor as an “astronaut” but rather a “space participant”. Is the ‘angksawan’ another case of Boleh creative accounting (adding and subtracting)?

Given the political reality we are in, a reality that has evolved under a campaign of institutionalised racial discrimination over the last 30-plus years, very few Malaysians would have expected the candidate for space to be other than a Malay. The non-Malay contenders were, to put it brutally, merely tokens. The final selection came as no surprise then.

The more cynical among us would also have deduced that it was all part of the Malay agenda of creating “towering Malays”. And there was not only one candidate, there were two. The second is now a spaceman-in-waiting, and to all intents and purposes, he will get his day in the stratosphere, because he will add to the list of “towering Malays”.

(I like the use of the term “spaceman” to describe each of our two aspiring angkasawan; as my dear friend Azmi Sharom pointed out astutely in his column for The Star recently, Sheikh Muszaphar is a man and he was in space.) More important, however, are the questions on a lot of people’s minds: What did our spaceman really achieve? And what has our nation achieved? Did we build our own rocket? Did we find a new way of going to space?

I would say we found a new ‘leng chai’ poster boy to set women’s heart aflutter …  but in any case, to look back, there was the less than enthusiastic reception of the Everest conquerors that were Indian. Whereas a Malay man swimming the English Channel was rewarded with a Datukship — a feat that even a 12-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy (Thomas Gregory / 11 hr 54 min in 1988) accomplished minus the sort of state support and sponsorship given our Malaysian ‘hero’ Abdul Malek Mydin (17 hr 40+ min).

Non-Malays who have accomplished greater feats tend not to be lionised as much. As you rightly pointed out, the Indians who scaled Mount Everest got short shrift. This also happens in the field of sports.

The Sidek brothers were elevated to legendary status for their success in badminton, totally overshadowing the non-Malay greats who had led the way long before them (Wong Peng Soon, Ong Poh Lim, Ooi Teik Hock, Eddy Choong, Tan Aik Huang, Tan Yee Khan, Ng Boon Bee, etc).

When Mohd Hafiz Hashim won the All-England singles title in 2003, he was rewarded with a car, land, money and a hero’s welcome home. When Koo Kien Keat and Tan Boon Heong won the All-England doubles title last March, they were rewarded with only a fraction of what Hafiz got. Not that such rewards are necessarily good. Sadly, Hafiz hasn’t outdone himself since 2003.

Lack of a maintenance culture.

I have a theory that our performance in sports started to decline with the inception of the NEP. Before that, we had great athletes like Jegathesan, Rajamani, Ishtiaq Mobarak and Nashatar Singh, and our football team was as good as South Korea’s. But from the ’70s onwards, things took a turn for the worse. I put it down to the decline in national morale. And of course also to the team selection criteria.

Where does it all lead?

It all leads to further superficiality. That’s what our leaders are good at — creating the myth of Bolehness by resorting to the accomplishment of superficial ‘feats’. These would include having the tallest flagpole in the world, at one time the tallest building in the world, the paean to Bumiputeraism called Putrajaya (which now appears to be a white elephant), etc, etc. Is there a biggest ketupat in the world too?

Most certainly, but could have been eaten by now.

But what it amounts to realistically is spending millions and billions of ringgit, which you and I contribute to whether we like it or not. To the movers of the cause, it doesn’t matter what the cost is as long as it serves the Bumiputera-building exercise. I think that’s unfair. Non-Bumis also deserve an even chance. We contribute too. I was disgusted when I visited Putrajaya at night a few weeks ago — all that money spent on maintaining it, all that energy to light up the streets and the buildings, and all for what?

To blink at spacemen in Russian stations? But do go on …

I’ll tell you what disgusted me even more recently. When I visited the Independence Memorial in Malacca last May and looked at the exhibits (pictures, write-ups, etc), I found almost everything centred on the efforts of the Malays. The contributions of non-Malay nationalists were blatantly neglected or marginalised. A handful of Chinese and Indian leaders got mentioned in passing, but that was about all.

Unless I missed it, I didn’t even see a single portrait of Tun Tan Cheng Lock in there. And he was the leader of the MCA at the time. Not only that — his record shows that he was a true nationalist who was president of the All Malaya Joint Council for Action (AMCJA) which, together with Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (Putera), rallied for Merdeka long before Umno got wise to the idea.

I don’t buy that ‘National Civilisation’ hogwash. “National” is just another abused word for “Bumiputera”. But many non-Malays have been conditioned into believing the Umno propaganda, first from having their mindset programmed in school, then from being exposed to the spin-doctoring of the mass media daily and the grand-scale theatrical extravaganzas staged by the BN government occasionally.

When the general election comes around, they will probably vote like they have been doing over the decades.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 19 November 2007, 8:21 am and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Mustapha – international marketing officer or Higher Education Minister?

Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad seems  to have lost his proper focus and responsibility, regarding his job more as international marketing officer for Malaysian universities instead of ensuring that Malaysian universities win international recognition as world-class institutions.

Mustapha, on a week-long visit to China to market Malaysian universities,  said in Shanghai yesterday that he wants to see
at least 15,000
 Chinese students coming to Malaysia in three years’ time — more than double the present number.

He said the trend now was for more Chinese students to enrol in the Malaysian public and private universities for post-graduate programmes.

He also announced that his Ministry “will be going around China to market Malaysia as an education hub”.

The Higher Education Ministry has set up an education office in Beijing  to promote Malaysia as a market for foreign students.  A fifth overseas office besides Jakarta, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City and Beijing would be set up in Africa “due to the promising market in the continent”.

There is something very wrong with the spectacle of the  Higher Education Minister leading a delegation to China to market Malaysian universities to Chinese students at a time when the latest world’s Top 200 Universities Rankings released ten days ago showed  a continuing “free fall” of Malaysian universities.

For the first time, there is not a single university in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings for Top 200 Universities.

Both Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Malaya (UM) fell  out of the Top 200 Universities ranking, with UKM plunging from 185th slot last year to 309th while University of  Malaya plunged from 89th in 2004 to 169th in 2005, 192nd in 2006  to 246th in 2007.  Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), which was ranked as the only “outstanding” five-star university in a recent government survey, fell  to 307th spot from 277 last year.

The latest release of the THES-QS  2007 Top University Rankings from No. 201-400 available on the Net has also confirmed that Malaysia has lost out to Thailand for better  university rankings for three consecutive years, as Chulalongkorn University of Thailand is ranked No. 233 in 2007,  161 in 2006 and 121 in 2005 (compared to University of Malaya’s No. 246 in 2007, 192 in 2006 and 169 in 2005).

The second Thai Top University, Mahidol University which is ranked No. 284, is also better placed than Malaysia’s second Top University — USM which is ranked No. 307.

Are these rankings for the past three years proof of permanent inferiority of Malaysian universities to Thai universities, particularly for the Top international rankings?

This however is not the  only dismal result for Malaysian universities in the THES-QS 2007 ranking.  Also for the first time, there is not a single Malaysian university in the separate listing  of Top 100 Universities for five subject areas — Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; Life Sciences and Biomedicine; and Engineering and Information Technology.

Last year Malaysia was placed in four of the 500 slots in the five Top 100 Universities for the five subjects – University of Malaya  ranked 49 in Social Sciences and 95 in Natural Sciences,  UKM No. 62 in Natural Sciences and USM at  No. 96 for Life Sciences and Biomedicine.

This year, Malaysia was completely excluded in all the five listings of  Top 100 Universities for the five categories.

The Higher Education Ministry has planned some 60 promotion programmes overseas this year to attract international students.

Should Mustapha be spearheading the compaign to market universities to the international market or should he be giving top priority to ensure Malaysian universities establish themselves as educational centres of excellence recognized in  World’s Top Universities rankings?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 19 November 2007, 1:02 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on Lingam Tape – grave concerns as no consultation whatsoever and indications of restricted terms of reference

Although the Cabinet last week decided on the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal, and  it is to decide on its terms of reference on Wednesday, I am very concerned that there had been no consultation process whatsoever on its terms of reference and composition in the past five days.

This is a matter of grave concern as all indications point to a very restricted terms of reference which is going to spark a new outcry, as Ministers are still in thick denial of the need for far-reaching judicial reforms to check the rot in the past two decades to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

This could be fathomed from the statements of  two of the three Ministers who had been appointed to study the Haider Report on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.

Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri
Radzi Sheikh Ahmad
gave very clear indication that the terms of reference will be a very restricted one when he said that  the royal commission would have the power to call anyone to assist in its inquiry.

He said:

“In this case, the lawyer seen in the video clip is the primary suspect.

“Once the royal commission is established, and based on its governing enactment and instruments, it has the power to call anyone as a witness.”

He added: “The royal commission can summon anyone it wants — the person who recorded the video, the actor, or the people mentioned in the clip.”

Was Radzi signifying that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will be tightly limited to the Lingam Tape events rather than the fundamental question of the rot in the judiciary because of the prolonged and protracted crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary which had lasted some two decades.

From Radzi’s statement, there are legitimate grounds of concern as to whether the major series of crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, starting with the “mother” of judicial crisis in Malaysia — the sacking of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh — would be completely out-of-bounds for the Royal Commission of Inquiry unless and until they had been explicitly featured in the Lingam Tape?

Such concern have been reinforced by the public stand of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that there is no need for judicial reforms.

Such official attitude was best reflected in the
“On The Beat”
 column of
Star’s

Wong Chun Wei
,
“Let the royal panel do its job”
, who said he agreed with Nazri that “there is not much wrong with our institutions, except that wrong decisions have been made”.

Wong did not realize that he is caught in a maze of  contradiction, as he had earlier admitted that “No one will argue that the judiciary needs an overhaul because its credibility has taken a bashing”,  that “the rot” began when Tun Salleh Abas was sacked as Lord President in 1988 following moves to subjugate the judiciary and that politicians who did not know about the rot in the judiciary “must be hypocritical or living on another planet”.

Yet even Wong was not prepared to support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the additional mandate to make recommendations for judicial reforms to ensure that such rot in the judiciary spanning two decades cannot happen again because of institutional defects in the system.

I call on the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Wednesday not to be so pusillanimous and  lacking in vision as to miss the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades by giving the widest and most comprehensive terms of reference to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the additional mandate to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape should be empowered not only to investigate into every aspect of the issues featured in it, but also all aspects affecting the independence and integrity of the judiciary in the past two decades, starting with the 1988 judicial crisis, the 33-page anonymous letter  of former High Court judge, Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah in 1996 containing 110 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and other improprieties against 10 named judges, as well as the revelations of “corruption” of judges resurfaced  by
V. Thirunama Karasu
, younger brother of lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam  through a media conference by former MP Wee Choo Keong yesterday.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 19 November 2007, 12:46 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Commendable candidates for RCI – Tunku Aziz, Raja Aziz Addruse, Param Cumaraswamy, Yeo Yang Poh and Chooi Mun Sou

I am taken by surprise at the Bernama report quoting the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz as saying that the names of candidates for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and Judiciary will be tabled at tomorrow’s Cabinet.

This is because the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  has given Malaysians the impression that the Cabinet tomorrow will decide on the Royal Commission’s terms of reference, while the Cabinet the following week on the composition of the Royal Commission.

Now the whole process of establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry seems to have been telescoped, without any consultation whatsoever whether on its terms of reference or composition.  This is quite ominous.

I had proposed that scholar Prince,  Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah will be a very good choice as Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to restore confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, although the ideal candidate would be Sultan Azlan Shah especially as he was Lord President during the golden era of the Malaysian judiciary a quarter of a century ago.

I had also suggested some names formerly from the judiciary  as appropriate members of the Royal Commission, namely fomer Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, former Court of Appeal judges Datuk Shaikh Daud and Datuk N. H. Chan and former High Court judge and leading Malaysian jurist Datuk Seri Visu Sinnadurai.

Today, I wish to propose some names from the legal and non-legal circles who will be regarded by all sectors of Malaysian society as eminently qualified to serve on the Royal Commission which must play a critical role to restore national and interenational confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary after almost two decades of ravages and degradation, viz:

	Tunku Abdul Aziz of Transparency  International fame;

	Raja Aziz Addruse — former Bar Council President;

	Datuk Param Cumaraswamy — former United Nations Special  Rapportuer for independence of judges and lawyer;

	Yeo Yang Poh, former Bar Council President; and

	Chooi Mun Sou, member of the three-man Ahmad Nordin Inquiry into the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal in the mid-80s.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 November 2007, 2:42 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


NEP and brain-drain of accountants

Letters

by C H Tan

Can you also address the brain drain within the accounting profession?

We witness in recent years unprecedented outflow of qualified accountants to cities such as New York, Hong Kong, London, Shanghai, San Francisco, etc. This has exarcebated the already-bad-enough exodus across the Causeway. My take is that the main pull factor is the remuneration within the profession in these cities, but I can’t help to think that these opportunities to venture abroad and leave Malaysia (plus the NEP of course) are too good to turn down.

I know most of these beancounters, myself included, have to foresake family and friends in Malaysia for a better career prospect, not only for themselves, but for their children, and children’s children.

Personally, I have lived through the system myself. STPM, fighting for a place in the accounting faculty in University of Malaya, racial polarisation in residential colleges, etc. I have witnessed that at least a good 50% of my fellow coursemates who have packed their backs and moved abroad for a better pay package and hopefully a better quality of life too.

Nonetheless, there is a general consensus amongst us that we still long for a place call home. Being born and bred this country, there is no other cities and country closer to our hearts than our respective hometowns and Malaysia herself.

I will honestly think twice before making a move back when the time comes. This begs the question – what is in store back home? Putting my hand on heart, besides family and childhood friends (friends of all races, contrary to the situation in national schools these days), I can’t see myself calling it a day out here and move back.

There are lots of niggling worries and dilemma that I foresee and fear. Religious freedom. Meritocracy and the ability to compete on equal terms regardless of race. Barbaric politicians overzealously playing the racial cards in the house of parliament with no consideration for long-term nation building. To name a few.

Ultimately, my quandary is simple – finding a place to call home for Malaysians of all races. The only place that I have lived long enough and come to know is Malaysia. Sadly, even at this moment as I am reflecting on the current situation back home, I can’t bring myself to tell the world that I am Malaysian and be truly proud of it.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 November 2007, 7:22 am and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – Chan Kong Choy on-the-run to London to escape further parliamentary scrutiny

I was surprised to read a Bernama report  last night that the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy has left for London to attend the 25th International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Assembly and will not be back until later next week.

My immediate reaction is that the Transport Minister is on-the-run from Parliament to escape accountability for the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal, as the committee stage debate on the Transport Ministry  for the 2008 Budget is scheduled for this Thursday or latest by Monday — when Chan will still be in London.

This is most irresponsible, as Chan knows that the PKFZ scandal will feature prominently in the debate on the Transport Ministry as for the past three months of the parliamentary meeting, no satisfactory answer had been given to the many issues and questions which I had raised repeatedly about the PKFZ scandal.

In fact, last Monday in Parliament during the committee  stage debate on the Finance Ministry,  I had posed the specific question as to why the government  was “on-the-run” on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

I had protested that government ministers were  kicking the issue of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal from one Ministry to another, evading accountability by refusing to give a direct answer to many pertinent questions which I had posed — with the ball being kicked among the Prime Minister’s Department, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Transport with no one wanting to give a proper answer.

I had even simplified the questions on the PKFZ scandal which cry out for answer, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever been sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in mid-year to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the Transport Minister, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”. Kong Choy had said that he did not know that he had no power as Transport Minister to issue such Letters of Support, Was this an acceptable explanation for getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz had said that questions on the PKFZ scandal should rightly be answered by the Transport Minister.

The  Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry, Datuk Seri Dr. Hilmi Yahya when pressed on the issue last Monday, asked that he be allowed to answer by way of written reply. When asked when the written reply would be given, he declined to give any firm date on the ground that a proper study had to be done. When I persisted in asking whether an answer could be forthcoming in a week’s time, as this was not a new issue and had been raised for over two months, Hilmi said he would try.

More than a week had passed and I have not yet received any written reply from Helmi, while Chan has run away to London on the pretext of attending the International Maritime Organisation meeting in London.

Chan should be reminded  that while his international commitments are important, they should not be allowed to  overshadow his responsibilities to Parliament and  Malaysians as Transport Minister.

After all, if Chan  is not Transport Minister, he would be nothing in the International Martime Organisation! This is why he must not forget his roots by running away from his primary responsibilities  to Parliament and Malaysian taxpayers to evade answer and accountability  for the biggest financial scandal in the Abdullah premiership.

If Chan feels that it is very important that he should attend the International Maritime Organisation conference in London which clashes with the parliamentary schedule for the Transport Ministry in the committee stage debate on the 2008 Budget, he could easily ask for the debate on the Transport Ministry to be changed to a later date when he is back from the London  Conference.

Chan must  stand accused of using the International Martime Organisation conference in London as an excuse to run away from Parliament and escape accountability for  the PKFZ scandal in the  2008 Budget committee stage debate on the Transport Ministry, especially as   Chan’s   role in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal is a major and central one.

I have given notice of a RM10 cut motion for the salary of Chan as Transport Minister over his major role in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal — and it will be the height of Ministerial irresponsibility and parliamentary  cowardice for Chan to run away to London when the Transport Ministry comes up for debate on Thursday or Monday.

I have written  a strong protest to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, who is in charge of parliamentary affairs for the Cabinet over the absence of Chan in the debate on the Transport Ministry and to ask that the debate of the Transport Ministry should be stood down until Chan has come back from London to “face the music” over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 November 2007, 12:54 pm and is filed under
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Shame of MIC MP challenging  a woman DAP MP to “fight” outside Chamber – first time in Parliament in 50 years

Deputy Minister for Natural Resources and Environment Datuk S. Sothinathan should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and apologise for challenging a woman DAP MP, Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah) to a fight outside the Chamber yesterday during the winding-up of the 2008 Budget committee debate on his Ministry, when he was completely flustered and unable to reply in an exchange with DAP MPs.  The shameful conduct of Sothinathan is the first time in 50 years of Parliament in Malaysia.

The fracas took place yesterday when he made a baseless charge against me when I raised  the widespread opposition of the people of Kedah to the unfair, arbitrary and illegal increases of quit rent in the state.

Earlier during the debate, I had informed Parliament that 120,000 signatures regardless of race, religion and political beliefs, protesting against the unfair Kedah quit land increases was presented to the Kedah State Government on Sunday, and that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment which has responsibility for co-ordination of land policy, should ensure that the Kedah State Government is more responsible and responsive on the issue.

When the signature campaign opposing the Kedah quit land revision was launched by the Kedah Chinese Assembly Hall on 23rd May 2007 after a year of fruitless protests, there were those who ridiculed the campaign as unlikely to collect even a thousand signatures.

However, within two weeks it collected over 30,000 signatures while in less than six months, there were 120,000 signatures from all races and religions, reflecting the widespread opposition to the unfair, arbitrary and illegal quit land revision in the Kedah state.

The main objections of the Kedah people to the quit land revision were two:

Firstly, the  steep hike in the  increase in quit rent to as high as 900% when in other states the quit rent increases were in the region between 10% to 30%.

Secondly, the illegal revision, with the following examples cited in the signature campaign memorandum:

Klasifikasi (“Classification”)

klasifikasi tambahan khususnya tanah Bandar dalam Bandar kecil dan tanah luar simpanan melayu adalah bertentangan dengan Seksyen 51(2) Kanun Tanah Negara yang Cuma memperuntukkan tiga (3) jenis tanah isitu: 	(a) tanah bandar;  							 	(b) tanah Pekan; dan							    	(c) tanah Desa.

Jenis Penggunaan

Seksyen 52 KTN memperuntukkan tiga jenis penggunaan tanah sahaja seperti berikut:-

(i)	Pertanian;

(ii)	Bangunan; dan

(iii)	Perindustrian.

Tetapi didapati jenis penggunaan tanah telah di sub-kategorikan kepada:-

(i)	Bagi maksud Perindustrian – disub-kategorikan kepada industri berat, industri ringan, industri serdehana, industri perkhidmatan, pelancongan dan sebagainya;

(ii)	Bagi maksud Bangunan — disub-kategorikan kepada hiper market, tapak stesen minyak, tapak hospitak swasta, tapak pendidikan swasta, tapak rekreasi, rumah sesebuah, rumah teres, rumah berkembar dan sebagainya;

(iii)	Bagi maksud Pertanian — tanaman jangka panjang, tanaman jangka pendek, kawasan padi yang diwartakan sebahagian kawasan tuaian dua kali yang dikenakan cukai taliair dan sebagainya.

dimana ianya jelas bertentangan dengan Seksyen 52(1) KTN..

Tanah Luar Simpanan Melayu

Kami mendapati bagi tujuan pembayaran cukai tanah kesemua tanah luar simpanan melayu telah dikira sebagai tanah Bandar walaupun ianya terletak di luar kawasan Bandar.

Dengan kewujudan klasifikasi ini, ia jelas bertentangan dengan Seksyen 51(2) KTN dan berbentuk diskriminasi.

Memperkira Kenaikan-Kenaikan Pada Nilai Tanah Disebabkan Oleh Kemajuan

Seksyen 101(4) Kanun Tanah Negara yang berbunyi:-

“Dalam menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberi oleh seksyen ini Pihak Berkuasa Negeri janganlah hendaknya memperkira kenaikan-kenaikan pada nilai tanah disebabkan oleh kemajuan”

In my speech, I had urged the Federal Ministry in charge of land co-ordination in the country among the various states to liaise with the Kedah State Government to be responsible and responsive on the quit rent revision controversy or the Barisan Nasional will face severe consequences  and lose badly in Kedah in the next general election.

Unfortunately in his reply, Sothinathan chose to play politics by accusing me of trying to “politicize” the issue, leading to a heated exchange where MIC’s role as “slave” to Umno, as proven by its cowed and submissive responses to arrogant Umno actions, like timing the recent Umno General Assembly on Deepavali and castigating ndian news vendors for taking a holiday resulting in the Prime Minister’s Umno Presidential speech not been read the next day because it was a press holiday were cited.

It was in this exchange between Barisan Nasional and DAP MPs that Sothinathan challenged Po Kuan to a “fight” outside the Chamber, which was most disgraceful in setting a new Malaysian parliamentary record of a male MP challenging a female MP to a “fight outside”.

If Sothinathan refuses to apologise, then Samy Vellu should direct him to do so.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 November 2007, 11:52 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RCI on Lingam Tape – refusal to announce Cabinet decisions today does not serve the cause of public confidence

I am very disturbed by the
statement
 by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak last evening that there would be no immediate announcement of the Cabinet’s decisions today on the terms of reference, scope of power and membership of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

Najib, who will be chairing the Cabinet meeting this morning as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is in Singapore for the ASEAN Summit, must be  reminded that it does not serve the cause of public confidence for the government to keep mum after the Cabinet decisions on the terms of reference and composition of the  Royal Commission of Inquiry as it will only reinforce widespread anxieties and suspicions that “the leopard cannot change its skin” and that the Royal Commission of Inquiry would be  so cribbed, cabined  and confined by its terms of reference and scope of power that it would be quite useless in making significant contributions to end the 19-year crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Malaysians expect the Cabinet to set an example of “first-world” and “first-class”  mentality which does not make a mockery of the pledge of Abdullah to lead an administration characterized by openness, accountability, transparency and integrity.

If the Cabinet slams the Official Secrets Act on its decisionss on the Royal Commission of Inquiry today, refusing to announce them and to ban any reporting or disclosure of the Cabinet decisions, how is the Abdullah administration more open, accountable and transparent than the previous administrations? Instead, we seem to be going into reverse.

If the Cabinet this morning has taken decisions on the Royal Commission of Inquiry, then let Malaysians be informed about them without any delay  or the Abdullah Cabinet will be setting a most undesirable example of being evasive and opaque instead  of openness, accountability and transparency –  completely antithetical to Abdullah’s pledge of wanting to lead  a Malaysia with “First World Infrastructure, First-World Mentality”.

If the Cabinet fails  to make public its decisions on the Royal Commission of Inquiry today, Malaysians are entitled to  ask and speculate as to what the government is hiding from the nation and the world.

Or is this just another confirmation of the critique of former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of a “half-past six” Cabinet at work?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 8:56 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sothinathan challenging Po Kuan to a “fight” on YouTube

In his post  from London on the thread

“Shame of MIC MP challenging a woman DAP MP to ‘fight’ outside Chamber – first time in Parliament in 50 years”
,
Chong Zhemin
asked whether the MIC Vice President Datuk S. Sothinathan had challenged woman DAP MP for Batu Gajah Fong Po Kuan or me to a fight.

He said that from what he saw from the video, he thought the Deputy Minister for Natural Resources and Environment was challenging me to a fight. Furthermore, the Chinese newspapers had all reported the next morning that Sothinathan had challenged me to a fight.

Zemin is right about the Chinese newspapers report but they were all wrong. Sothinathan did not challenge me to a fight and the challenge was directed at Po Kuan in the expanded exchange between DAP MPs with BN MPs.

There was a lot of confusion with voices coming from all directions in Parliament and the video of the parliamentary episode, which is available on
YouTube
,  could not capture the full sequence of events.

What is indisputable is the challenge by Sothinathan to Po Kuan to a “fight”. It was only later after DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam Chong Eng intervened that the “fight” interlude was altered to “fighting” in which constituency. But that is a completely separate issue altogether which did not detract or diminish the outrage of the earlier challenge by Sothinathan to Po Kuan to a “fight”!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 10:58 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Last Monsoon Cup

by
Richard Teo

When 28th November comes, the 3rd Monsoon Cup will once again begin in the east coast state of Trengganu. The Heritage Bay Club Marina and Resort in Pulau Duyong, Trengganu will once again become the focus of international attention as it will be hosting the final of the 10 International Legs.

      Once again the people of this state will be treated to an extravaganza costing about $250-$300 million. The foreign sailing fraternity will be feted and pampered by the Monsoon Cup organisers namely Patrick Lim and Khairy, the son-in-law of the P.M.

    Luxurious bungalows costing few millions await to shower the foreign sailing dignitaries with comfort and luxury that only locals could only  dream of.

    For the next few days, the organisers will spare no effort to regale and entertain the mostly foreign participants. Sumptious food and drinks will be served while the local populace can only watch in awe as they bear witness how their oil money previously ear-marked as ‘wang Ehsan’ was to be spent.

    The rally at Batu Burok was just the awakening of the people’s consciousness as to what is happening in their state.The PM and his son-in-law with the connivance of the local UMNOPUTRAS and cronies are in town to rip off the people of Trengganu with the annual grand Monsoon Cup.

      The incident at Batu Burok was an expression of that anger and if that current state of disenchantment continues BN will suffer an ignominous defeat in the coming general election.

      Sadly, history always seems to portray its past in a contradictory manner.It was in Trengganu that Pak Lah sealed a massive victory which saw him capture the state from the opposition PAS. Now it will be in Trengganu that Pak Lah will also face his Waterloo. It will predictably be in Trengganu that this Islam Hadhari leader will face his most ignominous defeat and return the state to the opposition PAS.

   For Pak Lah and his gang of cohorts,it will be the last Monsoon Cup.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 12:13 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Which is Malaysia’s premier university? Nobody knows!

Which is the Malaysian premier university?

Nobody knows and this is a big shame as it is caused not by competition by universities  to be the best but to avoid the bigger plunge in international rankings.

Is it University of Malaya?

Until two years ago, there was no dispute if University of Malaya claimed to be the nation’s premier university — a position it had occupied unchallenged for over three decades.

It was also internationally recognized as the premier university in Malaysia as reflected by the 2004 and 2005 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World Universities Rankings for Top 200 Universities, being positioned No. 89 and 169th slots respectively.

However, it was toppled from the pedestal by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) when UKM  beat University of Malaya in the 2006 THES ranking, placed No.  185 as compared to the 192nd position for  University of Malaya.

Is it UKM then?

UKM’s placing on the top of the university pole in the country  lasted one short year as  in the  2007 THES Top 200 Universities ranking, UKM plunged a shocking 124 places from No. 185 to No. 309, not only behind University of Malaya’s No. 246 but also Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) which is placed No. 307.

Furthermore, in the recent government ranking for public universities, both UKM and University of Malaya were ranked behind USM, the sole university to be placed on the five-star Outstanding category, with no university rated for the top-rung Excellent Category.

Is it then USM, to lay  claim to be the nation’s best university?

Not so, although in the 2004 THES ranking, USM was rated among the Top 200 Universities when placed No. 111, but it plunged 215 places to No. 326 ranking in 2005, 277 in 2006 and 307 in 2007.

With no single university currently able to lay claim as the nation’s premier university, this sad state of affairs is a reflection of the very troubled public university sector.

May be this confusion awaits resolution when a private higher education institution establishes its claim as the nation’s premier university, better than anyone of the public universities — especially as the Chinese government has recognized 43 private universities and colleges as compared to only seven for public universities.

One aspect which had been overlooked in  the latest THES Top 200 Universities ranking is that Malaysia is losing out badly in the international competition for excellence, not only to universities of  developed nations but even those of  developing nations.

Thailand, for instance, has established its superiority in university excellence to Malaysia when for three consecutive years, Chulalongkorn University of Thailand beat Malaysian universities in the THES ranking –121 in 2005, 161 in 2006 and 223 in 2007 as compared to Malaysia’s best of 169 in 2005 (University of Malaya), 185 in 2006 (UKM) and 246 in 2007 (University of Malaya).

Also for the first time in the THES Top Universities Ranking, Malaysia has lost out to three other  third-world nations, viz.

Brazil

University of Sao Paulo — No. 175

University of Campinas –  No. 177

Mexico

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico — No. 192

South Africa

University of Cape Town — No. 200

The only way to restore Malaysia’s pre-eminence in university excellence is to end the policy of mediocrity and its replacement by a policy of meritocracy, with the recruitment of the best students and lecturers for each university coupled with an affirmative policy not based on race but on socio-economic needs.

Otherwise, Malaysian universities will continue to be left more and more behind other countries, including from third-world countries, in the global  race for university excellence.

(Speech at the DAP Petaling Jaya dinner on Tuesday, 20th November 2007 at 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 12:12 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.