Wa Traffic [嘩紅綠燈]

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

华小缩班,还是扩班?


华小缩班,
又是一件政府打压华小的事件, 让人看了除了心痛, 更是无奈。 据俺所知,35人是一班的学生人数顶限,可是为何会出现45这个奇妙的数字呢? 第二, 已经被分配好的的班级, 如果人数少过顶限, 而又被缩回到其他班级, 那其他的班级不又超过了学生人数顶限吗? 为什么这样简单的数学题也搞不清楚?

比如说:
A - 35人、B - 35人、C - 35人、D - 29

由以上例子看出,
D班是显然少过35人, 如果把这29人平均分配到另三班去, 每一班将多出十人不等, 那便出现以下情形了:

A - 45人、B - 45人、C - 44

莫非韩春锦先生的意思是把原有的班级扩大到45人! 那就不叫缩班,而是叫扩班!当俺起初听了华小缩班这个名词, 俺还高兴了一下。 因为在俺的印象中,华小的班级都是满满的。 俺曾经在柔佛和吉隆坡多间华小当过临教和代课, 但从来没见过少与40人的班级。虽然那是多年前的事了, 但俺相信目前的华小也“进步”不到那里去。如今听说要“缩班”,把每班的人数缩到更小, 俺可是乐极了!想不到的是, 教育部竟然开的是倒车。

把所有的责任都推到韩春锦先生那儿似乎也有点说不过去。说来说去, 就是国阵政府由始至终都没有好好的应对华小问题, 甚至是把它边缘化。马华在这方面所做的努力还是不够。就如在旺沙玛朱一带, 华人人口日益激增, 对华小需求也跟着提高, 可是就不见一间华小。俺还记得当时一位马华支会领袖称:“我们已经在秘密进行中。” 可是进行了十年到今天, 俺还见不到一间华小冒出来!

相关消息:
國小少過45人未縮班.家長致電訴不公 2006-06-24 12:25:21 MYT
董教總:其他源流學校沒規定.45人才開班不合理
2006-06-22 12:43:02 MYT
韓春錦:逾45人才可開新班.各源流學校皆一樣
2006-06-21 20:28:36 MYT
韓春錦:不符開班條件.雪25華小須縮班
2006-06-21 13:28:21 MYT
雪華小生減少才縮班.韓春錦解釋非因師資不足
2006-06-20 20:23:20 MYT
韓春錦:據教育部調查.雪縮班非因師資荒
2006-06-19 20:22:35 MYT
縮班措施治標不治本.森三機構責教部開倒車
2006-06-19 20:21:36 MYT
公正黨:師資荒老問題.縮班是邊緣化華小徵兆
2006-06-18 20:14:08 MYT
減輕長期聘臨教負擔.雪部份華小7月縮班
2006-06-18 12:52:53 MYT
林家光:一班超過35學生.華小縮班違教育原則
2006-06-17 20:00:20 MYT
解師資荒聽誰的?雪教局:7月縮班教部:7月解決
2006-06-17 20:00:00 MYT

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Maps of fame and shame


Two maps, similar shape. One with fame; another with shame!

两张地图,形状相似。一张值得骄傲;另一张则带来羞耻!

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Mandarin demand is discriminatory?

Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn said on 1 June that fluent in Mandarin should be made optional in the requirement for prospective employees.

From an employer's perspective, it looks like the HR Minister is putting some intervention on the hiring process. Just imaging if an employer wanted to hire a person who could use a computer software (which is Japanese-based), and one of the requirement is: must conversant in Japanese. But the HR Minister say "No! You should make it optional!". Do you think any other person who know nothing about Japanese could take up the job? It works the same to other languages and apply to any other scenario, besides computer software, such as companies dealing with clients from Chian/Taiwan/Korean/Japan/Arabic countries.

So, why make the employer using such requirement as optional?

I am wondering that seeking a person who are capable of certain language is discriminatory. But I can be sure that looking for somebody of certain race are definitely discriminatory. See the ad (from Jobstreet) below:


Imaging a person who are born to be non-Malay, he or she has no chance at all to apply this position. See more ads below (from The Star):


The first example (circled) stated that as long as you speaks English, you could apply. But requiring only Chinese or Malay is discriminatory because even though you speaks English, if you are an Indian, then you are out! The second and third (circled) example mentioned that only Bumis, and Malay could apply. Now can I ask, which one is discriminatory: language preference or race?

One must understand, the requirement on the language is related to someone's capability. If you don't have such capability, you could always try to acquire it. Every one has equal opportunity, as long as you pick up the right skill, fair? However, the requirement on the race is something that a person could not even change. This make the person totally has no chance at all, no matter how hard he or she tries.

And now, what make the life more miserable is, the government is ENCOURAGING employers to put the words "Bumiputras are encouraged to apply."! So I am wondering what policy is this? Is "encouraging bumi applicants" encouraged; "requirement on Mandarin or Tamil" is considered discriminatory? We, the people in this land of "equal" (according to constitution) would like to hear the explanation.

Related stories:

Fong: Mandarin should be optional [Thursday June 1, 2006]
Mandarin demand is discriminatory [Wednesday May 31, 2006]

Thursday, June 01, 2006

PM, hope you are listening

I read this article from The Sun, and forwarded a copy to myself to my gmail. I believe this letter speaks for most of us. Below is the republication of the letter from The Sun:

watraffic@gmail.com
More options 8:02 pm (0 minutes ago)
---------------------------
An open letter to the PM
By: Jacqueline Ann Surin (Jun 01, 2006)

Dear Prime Minister Abdullah, When you first came into power after the 2004 general election, you promised us that you would be prime minister for all Malaysians.

In fact, I still have the letter you sent out to voters before the elections that promised you would fulfill your duties with sincerity, integrity, efficiency and fairness.

It was a letter that moved people, including staunch Opposition supporters.
There was hope that a new leadership which was more conciliatory, more willing to listen to differing views and more just was in store for the country.

And people invested in that hope by voting the Barisan Nasional back into power with a clear majority.

But recent events, including your administration's reactions to these events, have been deeply troubling.

The most recent has been the disruption of a peaceful and legitimate public forum in Penang organised by a group of non-governmental organisations that wanted to help people reclaim their rights under the Federal Constitution.

It was unfortunate, but really no longer inconceivable, that those who opposed such a civil discussion should frame their opposition in ways that incite hostility, threaten violence and make false accusations in the name of Islam, a religion that in fact promotes peace and justice.

What is actually more troubling is that as prime minister, you have also publicly announced that these issues of Constitutional rights are "sensitive" and the organisers of such events must be careful not to tread on "dangerous ground", lest the government has to use the Sedition Act against them.

Why would you lend legitimacy to the argument that Malaysians should steer clear of discussing issues which affect us all as citizens, whether Muslim or non-Muslim?

By continuously telling Malaysians these issues are "sensitive" and "dangerous", isn't your administration really creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren't you in fact supporting the argument that these issues should not be discussed?

Additionally, Malaysians have been reminded by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz that it's not for no reason that the word "amok" comes from the Malay community.
Non-Muslims - and that easily translates to non-Malays in this country - are told we cannot speak out about the way Islam is used to formulate laws and public policies in this country even though they affect all of us.

We are told that not just the Sedition Act can be used, so can the Internal Security Act which allows for detention without trial.

In fact, I found it deeply paradoxical that Nazri could repeat the threat of the ISA at an international meeting of experts on Islam and human rights last month.

How can an unjust law be Islamic? We know it cannot, and yet, it would seem your administration is wielding it as a way to silence citizens in a democracy.

The way I see it, naming something "sensitive" and "dangerous" is just a disingenuous way of saying, "This is not open for dialogue and discussion. We might tolerate your views but only to a certain extent."

What that extent is, is left to be seen. We hope your election promises will be kept for all Malaysians, but really, many of us are more fearful than reassured.

From a non-Muslim perspective, the events leading up to the need for public discussions such as the Article 11 forum in Penang, have been disconcerting and troubling.

The painful injustice suffered by S. Shamala who found that her estranged husband could unilaterally convert their children to Islam, and the widow of M. Moorthy who discovered she could not bury her husband according to Hindu rights, are real and frightening.

But those instances of injustice are not being framed as "sensitive" by non-Muslims. They are not being used to threaten violence or incite hostility in order to silence discussion of the issues at hand.

Additionally, when you upheld the decision for the tudung to be used in police parades, did you consider how it would make non-Muslims feel? How can it still be a surprise then that most non-Malays will not join the police force?

Really, I don't need to be a Muslim or a Malay to have a stake in this country. But even that might be delegitimised because in more ways than one, I'm a minority.

And I'm constantly reminded that my views and concerns must give way to the privileges and rights of the dominant race, and a specific interpretation of the faith they profess.

But really what I want to ask you is this: Why do I have to constantly feel afraid in my own country? Why am I continuously told I have less rights to discuss important issues affecting my community?

You promised to be prime minister for all Malaysians. We hope you will remember that promise.


A Malaysian citizen.

Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun.

--- end ---
--- Article Information ---
This article was emailed from Welcome to Sun2Surf.Article's URL: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=14290