TwoSen

I DISAGREE with Kontan (”A publicity stunt, it appears” — NST, Sept 25) that Teresa Kok is seeking cheap publicity by complaining the food served while in detention was “slightly better than dog food”.

I think it is important she highlighted this issue because it is the welfare of prisoners and those under Internal Security Act detention that is of great concern.

This is certainly not about Kok seeking cheap publicity or expecting five-star treatment.

The food served should at least be clean and nutritious.

It is hoped the authorities will take this seriously and not close one eye and say the food served is of international standard.

F.P.C. , Petaling Jaya

Source: NST – September 26, 2008

THE Education Ministry has issued a directive to all schools to hold their final examination from Oct 30. One can’t help but wonder whether the ministry took into consideration the forthcoming Deepavali festival (on Oct 27) when it set the date.

With the examination just three days after Deepavali, one can’t help but wonder just how much of a celebration it will be for those students who observe the festival.

The strain of the examination will certainly affect the pupils, students, parents and teachers alike.

Another issue to consider is that after the examination, teachers have only 10 working days to complete their marking, prepare report cards or streaming and see to other necessary preparations to end the school year.

The Education Ministry should seriously look into the matter and address it promptly.

R.M. , Malacca

Source: NST – September 26, 2008

THE 35 per cent increase in bus fares effective from Sept 15 to Oct 15 applies only to express buses, yet stage bus operators have also increased their fares.

What made me angry was that when I called the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board to complain, the officer told me to make a written complaint.

Stage-bus operators are openly cheating their passengers. Yet nothing is being done to nab these errant operators.

L.P. , Port Dickson

Source: NST – September 26, 2008

IT started with a request in the Dewan Negara for the government to take steps to improve the English proficiency of students in schools by teaching certain subjects in English.

This led to a decision to use English to teach Science and Mathematics. Unfortunately, the story did not end there as it was reported in the newspapers that examination results revealed a gap between rural, semi-urban and urban schools.

Now the controversy is focused on whether English should continue to be used for the teaching of Science and Mathematics.

One group wishes the English language to continue to be used while another group would prefer the subjects to be taught in Bahasa Malaysia as was done previously.

Cogent reasoning was put forward on the need to be proficient in English.

Without proficiency in that language, young graduates will find it difficult to get suitable jobs befitting their academic qualifications.

This is the information age. We are sunk if we do not have the ability to access sources of information in English. English is very important for our survival in a globalised world.

In stressing the importance of the English language, someone wrote that English was the language of science and technology.

Another emphasised that English was the lingua franca of commerce, trade and international relations.

Yet another pointed out that the English language was the undisputed lingua franca “especially in this information technology age where knowledge spreads fast and authoritative reference books are in English”.

It is quite relevant in this discussion to view the importance of the English language in the world as arguments have been based on its global supremacy.

On the question of English as the language of science and technology, someone asked whether English was the language of science in Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and in may other countries which have made great strides in science and technology.

There are several factors for the growing importance of the English language in the world today.

Britain and France insisted on the use of their languages in their colonies. Two centuries of British and American colonial, commercial, industrial, scientific and fiscal power left a substantial legacy in higher education, government, trade and technology throughout the world.

Since World War 2, the dominance of the English-speaking peoples in science and technology and international commerce has led to the recognition of English as an important language.

Is English the world’s language? There is no evidence to support the proposition that an increasing proportion of the world’s population is speaking English. On the contrary, available statistics show just the opposite.

The data covering the period from 1958 to 1992 suggest that the overall pattern of languages used in the world did not change dramatically — that significant declines occurred in the proportion of people speaking English, French, German, Russian and Japanese and that increases occurred in the proportion of people speaking Hindi, Malay-Indonesian, Arabic, Bengali, Spanish, Portuguese and other languages.

English speakers in the world dropped from 9.8 per cent in 1958 to 7.6 per cent in 1992. A language foreign to 92 per cent of the people in the world cannot be the world’s language.

People need to communicate with each other and have to find means to do so.

Throughout history, lingua francas have emerged: Latin in the classical and medieval era, French for several centuries in the west, Swahili in many parts of Africa and now English throughout much of the world since the latter half of the 20th century.

Diplomats, businessmen, scientists, tourists and the services catering for them, airline pilots and air traffic controllers need some means of efficient communication with each other, and do it largely in English.

In this sense, English is the world’s way of communicating inter-culturally. The use of the English language in this way presupposes the existence of separate cultures.

A lingua franca is a way of coping with linguistic and cultural differences, not a way of eliminating them. Precisely because people want to preserve their own cultures, they use a lingua franca to communicate with people of other cultures.

In Malaysia and other countries which were once under colonial rule, the use of English tends to decline and indigenous languages, such as Malay, become more prevalent.

Lingua francas like English cannot supplant the use of indigenous languages.

Proficiency in the use of the English language is a problem not only among students but also among teachers and heads of schools. People in rural and semi-urban areas hardly use English and, unlike those living in urban areas, have little contact with those who use English.

The question which needs to be answered is how to help people gain proficiency in English. Nothing much can be done so long as there is no change in society which requires a greater use of English.

What about the university graduates who can’t find employment because their English is poor? The obvious answer is for them to take the initiative on their own to study English.

Now we go back to the first question: whether to continue using English as the medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics or revert to the practice of using the national language.

A visiting senior lecturer at Universiti Malaysia’s Faculty of Education, Bill Templer, has pointed out that research in North America on English-language learners with immigrant backgrounds suggests that learning complex material in the pupil’s first language helps to lay better conceptual foundations and ultimately to strengthen progress in the second language.

People need to feel proud of their own background, home language, values and realities (”Students’ attitudes” — NST, Aug 11).

I, therefore, strongly support Khairy Jamaluddin’s suggestion that it is high time we ditched the policy of using English as the medium of instruction for the teaching of Science and Mathematics.

DATUK SERI MOHAMED KHALIL HUSSEIN, Kuala Lumpur

Source: NST – September 26, 2008

THANK you for Elizabeth John’s article on my book, The Lizard King (”A work of fiction, says Wildlife Department” — New Sunday Times, Sept 21). She has captured well the essence of the story.

I was disappointed, however, with the response of the Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan). It called The Lizard King “a fiction” and, in a letter to you, accused me of an “irresponsible act by the author to damage and tarnish the good name, integrity and commitment” of Perhilitan.

The letter complimented Anson Wong for running his business “legally and complying (with) the needs and requirements under domestic law”.

I found it strange that a government agency would vouch for a private businessman. But, if that is the department’s position, then it should feel reassured by my facts: all quoted references regarding the relationship between Wong and an officer or officers at Perhilitan were made by Wong himself in telephone conversations recorded by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of its investigation, or in faxes or emails written by Wong to an American undercover agent. (My other reference to Perhilitan was a letter written on Wong’s behalf by a Perhilitan officer.)

In December 2000, Wong pleaded guilty in the United States to smuggling protected reptiles into the US from Malaysia. Wong’s arrest was the culmination of one of the largest international wildlife investigations in history, involving Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico and the US.

Based in Penang, Wong admitted trafficking US$500,000 (RM1.7 million) worth of animals over a three-year period, and was sentenced to 71 months in prison.

Since Wong smuggled a large number of wildlife from Malaysia, it is possible that a Perhilitan officer or officers were complicit in these transactions, as Wong repeatedly said on tape, or that Perhilitan officers responsible for monitoring Wong’s business did not do so effectively.

Those concerned about wildlife would realise that I had no intention to “tarnish” Perhilitan. Instead, they might respond to my book the way the Royal Malaysian Customs Department did — promising “it would investigate the incident implicating one of its officers”.

BRYAN CHRISTY, Philadelphia, United States

Source: NST – September 26, 2008

Source: Anwar should stop playing games

The Sun – September 25, 2008

Source: Transport authority option

The Sun – September 25, 2008

THE debate on whether to teach Mathematics and Science in English will never end because of the perception of the many quarters who are directly
or indirectly involved.

We should acknowledge that the government has spent hundreds of millions or even a few billions on this ambitious project. Whether the objective has been achieved or not, we should look at the issue in a broader perspective. The project is still in the infancy stage. Six years is not long enough to gauge its success. It has just completed one cycle of a child’s education. To abandon the project now is not only a waste of money, it will send the wrong message to students, parents and teach - er s. I cannot imagine the government spending hundreds of millions again to revert to teaching Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin and Tamil. I shudder to think of the consequences for the next six years. I am not promoting English as the lingua franca, but am merely hoping that the efforts we have put in so far are not washed downthe drain. If students can comprehend the subject, it matters not in what language they are taught. As for Science and Mathematics teachers, don’t be shy to make mistakes. We all learn from mistakes. After all, English Language teachers are paid incentives. Make full use of them. With practice and perseverance, I am sure you will be able to overcome all obstacles.

JAYARAJ K.G.S. , Sitiawan

Source: NST – September 25, 2008

THERE is intense debate, nailbiting and speculation about the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English.

Until and unless our politicians, education policymakers and others who act as advisers to the government on educational issues realise that what they decree as political dogma today affects generations in the years to come, there is no point in continuing. In my opinion, the rot set in three decades ago. In our desire to push ahead, students were fast-tracked through courses that held no interest and were probably unsuitable for them. They were persuaded to complete these courses anyway, to fill some official quota or statistic. Thus, institutions of higher learning began mass-producing teachers and lecturers who were not qualified to teach, let alone be the ones to guide our current generation of students. I have observed “English” teachers who cannot string words logically together. Their command of the language is poor. Moreover, as teachers, they fail abysmally, as they do not and cannot inspire and motivate, nor are they able to discipline their charges. So who can blame our current crop of students if they are unable to comprehend or show any interest in these two subjects? It is no wonder that these same students also seem passive and unassertive. In essence, they are bored. I consider it pointless tr ying to appease everyone by dictating that these subjects be taught in both English and Bahasa Malaysia. No one benefits and it is a waste of useful resources. In the end, it is the students who suffer most. I have also ascertained that it is not only the quality of our teachers, or rather their ability to teach in English, that is bad. We also have to look at the schooling environment. Are our laboratories and teaching methods of any merit? Are our textbooks clear, legible and interesting? Do these teaching aids help inspire? Are they creative enough to stimulate in young minds the desire to know more about these subjects? At the higher levels of learning, are students able to keep up with the information from the wider academic world? Most journals and papers on scientific and mathematical matters are in English. Change is good but in this context, the switch from English to Bahasa Malaysia in the blink of an eye may spell disaster for us. Students (and teachers) will be confused. Our education system will end up in tatters. Companies that used to look to Malaysia to recruit English-speaking graduates will look elsewhere, for example, India. Might I add that education is a matter of being aware, of exploring in our minds what the world has to offer, exposing ourselves to other ideas, good or bad, and making rational and logical deductions and c o n c l u s i o n s. Education is the ability to challenge ideas, even if they contradict our own, and to be able to change for the better. If we as adults feel threatened by debate and then strive to shut these people up, then we are doing ourselves and these students a disservice. If we feel that to exclude Bahasa Malaysia is being anti- Malaysian, then we are indeed being short-sighted and are denying our students a future in the global world. So, we can make a start when our education policymakers are brave enough to adopt changes for an education that is worthy and beneficial to for thcoming generations.

MARIAM MOKHTAR, Ipoh

Source: NST – September 25, 2008

ON the issue of whether the teaching of Science and Mathematics should be in Bahasa Malaysia or English, let us consider this: Could our angkasawan have achieved his ambition if he had not received his education in English?

This is not to imply that education in Bahasa Malaysia has not been successful. With an education in Bahasa Malaysia, the country has progressed to possibly achieve developed status by 2020.

Our present system of education has the necessary infrastructure and resources to provide for the teaching of Science and Mathematics in both Bahasa Malaysia and English. This dichotomy between Bahasa Malaysia and English as the medium of education should not be an issue as both languages can easily be successfully used.

If it was accepted that both languages would be used, there should be no urban-rural dichotomy.

There should not be any preconceived idea of teaching in English only in urban settings and in Bahasa Malaysia only in rural settings.

Avoid a solution where one system fits all. Choose the language that would be more effective to achieve a particular goal, irrespective of urban or rural settings.

PHILIP LOO KIM SENG, Kuala Lumpur

Source: NST – September 25, 2008