双赢的局面：通过学校搬迁转变马来西亚华小教育

Note: If you are using mobile phone to read this blog, please scroll down and click on 

View Web Version. 

This will enable you to access the side panel to see  a list of postings under different categories, to select articles of your interest to read. Thanks! 

马来西亚的教育生态系统是一幅充满活力的织锦，反映了我们国家的丰富多样性。在这个体系中，华文小学（SJK(C)）长期扮演着关键角色，为国家的学术卓越和多元语言特质做出了重大贡献。然而，这个体系正面临一个矛盾的挑战：由于人口结构变化，东马和乡村地区的学校招生不足，而西马城市中心的学校却人满为患，需求空前

这不应是一个被哀叹的问题，而是一个亟待抓住的独特策略的机遇。我们有机会实施一个远见的解决方案，让每一位利益相关者——学生、教师、家长乃至国家本身——都能受益。提案很明确：系统性地将已停办的乡村华文小学的操作准证，重新安置到高需求的城市地区以建立新学校。

这不仅仅是行政上的重新安排，更是一项旨在追求教育卓越和国家团结的变革性策略。

解决过度拥挤和行政超负的双重危机

在巴生谷、槟城和新山等地的热门华文小学，原本为35名学生设计的教室挤进了45甚至50人。除了教室问题，行政管理负担也极其巨大。学生人数超过2000人的学校宛如小型企业，给校长及其团队带来了不可持续的压力。他们的工作重心从教育领导和教师支持转移到了危机管理、物流和人群控制上。

这种环境直接阻碍了教育部培养批判性思维、创造力和全面发展的目标。通过在这些城市地区创建新学校，我们可以实现两个重要目标：将班级人数减少到30人或更少的教学最优水平，并极大减轻这些“超级学校”的行政负担，让其领导层能够专注于真正重要的事情：教学质量和学生福利。

促进国民团结的强大引擎

这项倡议得到了一个在城市华文小学中日益常见的美好景象的支持：不同背景的学生在一起学习。非华裔家庭对这些学校的日益青睐，证明了其学术质量，也是我们国家结构的积极迹象。

这一趋势应得到鼓励和支持。通过重新安置准证，在多元种族的城市地区建立新学校，我们不仅仅是在建造华校；我们是在建立融合中心。我们正在创造空间，让所有社群的孩子可以并肩学习、分享文化体验、建立持久的友谊。这项政策直接支持通过教育培养团结的国家目标，使这些新学校成为现代、多元文化马来西亚的灯塔。

不容错过的机遇：一个提升质量的准证

新华文小学的准证是有限的。然而，我们有一个天然的解决方案：那些因不再 可用 而空出的学校准证正变得可用。与其让这些准证失效，我们不如将它们重新定位为国家教育资产。

这是一项财政上审慎且政治上有智慧的策略。它利用体系内现有的许可来直接回应已得到证实的需求——既来自华社，也来自非华社。这是一个务实的、基于证据的方法，用一个聪明的方案解决多个问题。

为每位利益相关者带来好处

这项政策是罕见的多赢方案。

1.  对学生而言： 减少班级人数是经充分证明能提高学生成绩的最重要因素之一。每个孩子都能得到更多个性化关注，从而带来更好的理解和更强的师生关系。
2.  对教师和行政人员而言： 这是对我们教育工作者 最大 的支持。教师得以摆脱倦怠，重新发现教学的乐趣，而超负学校的校长们则可以重获教育领导力，而不必再充当全职经理。
3.  对家长（所有种族）而言： 这项倡议扩大了 他们的孩子获得 备受追捧的优质教育jiui，让更多马来西亚家庭——无论背景如何——都能获得他们期望的教育机会。缓解了与入学季节相关的巨大焦虑。
4.  对教育部而言：此策略与提升教育标准和培养国民团结的国家议程完美契合。它展示了响应迅速和创新的治理——用一个聪明的内部解决方案解决紧迫的社会问题。

呼吁共同愿景

我们理解其中涉及的复杂性。土地 、资金和规划需要社区组织、州政府和教育部之间的仔细协调。

然而，社区的意愿是强烈的。家教协会和教育基金会一定能够准备好合作、筹款，并与政府携手实现这一目标。

我们敦促教育部将此视为一个 合作的 机遇，而非挑战。让我们共同努力，为这些学校准证的搬迁建立一个清晰的框架。

这关乎为所有马来西亚孩子建设更美好的未来。这是一个用专注学习取代过度拥挤、用高效管理取代行政压力、并积极培育这些教室中正在播下的国民团结种子的机会。

让我们勇敢果断。让我们制定策略。让我们抓住这个双赢的机遇，巩固我们国家未来的基础。


颜淑女博士

前教育学副教授

Universiti Putra Malaysi

Bullying beyond schools and workplaces

This write-up was published in the Sun on 17 Oct 2024 pg.10

Bullying in schools, workplaces, and on social media has been increasingly highlighted in recent headlines. Is this issue more rampant now? Not necessarily. Bullying has long been a significant problem, but increased awareness and expanded reporting platforms have brought it more into the spotlight. Social media, in particular, has extended bullying beyond traditional environments, allowing cyberbullying to occur anytime and anywhere. This makes it more pervasive, persistent, and harder to escape, which can give the impression that bullying is more common today.

Bullying is often viewed as a social malaise, but it is actually both a social and psychological problem, involving complex interactions between individual behavior and societal dynamics. Its causes are multifaceted, including power imbalances, social hierarchies, and psychological factors like insecurity, aggression, or a desire for control. Women and girls, especially, are often disproportionately affected by bullying, typically by men in positions of power. Factors like power dynamics and psychological motivations often contribute to this behavior, where traditional gender roles and societal norms perpetuate male dominance. Men who bully women often have underlying psychological issues such as low self-esteem, a need for validation, or past experiences of abuse. These issues can drive them to project their insecurities onto others, particularly women they perceive as vulnerable.   

In Malaysia, school and workplace bullying are handled by the Ministry of Education and other relevant ministries and government agencies, while cyberbullying is addressed by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). Despite these efforts, improvements in policies and enforcement are needed to more effectively address bullying in all its forms.

One overlooked area is perhaps bullying within private sports and social clubs, as well as thousands of societies/associations such as Residents’ Associations; including political parties and NGOs, all of which come under the purview of the Registrar of Societies (ROS) in the Ministry of Home Affairs. These entities play an important role in community bonding, but bullying can lead to divisions and a less cohesive community. Addressing bullying in these settings will foster healthier communities and reinforces positive social standards.

A recent case of blatant bullying of a lady member through abuse of power by its leadership in a prominent sports and social club of Royal status in the Klang Valley has underscored the need for ROS to take a more proactive role in ensuring good governance in clubs to curb this bullying issue. Bullying within a club, particularly when involving individuals in authority/power who selectively enforce rules or apply discriminatory punishments, -- to the extent of breaching club constitutional rules to impose a wrongful conviction -- undermines the integrity of the club and alienates members. The Societies Act provides a framework for overseeing club activities, but enhancements to this oversight could offer better protection to members, especially if good governance based on the rule of laws is emphasized. Suggestions include:

1. Strengthen Oversight and Monitoring Mechanisms

Enhanced Reporting Systems: ROS could implement a reporting mechanism (much like the ADU@KL of DBKL) where members can complain and report instances of bullying, discrimination, or unfair treatment without fear of retaliation. This would allow issues to be addressed at an early stage before they escalate to legal suits in court.

Regular Audits and Inspections: ROS could conduct more frequent and unannounced audits of clubs -- especially for those with a track record or history of disputes and court cases with members -- focusing on compliance with constitutional rules and byelaws. Audits could include reviews of how rules are enforced and whether there is evidence of discrimination or bias.

External Ombudsman: Establishing an independent ombudsman for clubs and societies could provide a neutral party to whom grievances can be reported. This role could ensure that all complaints are investigated fairly and that corrective actions are taken in a timely manner.

2. Clearer Guidelines on Governance and Accountability

Transparent Rule Enforcement: ROS could mandate that clubs provide clear, written policies on how rules are enforced, including specific criteria for punishments and disciplinary actions. This would help ensure that enforcement is consistent and fair. In the case cited above, the lady member was punished disproportionately with 3 months’ suspension and RM 500 fine based on a wrongful conviction. This double punishment is rare and unprecedented in the club, and is widely perceived by club members as a case of bullying, selective prosecution and victimization.

Mandatory Training for Club Officials: Implementing mandatory training for club officials on ethical leadership, anti-bullying, and anti-discrimination practices would help foster a more inclusive environment. This training could be required by ROS as part of the process for elected or appointed club positions.

Governance Audits: Periodic governance audits by ROS could assess the fairness and transparency of decision-making processes within clubs. These audits could be used to evaluate the extent to which officials adhere to ethical governance standards and rules of law.

3. Enhanced Legal Recourse and Enforcement

Stronger Legal Consequences for Misconduct: ROS could work with legal authorities to establish clearer legal consequences for club officials who engage in bullying or discriminatory practices. This could include penalties for clubs and individual officials that fail to take action against bullying or are themselves involved in bullying!

Empowered Mediation and Arbitration Services: Offering mediation and arbitration services through ROS could provide a formal pathway for resolving disputes between members and leadership. This could be an alternative to legal action, providing a quicker, less costly way to address grievances.

In conclusion, it goes without saying that regular reviews of the Societies Act would help keep governance practices of clubs and societies up-to-date with current challenges, including the issues of bullying. This review process could include input from members of the public, legal experts, and civil society to ensure a broad perspective on needed updates.

East West Center Alumni & Friends Get Together

 

Date: 29 August 2003 Time: 7 pm to 9 pm KL time Hosted by President of the East West Center, Suzanne-Vares Lum

Venue: Element Kuala Lumpur 8 Lorong Binjai Kuala Lumpur 50450 Malaysia About 50 alumni and friends turned up for the reception.

ChatGPT cannot solve math problems?

According to a test done by someone in the US, ChapGPT cannot solve a simple Grade 5 math problem. I am not surprised, as it is not built for math, it is an AI language model. 

Anyway, here's the problem posed to ChatGPT:

Q:  Klein read 30 pages of a book on Monday and 1/8 of the book on Tuesday. He completed the remaining 1/4 of the book on Wednesday. How many pages are there in the book?

Here's the answer from ChatGPT, after a long few minutes!

Let's represent the total number of pages in the book by "x".

Klein read 30 pages on Monday, so the remaining number of pages in the book is (x - 30).

On Tuesday, he read 1/8 of the book, which is (1/8)x pages. So the remaining number of pages in the book after Tuesday is (x - 30 - (1/8)x) = (7/8)x - 30.

On Wednesday, he completed the remaining 1/4 of the book, which is (1/4)(7/8)x = (7/32)x pages.

Since Klein completed the entire book on Wednesday, we can set up an equation:

(7/8)x - 30 - (7/32)x = x

Simplifying this equation, we get:

(21/32)x = 30

Multiplying both sides by (32/21), we get:

x = 45.71 (rounded to two decimal places)

Therefore, there are approximately 45.71 pages in the book.

A simple solution made complex!!! What is your answer? 48? 

My conversation with ChatGPT about China and the US

Just how "intelligent" is ChatGPT? The following is a Q & A session I had with ChatGPT to find out a bit about how it works. My ultimate goal is, of course,  to determine how CharGPT can be used as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. Looks like I need to do much more testing to come up with a workable model for this purpose. 

For starters, the prelim test of a simple Q & A was done to set the parameters within which ChatGPT works:  

Q: What is China's 12 point peace plan for Russia-Ukraine war in 2023?

I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I do not have access to current events beyond my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, and I cannot predict future events. It's best to consult reputable news sources or diplomatic channels for information regarding any developments related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

And now, here's my  Q & A session with ChatGPT: 

One China Policy and the US

Q1: Does one China policy mean that US recognise Taiwan as an integral part of China?

Yes, the One China Policy is a diplomatic policy in which the People's Republic of China (PRC) asserts that Taiwan is an integral part of China. As a result, countries that adhere to the One China Policy do not officially recognize Taiwan as a separate sovereign state but instead recognize the government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China. The United States recognizes the One China Policy and officially acknowledges the government of the PRC as the only legitimate government of China, including Taiwan as part of China.

Q2: If the US adheres to the One China Policy, doesn't it mean that it should not interfere if China takes over Taiwan to rule it as a province of China?

The One China Policy does not imply support for any specific actions or policies regarding Taiwan, including the use of force by China to take over Taiwan. The policy is primarily a diplomatic stance that acknowledges China's position that Taiwan is a part of its territory, and it does not prejudice the U.S. position on the future status of Taiwan.

The U.S. has long supported a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue, calling on both sides to engage in constructive dialogue to find a peaceful solution that is acceptable to both parties. The U.S. has also maintained its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for the U.S. to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons to help maintain its self-defense capabilities.

In summary, while the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy, it does not necessarily imply that the U.S. will not take action to defend Taiwan or support a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue.

Q3: Isn't it interference of China's sovereignty and internal or domestic governance if US insists on preventing China from re uniting with Taiwan, a part of China?

The issue of Taiwan is a complex one, and the question of whether it is a part of China or an independent sovereign state is a matter of dispute. While China claims Taiwan as part of its territory, Taiwan operates independently and has its own government, military, and economy.

From the perspective of the U.S. government, the question of Taiwan's status is a matter of international peace and stability. The U.S. recognizes the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the region, and any unilateral attempt to change the status quo, including the use of force, would be a serious concern for the U.S. government.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of supporting a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue through dialogue and diplomacy, and it has made clear that any resolution must be acceptable to both sides. The U.S. also maintains its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for the U.S. to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons to help maintain its self-defense capabilities.

In short, while the U.S. acknowledges China's claim to Taiwan as a part of its territory, it also recognizes the importance of preserving peace and stability in the region and supporting the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan. As such, the U.S. may take actions that it deems necessary to protect those interests.

Q4: Why should US protect the democratic rights of Taiwan people if it recognises Taiwan as a part of China? 

The U.S. government recognizes Taiwan as a vibrant democracy with a strong commitment to human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Taiwan is a valued partner of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region, and the U.S. has an interest in ensuring that Taiwan remains a peaceful and stable society that is able to exercise its democratic rights and freedoms without interference from outside forces.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of promoting democracy and human rights around the world, and it believes that these values are essential to maintaining peace, stability, and prosperity in the international system. As such, the U.S. may take actions to protect the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan and support their ability to participate fully in the international community.

While the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy, it does not preclude the U.S. from taking actions to support the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan, or to defend Taiwan from external threats. The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its interests and those of its allies in the region, and this may require the U.S. to take actions that support the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan.

Q5: I think your views about US protecting Taiwan against PRC are warped and rather illogical....

As an AI language model, I do not hold opinions or views, but rather provide information based on available sources and facts. I strive to present a balanced and objective perspective on the topic at hand.

Regarding the question of the U.S. role in protecting Taiwan, it is a complex issue with differing perspectives and opinions. The U.S. has a longstanding commitment to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and has maintained close ties with Taiwan since the establishment of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979.

While the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy and acknowledges China's position on Taiwan, it also has an interest in maintaining a peaceful and stable environment in the region, which includes protecting the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan. The U.S. has stated that it does not support unilateral changes to the status quo, including the use of force, and that any resolution to the Taiwan issue must be peaceful and acceptable to both sides.

Ultimately, the question of the U.S. role in protecting Taiwan is a matter of international relations and diplomacy, and it will continue to be debated and discussed by experts, policymakers, and stakeholders on all sides.

So, what have you learnt about the limitations and strengths of ChatGPT based on the prelim simple test above? 

Seniors' Wildgoose Chase for Sinovac Booster

December 2021

One of the recent announcements from the MOH (Ministry of Health) is that all seniors aged 60+ who have received two doses of Sinovac earlier will have their fully vaccinated status withdrawn in February 2022 if they do not get their booster shots by then. It is not mentioned though if the booster must be Pfizer which is provided free. Given such urgency as reflected by the stern warning, does the authority wonder why many seniors are still dithering?       

When 40% of the seniors did not show up for their booster shot appointments in November last year, for whatever reasons, the authority responded quickly with various announcements. It was from the horses’ mouths, through their tweets or media statements, we learnt that Sinovac boosters would be approved soon by the MOH and made available at PPVs (Pusat Perkhidmatan Vaksinasi) nationwide, in STAGES. Seniors, especially those who cannot take Pfizer boosters because of medical issues, can now request for Sinovac at the PPVs they are assigned to. However, up until end of December last year, when these seniors received their booster shot appointments – some for the 5^th time!!! -- they found that Sinovac booster is still either unavailable at the PPVs, or they have to PAY for it! Some irate seniors quipped that announcements by the various authorities in November last year were like smoke screens, ambiguous and lack clarity, leading to confusion and false expectations. Perhaps it was a case of the media reporters misquoted or misinterpreted the tweets and announcements? We hope the authority will quickly clarify this matter by stating explicitly if it is MOH or Cabinet decision that seniors must either take the free Pfizer boosters or PAY for Sinovac boosters.

Given that worldwide, vaccine booster is a highly politicized issue, with experts and various studies offering conflicting opinions and conclusions, it is important that rakyat are not forced to accept the mandate “take the Pfizer booster for free, or PAY for Sinovac booster if you need it”.

One can understand the need to speed up the booster program before the huge stockpile of costly vaccines expires. But the MOH must get its priorities right and be more systematic in the booster roll-out operations. It is really not a Herculean task to find out the reasons behind the 40% no-show for booster appointments, and follow up with appropriate actions. One just needs to look into the database, identify those who need Sinovac boosters because of medical issues or fear of heterologous boosters, and let them get their desired boosters soonest possible. As it is, until quite recently, boosters have been offered to walk-ins of all ages rather randomly. A friend who accompanied her mother for her booster appointment at a PPV found the venue so crowded that they had to stand and wait in the hot sun for hours. It is no surprise that the duo decided to just return home to wait for another appointment!

Over the past two month or so, there was sporadic news of free Sinovac boosters being given in PPVs in the Northern states of Kedah and Penang, Triang in Pahang, and even in Senawang Convention Center in Seremban. There were reportedly long lines of walk-ins, including some anxious seniors who started to queue from as early as seven in the morning to ensure getting the Sinovac boosters. Surely the authority should feel some compassion for them, especially if they are the ones who cannot take the Pfizer booster because of some medical issues? Why subject these seniors to such hardship and unnecessary risk? This aside, why is there still no clear plan or schedule of where the ‘promised’ Sinovac vaccines are being sent to nationwide? Why such a haphazard way of distribution? Can ProtectHealth website do more than just listing the PPVs? Perhaps they can include contact information and also state clearly what vaccines are available for FREE at which PPVs and when? This will save a lot of frustrations having to find the contact information of PPVs and then call them – often to no avail-- to find out what vaccines are available.

Sometime last month, Selangor started offering about 15,700 free Sinovac boosters, supposedly to complement the effort of the Federal Government. However, it seems to be for walk-ins too with no priorities for seniors. It is not clear where the state government has acquired or purchased the Sinovac boosters. Whatever, this program presents a glimmer of hope for many seniors in the Klang Valley who had been frustrated with their wildgoose chase for the elusive free Sinovac boosters ‘promised’ since November last year.  After turning down two or three appointments, many just gave up the wait for more appointments from MySJ. They either paid for the Sinovac boosters or just tried their luck with Selangor Government’s offer through Selvax/Selangkah. For the latter ‘lottery’, some had to wait till end of January and even February for the booster appointments.

There is also this urgent question about the two million doses of Sinovac donated by China recently. Together with the one million or so doses donated earlier last year, there are now perhaps a total of 3 million donated doses in the stockpile? Surely we must try to use them up quickly before the need to extend expiry date once again? Interestingly, some photos of China-made Sinovac vials have been circulated on social media, allegedly taken in PPVs and private clinics where payment is required. Could this be malicious fake news? We hope so because all rational right thinking people know that it is unethical and morally wrong to make the rakyat pay for donated vaccine boosters. What more when vaccination is a national public health service that should be FREE for all rakyat? To quash such ‘rumors’, it is time the MOH starts making the distribution of these donated Sinovac boosters more systematic and transparent. The rakyat and tax payers have the right to know where exactly these three million doses will be sent to and when, who will get them for free and who will have to pay. If not, lack of transparency will only fuel more speculations and undermine the MOH’s effort in speeding up the nation’s vaccination program.

Booster Shot Concerns

(An abridged version with a different title was published in The Sun/ The Star 15 Nov 2021)

News that the Ministry of Health will be giving booster jabs to all frontliners and seniors is welcome by most quarters. Unfortunately, the recent announcement by the Minister of Health that Pfizer booster jabs will be given to seniors who already received two doses of Sinovac has created a lot of anxiety and uneasiness. This is especially so for those who are well read. They have strong apprehension about the safety of such heterologous booster shots. To add to their alarm is the press statement by the minister that this heterologous administration will be part of the government study, done in an off-label manner, meaning this booster jab is used in a way other than officially approved for. So, can we blame the seniors for the perception that they are being used as guinea pigs?!

Even though it was barely a few days ago that MySejahtera  has started notifying these seniors about their booster jab appointments, the ministry should have got the drift by now. Many seniors either did not confirm their appointments, or they    confirmed but did not show up for the vaccination. MySejahtera only asks recipients of booster jab offers to click a button to confirm, no other options are available. (Sounds like hard selling snake oil, take it or leave it, as one senior quipped!)  Those who found the date and time of jab appointment unsuitable tried calling helpline, but like before, to no avail. Some just clicked to confirm, out of anxiety, and then decided not to show up. One senior complained that he was given two doses of Sinovac because of health issue, but now they want to give him Pfizer as booster!

Many people are of the opinion that the decision to mix two Sinovac jabs with Pfizer as booster shot is not substantiated by findings of any study or analysis of data collected by the Ministry of Health thus far. It is callous to say the least, subjecting the vulnerable seniors to unknown and unnecessary risks. This is especially so in the midst of many experts, including a WHO scientist, warning and cautioning the use of heterologous vaccinations by individuals. (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-warns-against-mixing-matching-covid-vaccines-2021-07-12/..... ) The Chinese government is also very prudent and responsible, stating that there will be no mixed booster shots until scientists are sure.  (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3153424/no-mixed-covid-19-booster-shots-china-until-scientists-are-sure)

Therefore, our burning question is: Why not give a third Sinovac to these seniors as booster? After all, a study in Turkey involving 30 million vaccinated citizens has indicated that the highest level of protection was seen in people who received three doses of inactive vaccines (Sinovac), rather than in those who received two doses of inactive vaccines and one booster shot of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer). (https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/3-doses-of-Sinovac-is-better-than-mixing-with-Pfizer-Turkish-minister) Our neighbor Singapore down south is doing just that now, giving three doses of Sinovac to those who do not want mRNA vaccine as booster. Can we do the same here?