Posts Tagged ‘NGO’

MIC to talk about SPM subject limit in cabinet again

November 30th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Tamil School Action Committee organised a forum today. Can read about in in MIC Info chief P.Kamalanathan’s blog. Below is Bernama version:

Human Resources Minister S Subramaniam said he would request the Cabinet to again allow Indian students to take a maximum of 12 SPM subjects.

“I will also continue to hold talks with deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin (on this),” said the MIC vice-president after meeting with 20 Indian NGOs today.

Muhyiddin, who is also education minister, announced last June that students would be allowed a maximum of 10 subjects in the SPM from next year.

Subramaniam said the MIC wanted the education ministry to allow Indian students to take the Tamil Language and Tamil Literature subjects, along with the 10 subjects as decided by the ministry.

He said he had been asking for a review of the ruling at Cabinet meetings for the past three to four months, and would continue to engage in consultations with the education ministry until a reasonable solution was found.

He said his priority now was to work out a solution that would ensure Indian students took 12, instead of 10 subjects.

“We are working towards that. This is what the (Indian) community wants,” said Subramaniam.

In a related matter, Subramaniam said there was no point in getting emotional over the issue as it would not solve the problem.

He was referring to reports that some Indian NGOs wanted to protest over the issue.

He urged the NGOs and other interested parties to work with “one voice and one determination” to find an amicable solution to the problem.

“It was for this reason we held the meeting with the NGOs today to get their feedback and then submit it to the cabinet and the MIC education committee,” he said.

Protest against 10 subject limit

November 29th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Somewhere in early June this year, the Education Minister came up with an idea to limit the number of subjects a students can take for SPM examinations in 2010. The reasons given:

– help to reduce teacher shortage

– 90% of students take 10 subjects

– many students take elective subjects not offered in schools, just to score more As. [Note: Tamil and Tamil Literature usually not offered in secondary schools]

– ease burden on students to excel

– reduce parents’ cost for tuition

– students will be able to focus on other activities

– easier to select students for scholarships

– to create a level playing field: students in fully residential schools were only allowed to take a maximum of nine subjects and those in rural areas too had to take fewer subjects due to a lack of facilities.

The Education Ministry then set up a communication channel to gather public feedback (I gave mine too) within a week, but not sure about the results of the feedback.

Interested parties can send their views on the Education Ministry’s plan to cap the number of subjects taken in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) by the end of this week.

Education director-general Datuk Alimuddin Mohd Dom urged them to send by e-mail or facsimile their views to him.

“The views will be taken into consideration when I prepare a paper for the minister,” he told reporters after opening the Government Integrated Telecommunications Network Learning in Schools Programme schools’ convention.

Alimuddin can be reached at alimuddin.dom@moe.gov.my or fax: 03-8889 4548.

He was asked about complaints from students who were already studying for more than 10 subjects in Form Four this year.

Alimuddin said he would prepare the paper by next week, adding that the limit on the number of subjects for the SPM examination had not been finalised yet.

“We want to hear feedback from various organisations including teachers. I will also meet with ministry-level professionals.”

He said he would then discuss the matter with the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate before Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin makes a final decision.

The abrupt proposal caused parents and students to fume since students in Form 4 have already started classes for their subjects. However, DPM Muhyiddin said he was open for suggestions and clarified that any decision would not affect the students:

“Whatever decision made will not affect the people negatively.”

I’m not sure which professionals were consulted, but the decision (proposal) remained and the DPM said this:

“There are many who agree and they come from the education system.”

It seems that the core subjects may be reduced in order to allow more elective subjects. Currently, the core subjects are BM, English, Maths, History. Islam/Moral, and Science (for Arts stream students). However, DPM Muhyiddin mentioned recently that the core subjects will remain, so its back to square one in terms of solving the problem.

Note that it was a cabinet decision, so MIC representative Dr Subra have no choice but to support the decision, even though MIC is protesting the move (even made a resolution during the AGM).

You may want to read what two parents had to say on this limitation here to get some insight as well.

Back in June, this is what MIC rep Dr Subra said:

The MIC has asked the Education Ministry to allow Indian students to take 11 SPM subjects, including Tamil language and Tamil literature.

Party deputy president Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said he had submitted the request to Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin before the Government’s recent proposal to limit the number of subjects to 10 from next year.

“If they are not allowed 11 subjects, some (those in the Science stream) will have to miss the Tamil language or Tamil literature subjects. With the 10-subject limit, they have to choose either one, as they already have nine compulsory subjects,” he told reporters in Pagoh yesterday.

Dr Subramaniam said that if Indian students were not allowed to take Tamil language and Tamil literature, some parties might exploit the issue.

He said for those in the Art stream, the new ruling would not pose a problem as they could take both the subjects and two others besides the six core subjects.

And this is what I heard him say last Sunday on TV2 in the interview show by Pandithurai:

MIC is still holding discussions with the ministry. For science stream students, they have to decide which two science subjects they want to take (meaning student already have an ambition or career in mind) if they want to take both Tamil subjects. For Arts stream students, he said not a problem, as there’s four elective places, meaning there two left after taking Tamil subjects.

Clearly, the stakeholders not very happy at the progress being made by MIC, until some guy from PKR wanted to burn an effigy of Dr Subra. There’s also a big protest planned on the 12th December at Wisma Peladang, Old Klang Road by various NGO groups:

More than 20 national Indian NGOs will stage a protest on Dec 12 at the Wisma Peladang in Petaling Jaya against a perceived grand plan to purge the Tamil language from the education system through the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).

The protest is over the government’s elimination of Tamil language and Tamil literature under the 10-subject SPM package system from next year.

The joint NGO group organizing chairman A. Thiruvenggadam (left) said because of the restrictive ruling, Indian students whose mother tongue is Tamil would not be able to sit for subjects in their language and this is not what 1 Malaysia is all about.

“The problem has arisen because the package is restricted to only 10 subjects. If an Indian student sits for nine subjects, he has only one more subject which can be used up for Tamil language, and will not be able to sit for Tamil Literature.

“And if the Indian student takes all 10 subjects there is no option at all for both the subjects,” he said in an interview with Malaysiakini.

The system of the 10 SPM Subject System, he said was a grand plan to eliminate Tamil as a vernacular language in Malaysia and this is not keeping with the 1Malaysia concept the government is propagating.

“It is totally unfair and an abuse of the education system to discard Tamil as a language spoken by a major component race of Malaysia. This is a ruling that will mark the progressive closure of Tamil schools in the country.

“Eventually, Tamil students will not be able to take Tamil as a language in STPM and university. This is another plan to eliminate Tamil totally out of the system,” he said on behalf of Indian NGOs.

Some of the NGOs jointly participating in the protest are the Malaysian Hindu Sangam, Malaysian Tamil Literature Association, Malaysian Dravidian Association, Hindu Dharma Maha Madhuram and several other Indian NGOs.

Most of the these NGOs constitution provides for the protection and propagation of the Tamil language and Tamil Literature in the community.

“When students are unable to take Tamil language there will not be enough Tamil teachers to teach Tamil in schools in future,” he added.

While it may not be just to eliminate Tamil language (I wondered if it got anything to do with BM borrowing heavily from Tamil and Sanskrit), I think the state has a responsibility to provide education of vernacular language to its citizen. We can’t be only interested on promoting multi-cultural aspect of our country, but not willing to invest on building those multi-cultural identities.

What I feel is also not right is this:

The only exceptions would be students in the joint science and religious stream who will be allowed to take 11 subjects next year until the curriculum is streamlined by 2011, after which they too will be able to take a maximum of 10 subjects.

Such leeway should be given to other students tamil vernacular language as well, while a proper solution is devised.

I’m also unhappy with these two fellows: Dr Ramasamy and MP Kapar Manikavasagam because was quiet all this while. Now, there’s a posting on MP Kapar’s blog and also Malaysiakini article featuring Dr Ramasamy. Where was the noise before this? Looks like cheap publicity for me.

Dr Subra claims that such protests and actions may jeopardise the effort of MIC, but I beg to differ. The NGOs and public should also voice out their unhappiness in some way, which will help MIC to promote its cause. And, the reality is, people not really trusting MIC now. Perhaps MIC could have started a poll or survey or mobilized its various branches to gauge feedback from parents. But no, its still in processing of changing, so no proactive effort there.

Even in Minnal FM program call-in session recently, parents and teachers also opposed the move, saying it will deter students from taking Tamil subjects.

As for current status, Dr Subra says this:

Dr Subramaniam said he had on Monday met officers from the Education Ministry, including its director-general Datuk Alimuddin Mohd Dom, on the matter.

“We proposed that the Indian students be allowed to take 11 subjects, which would include Tamil and also Tamil Literature.

“However, the officials counter-proposed that the students wanting to sit these two papers could drop a subject, such as moral education or one of the four science subjects. We are not agreeable to this and this is why we are still in talks with the authorities.

I’m all for dropping Moral. Its a pathetic excuse for a subject!  Just take out Moral, and make it 4 core subjects (5 for Arts students). Or increase the subjects limit to 11 or 12. Is it so difficult? Another options is to allow student take language subjects separately (without SPM grading). A simple pass should be enough to provide the prerequisite for entering language related courses in IPTA or maktab, a workaround if you may. Something like MUET.

I have to repeat here: The state has a responsibility to ensure the multi-cultural heritage of the country is nurtured. One of the core elements is language. Instead of promoting growth of language, its seems to be the opposite. Its myopic to view language subjects as purely for examinations. In fact, why not make vernacular language as compulsory subject as well?

I hope Tamil proponents, ex-Tamil school students, NGOs, MIC’s 530,00 members, PKR’s members, DAP’s members, etc. all will turn up at Old Klang Road next weekend in a show of  force as voters of next general elections. That will be better than any discussion MIC can initiate.

Brave questions by the Sikhs

November 26th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I’m sure we remember the cabinet directive which has no legal effect during the case of  Indira? Remember her? The husband ran away with her 11 months old baby. After that, we don’t hear anything now. What happened to her and her kids?

And just yesterday, we read about the proposed amendments aimed at solving the conversion problem.

While the MCCBCHST did not directly ask any questions on the amendments, the Gurdwara Council did. And must say, really respect them for highlighting this:

The Malaysian Gurdwara Council has called on the government to state whether it is sticking to the April 23 directive that both parents must consent to a child’s conversion .

If so why is this not reflected in the proposed conversion laws, asked the council today.

On April 23, the cabinet had announced:

  • the religion of a child under 18 years of age would continue to be that at time of birth and one parent cannot convert the child unilaterally; and,
  • the converted spouse cannot use his conversion to run away from his obligations under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976, the law which have contracted their marriage.

However it was reported in the media on Tuesday, quoting a federal counsel of the Attorney General Chambers Mohamed Naser Disa, that the proposed amendment to Section 51(2) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 included a suggestion that the civil court not be empowered to determine the religious status of a child when divorce between a Muslim and a non-Muslim couple takes place.

“The court could also decide on the custody right as stipulated under the constitution, where either the father or mother could determine the religious status of the child. Hence, the parent who has converted to Islam need to register their child as Muslim,” Mohd Nasier was quoted to have said.

The Malaysian Gurdwara Council president Harcharan Singh today said that they strongly oppose any provision allowing unilateral conversion of a child.

“Hence we reject any such proposed conversion laws. We also strongly oppose and reject any amendment allowing a child to be placed in an institution and hence negating the presumption a child below seven is best left with the mother,” he said.

Even a day old child can be converted

Harcharan said this would mean that even a day old child can be converted to Islam unilaterally by a single spouse.

“We do not think any religion allows conversion of such minors. Even the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia director-general Dr Syed Ali Taufik Al Attas had stated in a newspaper interview that “a child is deemed ignorant, cannot convert to Islam as the child does not understand the “Kalimah Syahadah” and cannot bear witness of his /her own free will and understanding.”

Harcharan said under Article 12 (4) of the federal constitution should be interpreted that a child can be converted only with agreement between both parents.

“If the law only provides that all that is needed is one parent’s consent for conversion to take place, then that would be unjust and undesirable,” he said.

Harcharan also said the Attorney-General should be working for all Malaysians and questioned why non-Muslim communities were being kept in the dark.

“The so called proposed amendments are being revealed only to one party. The other party who will be adversely affected is not being consulted or briefed, nor a copy of the proposed amendments given to them.”

“The cabinet should clarify whether the decision made on April 23 still stands. If it so why is this not reflected in the proposed conversion law?” Harcharan asked.

Tough questions for the authorities to answer. Why no transparency? Do they plan to just bulldoze the amendments and ignore any opinions/protests from the other groups? Or expect the other groups “to understand” and “look at the bigger picture”?

Not sure how this fits in the new tagline 1Malaysia. Doesn’t seem correct to me. Don’t tell me everything also need PM to step in and clarify!

Oh ya, where’s MIC ah? MIA again? They part of federal government, so surely will know something? Or were they too sidelined?

Two acts of charity for school kids

November 24th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Two good news from the Star today. As school children are getting ready to go back to school,  one group donated school bags and stuff to 1000 students, while another sponsored 40 spectacles for children.

News 1:

ABOUT 1,000 poor pupils received school bags, shoes and stationery at an event orgainsed by the Petaling Jaya Old Town Sun Tau Jing Sheh temple, in partnership with the Yayasan Maha Karuna Educare programme.

“We are giving these items to the children to encourage them to work study harder,” said organising chairman Jacob Chan Teng Meng, during the event at the temple in Jalan 1/15 recently.
Education aid: (Back row from left) Chan, Sun Tau Jing Sheh Abbot Venerable Shi Kai Shan and Saranankara with the children who received the schoolbags.

Yayasan Maha Karuna founder Ven B. Sri Saranankara Nayaka Maha Thera said the Educare programme was started in 2001 and they aimed to help about 5,000 children each year.

He added that they helped children irrespective of their race or religion.

“We are not only working with temples but also NGOs.

“Our objective is to encourage the public to start their own initiatives to help the poor in their own community,” he said.

The pupils were from SJK(C) Choong Wen, SJK(C) Yak Chee, SJK(C) Chen Moh PJ, SJK(C) Yuk Kuan, SJK(C) Han Meng, SJK(T) Kinrara, SK(1) Petaling Jaya, SK Petaling Jaya, SR Sathya Sai, SJK(T) Vivekananda and SJK(C) Chung Hwa Damansara.

The children, whose parents were from the low-income group, were recommended by their respective schools.

News 2:

THE SJK (Tamil) Rawang Parents-Teacher Association (PIBG) sponsored spectacles for 40 children with poor eyesight.

Its chairman, C. Pamarasivam, said the children who received the spectacles were from poor families.

“Because it is expensive to buy spectacles, the PIBG allocated RM120 for each pupil.
Part of school programme: A pupil getting his eyes checked.

“Many teachers have complained about pupils having poor eyesight. Further checks revealed that some pupils are shortsighted while others are longsighted.

“Some cases are very bad. Many parents just could not afford to buy spectacles for their children and we decided to do so,” said Paramasivam who was present during an eye check-up programme at the school recently.

About 1,600 pupils in the school had a free eye check up.

HYO Youth Enpowerment Program

November 19th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Youth Empowerment Programme (YEP) is a young leaders program that is targeted to develop participant’s youthful idealism, enthusiasm, undivided commitment and their resourcefulness energy concentrated towards self development with social consciousness.

Requirement

You must be a Form 5 or Form 6 school leaver (2009)

The participation fee for the selection camp is RM50, inclusive of accomodation, meals and travelling during the camp.

Selected participants will then undergo the 4 months exclusive Youth Empowerment Programme fully sponsored by  HYO Port Klang.

For further enquiries, please email enquiry@yephyoportklang.co.cc

Important Dates

Selection Camp  : 26 – 30 Dec 2009

YEP Commencement : 6 Jan 2010

Closing Date : 18 December 2009

Register online at http://yephyoportklang.co.cc/