No. 1: Islam & capitalism
I found this article while browsing tonight.
This paragraph is particularly interesting:
To the question of whether Islam hinders development, Mr. Erdogan offers one answer: On the economy this “Islamist” government has stuck to the market playbook. The budget deficit is 1% of GDP, down from 16% in 2001; the debt-to-GDP ratio 60%, compared with 110% five years ago. Inflation is creeping up, to 10%, after hot money fled emerging markets early this summer and the lira fell 22% against the dollar at one point; but Turkey weathered that brief storm well. The Islamists embarked on the most far-reaching privatization program in Turkish history, selling off telephone companies, petrochemical plants and steel makers and lowering barriers to foreign investment–with little opposition. A vestige of state control, dating back to Ottoman times, is its ownership of large tracts of land, but that, too, is on the agenda.
Mustafa Akyol wrote a good article about Islam and Capitalism which is worth a read if you haven’t done so.
No. 2: Book Launch and Dinner
I was at the National Liberal Club last night.
The main reason was to attend a press launch of a book “Corporate Social Responsibility & International Development”. The author quoted me twice in this book, so it must be a very good book!!!
Had dinner with a friend at the Club. Excellent food.
No. 3: Fez
I am off to Fez, Morocco, for one week next week.
No. 4: Two Malaysian Ministers in Nottingham
Dato Mustapha Mohamad (Minister of Higher Education) and Dato Sri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein (Minister of Education) were in Nottingham last week for a brainstorming session on Malaysia’s education and higher education policies.
I had the chance to speak to them both, and submitted a report to Dato Sri Hishamuddin. The report outlines four proposals to reform Malaysia’s school system:
1. Introduction of targeted vouchers to help poor families access well-performing public or private schools.
2. Setting up National Education Fund that is free from political control and fully funded by private (corporate or individual) donations.
3. Stimulating the growth of non-state / private education institutions by making it easier for entry into, and exit from, the education industry.
4. Introducing league tables to help parents compare school performance.
None of these are new ideas as they were taken from the experience of many countries including the UK, the USA, Colombia, Bangladesh, etc.
Introducing choice and competition into education has been proven to work. There is no reason why Malaysian parents should continue to be deprived of choice.
Filed under: Misc
well, finished doing a quick reading of the blog, from where i left it. looking forward to more ideas from the thinktank.org, eventhough my participation is quite unlikely
Your idea is quite attractive. However there is also a further question of autonomy of educational institutions: to what extent can we allow them to be autonomous from the state or any centralized authority? Several issues come to the fore:
1. Examinations – should exams be centralized or decentralized? That is to say, setting up the exam questions, marking of scripts,etc. The effect of your measure, as i understand it, is to grant educational institutions (including schools) complete freedom in this respect. The danger of course, is that it becomes more difficult to monitor, with highly subjective, discretionary and possibly arbitrary marking schemes.
2. Syllabus – how much freedom do we allow them in drawing their own syllabus? Note that by syllabus, I do not necessarily confine to the areas of knowledge, but also which books, whose views and which interpretation of events to choose from.
The recent controversy over the UPM Ethnic Relations textbook is a case in point. What this event illustrates is that many Malaysians seem unable to accept historical interpretations that do not match their own, particularly when the issue is a sensitive one. As a result, the textbook which was prepared by a panel of multiracial academics had to be retracted due to public pressure – the triumph of popular opinion over academic scholarship. I once read in The Star Education a letter by a parent complaining about a certain interpretation of China’s history. claiming the textbook used was bias in stating that a certain government was Islamic when in fact it was Buddhist. Also, in the US, there was a great debate as to whether intelligent design constitutes ‘biology’ or whether it is just Christian creationist doctrine, i.e. theology masquerading as science (the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the latter).
At present, because the schools and universities are largely state-funded, it follows that these institutions must, like the government, try their best not to offend the electorate, which then necessarily involves making many academic compromises particularly when the issue involves sensitive issues like race or religion. If, as you propose, we have more of this private educational institutions, would the problem be easily solved? On the surface it does. Nevertheless, in some ways it merely shifts the “master” from the state/public to private individuals. Consequently, different educational institutions will have different sets of ‘knowledge’ taught to the students. The inherent danger, no doubt, is that it leads to nihilistic relativism, when plurality becomes so excessive, it might be detrimental to the society as a whole, especially for a country – like Malaysia – whose nation-building project is still in its infant stage.
3. What about indirect forms of control? You did maintain that the educational institutions, in the best interest of the people generally and the students specifically, must be free from political controls. Yet given the climate of Malaysia’s corporate sector, a large number of companies – not even the GLCs – are closely related to this or that political party, the net result of which is of course, we are back at squre one. Would you then propose legislation to curb this practice or leave it as it is?
Finally, just as a general comment, I think before any serious attempt to create a civil society in Malaysia is made, we must first legislate to curb the mighty tentacles of an all-powerful state so that the usual benefits accruing from an unhealthy dependence of the private sector upon the government is eliminated. In the words of Milton Friedman, “The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.”
Enma Ai:
Schools should be allowed to device their own assessments, with the Ministry of Education specifying a general national framework on the required standards.
Syllabus should also be set by individual institutions, following a general framework specified by the Ministry. Parents should have the ultimate say on the type of education they want their children to receive. Yes it may lead to plurality. But why is that dangerous? If you are the same as I, what benefit would it bring the country?
I agree with you on indirect control. Good point and I have nothing to add apart from saying that we must “roll back” the state on all frontiers.
Limiting the powers of the state is a necessity, as you say. This must be clearly specified in the constitution.
Plurality in itself is essential. A country populated with homogenous people reduced and subjugated to the forces of uniformity as if manufactured in state-sponsored factories is barely the utopia that I envisage. What worries me however is that this plurality could lead to the lack of unity when the people no longer a share a common discourse, so that interaction and co-existence become impossible. Today, Malaysians can live in harmony and socialise among one another because in many respects we hold to some common basic assumptions in life and in some respect, it has a lot to do with the fact that the education system is not allowed too much freedom.
A classic illustration is concerning the use of Malay. I used to attend various private colleges and there is one observation that particularly disturbs me. There were some students who were educated in Chinese independent schools here in this country, yet could barely speak a word of Malay, let alone be acquainted with Malaysian history, politics, etc. I would attribute one of the reasons why we Malaysians still hold on to this national language of ours to the compulsory requirement to study the language in schools mandated by the Ministry itself. That is not to suggest that the language is so inferior that none would want to learn it for there are always culturally conscious individuals who would take the serious effort to learn and practice it independently. For the vast majority of population however, this is not the case.
In an earlier entry you were especially critical about the Muslims’ demand for “faith schools” in Britain on the basis that it could lead to segregation. Similar arguments apply here. If we were to allow so much freedom and autonomy to private institutions, the inherent danger is that it leads to sectarianism and segregation, with each group choosing to withdraw into their ethnic cocoons and socialise only among themselves, more so if schools are set up with precisely that agenda. Left unchecked, this situation could result in disastrous consequences for nation-building. I cannot imagine a scenario on the 31st August when some Malaysians would ask themselves why that day was a public holiday or do not know who Tunku Abdul Rahman is.
I disagree with the state funding faith schools in Britain. I would also disagree with the state funding faith-based schools in Malaysia.
I disagree with you when you say that today Malaysians live in harmony with each other. This may be the case in very few cities. But, generally, what we have is a situation where Malaysians live in oblivion of “the other”.
If the state were to continue funding schools, the schools must be a proper national school. Not segregated according to races as we have now.
1. Alright, maybe you are right about Malaysians living “in oblivion of “the other”". I may have overlooked the more plebeian sectors of the population and concentrate on the big cities. However this is exactly my point. If, as we both concur, that this is the attitude of many Malaysians, then does it not follow that if we give them the choice of private education, they would necessarily choose the one that further prolongs this division and dichotomy? At present, state-sponsored education compels students of various races and cultures to study together apparently because they have no choice because private schools are prohibitively expensive. If vouchers are given to these ‘oblivious students’ (for want of a better word!), do you not think that they would choose the ones based no race?
We must, however, be cautious about jumping to conclusion, i.e. just because you study in an all-Malay, all-Indian or all-Chinese does not automatically mean you belong rigtfully to the racist club. Nor does it mean that you are ignorant of “the other”. Many countries in the world today – e.g. China, India, the Scandinavian countries – are not multiracial yet that does not make them sectarian or factionalist. What is essential however, is that there is a great degree of exposure to the students about the existence of “others” outside their own cultural group. They should be taught respect to others and made aware of things going on around them. I leave that to the schools to work out.
“If the state were to continue funding schools, the schools must be proper national school. Not segregated according to races as we have now.”
On the first statement, I agree. Nonetheless you must bear in mind that the issue is inextricably political. The state is sponsoring race-based schools because of the political system itself, i.e. MIC wants Tamil schools, MCA wants Chinese schools, etc. There was even an issue recently when MCA demanded for more state-funding for Chinese schools under the Ninth Malaysian Plan, which was declined and turned into a huge controversy. This is not to suggest that such schools should be prohibited. On the contrary, individuals can do so via the private education sector.
Your second statement however, is only partially correct. Most of the schools funded by the government are national schools. Yes, in many of these schools in turns out that some races would dominate while others would be a minority, but this I think is inescapable and unless we indulge in some sort of a massive social engineering project to demographically redistribute the racial population(!), this issue is likely to linger.