Big Disgrace!

I received the latest copy of BBM Point System for Application to Local Universities. It was really a disgrace to see the terribly low standard of points given for proficiency and achievement category. The maximum (5) points is given for the 4th proficiency award. However, the Boys' Brigade Award Scheme has a total of 21 proficiency awards. This means that a boy could easily gained the maximum marks on the first year of joining the Brigade.

What has happened to the prestigious Founder's Award? Isn't the award should be given maximum points? To qualified for the second-highest award, President's Award, a Boy needs at least 7 proficiency awards.

Personally, it is an insult to the entire Award Scheme by awarding the maximum points to only boys with only 5 proficiency badges (including the Target Badge). The maximum points can be easily obtained within one year. Founder's Award being the highest award requires a Boy to be fully committed and worked hard for at least 3 years to achieve that award.

Is this the way the Brigade encourages the Boys to strive for excellence?

Or merely as a cheap and distasteful recruitment method in attracting more members?

What is the signal the Brigade is giving its members?

Why does the standard of award scheme needs to be lower to such self-insulting standard?

I certainly viewed this as a shame to the Boys' Brigade and an insult to all the pass high achievers in the Brigade. Adding to that, it is also humiliating for BB members who are and will be applying to local universities. By merely giving easy points to the application, the standard and good reputation of the Brigade is at stake. I do not think this is helpful for to the members in their application process but rather a hindrance or humiliating factor to be associated with a sub-standard organisation.

I personally appeal for the system to be reconsidered and reviewed for the sake of the Brigade!

Penangites to cycle?

The Chief Minister of Penang urged more Penangites to go around on a bicycle, while attending a campaign to promote bicycle riding. (The Star reports).

No doubt the intention to encourage people to cycle is indeed beneficial for the individuals as well as the society as a whole. It will certainly improve the wellness of an individual and promote healthy living. On top of that, cycling will contribute towards reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

However, my past experiences of cycling in Penang have been scary and unpleasant. I have cycled around Penang Island in 1997 and and more recently in May 2006. Sadly, the road condition and planning certainly do not encourage cycling. It is extremely dangerous to cyclists due to the narrow road and fast-moving transports.

If the government is serious about encouraging cycling, then building more bicycle parking certainly is not the solution. Parking for bicycle was never a consideration for cyclist. It is the safety that the general public is concerned with. Surprising, cycling was more a pleasant experience in Singapore compared to Penang. It was pleasant due to the fact that I could cycle on the pavement (although I was told it might be illegal but everyone seems to be doing it) along roads and highways, which I do not need to worry about all the fast-moving vehicles.

There were several measures that the local government could take to encourage cycling rather than building more bicycle parking:

1) Building more pedestrian and cycling paths; and
2) Removing unnecessary barriers and leveled certain part of the curb for cyclists to cycle along the pavement

Malaysian Graduates and English

I was reading an article by Stephanie Phang (Bloomberg) about Malaysian graduates and English language problem. Before you continue, please forgive the mistakes and errors in my language as I was also a Malaysian local graduates.

After graduating from UM, I have a short stint working in the government sector before quitting my job to pursue further education abroad. I have been to several job interviews, including some private and multinational corporations. It was indeed vital that English proficiency is one of the most important factor in deciding the success in gaining the job as all these interviews (including the part of PTD interviews) were conducted in English. I have to thanked God that at least I could speak proper English (although my writing skills is bad) as I was taught in a national school with strong British tradition, where the headmaster of the school spoke in English every week during assembly. Sad to say, many Malaysians do not have the privilege to be properly expose to the international language.

From the article and recent development in my former university, I was glad that the VC of UM has seen the problem and suggested several measures for that. Adding to that through my personal experience, I wish to convey the message to the VC that working in government sector (as PTD) also need high level of English proficiency. On her suggested measure in UM, I personally do not think that providing English tuition to all undergraduates will be the solution to the problem. Local undergraduates are already burdened with so many unnecessary courses within their course such as Critical Thinking, Moral and Ethics, TITAS etc. Several more English modules will not be sufficient in raising the standard. In fact this will reduce the students' exposure into learning more in depth of their own subject courses.

However, I was puzzled as why have local universities stopped using the Malaysian English University Test (MUET) as one of the criteria in admitting students. Previously, in UM, students who do not achieved Band 3 and above, will not be able to graduate. When too many students could not meet that requirement, the criteria was abolished. If we could lower the standard of admitting students into local universities for the sake of producing more graduates, then perhaps Malaysia should not be whining about the increasing unemployed graduates in the country who could do not have good English proficiency.

From my experience in applying for post-graduate studies in other countries, regardless of how well you performed previously, if you failed in the TOEFL or IELTS level of requirement, any offer or scholarship will be withdraw without any grounds for appeal unless you met their language requirement. The foreign universities were strict because they want to maintain and uphold their standard and reputation. Even in countries like Japan who has strong emphasis on their own language, English proficiency assumes similar level of importance as their national language when it comes to issue like scholarship. For a Japanese Government Scholarship, the first test for applicants is English test and no Japanese proficiency is required.

On a personal note, if Malaysia is serious in dealing with the problem of unemployed graduates, then the local universities must be bold to ONLY admit students who met the English requirement (at least with MUET). Previously if SPM examination could deny top students from getting Grade 1 merely because the Malay Language does not get credit (C6 and above); I do not see why local universities could not deny admission of those students who do not meet the minimum requirement of MUET. (Please take note that without C6 in Malay Language cannot proceed for STPM or Matriculation, which means virtually impossible to enter local universities). After all those whoever does not performed well in MUET can always re-sit for it 6 months later.