Methodism and Education

Methodism has played an important part in the development of education, particularly through the role of setting up schools and providing universal education. From the very beginning, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, has emphasised the importance of education and this was reflected when the matter of education was raised personally by John Wesley at the first Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion in 1744.

Today, especially in Malaysia's education landscape, the Methodist church continues to have a role in the development of education through the Methodist schools and colleges. However, have we ever take a moment to ponder and reflect precisely what has been the influential doctrine and guiding principles of John Wesley's approach and understanding about education?

There may have been many different influences to Wesley's idea of education, but arguably, the most significant influence was his own mother. In the book by F.C. Pritchard (1949), there was a letter written by Susanna Wesley at her son's request when he consulted his mother about the "educational practice" of his upbringing, in which I seek to share the interesting bits of it:

-Extracted from Pritchard (1949, pp. 20-26)

July 24, 1732

Dear Son,

According to your desire, I have collected the principal rules I observed in educating my family; which I now send you as they occurred to my mind, and you may (if you think they can be of use to any) dispose of them in what order you please.

The children were always put into a regular method of living, in such things as they were capable of, from their birth: as in dressing, undressing, changing their linen etc. The first quarter commonly passes in sleep. After that they were, if possible, laid into their cradles awake, and rocked to sleep; and so they were kept rocking till it was time for them to awake. This was done to bring them a regular course of sleeping...

When turned a year old (and some before), they were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly; by which means they escaped abundance of correction they might otherwise have had...

As soon as they were grown pretty strong, they were confined to three meals a day... [and] never suffered to choose their meat, but always made eat such things as were provided for the family... Drinking or eating between meals was never allowed...

At six, as soon as family prayers were over, they had their supper; at seven the maid washed them.... and got them all to bed by eight; at which time she left them in their rooms awake - for there was no such thing allowed of it our house as sitting by a child till it fell asleep.

In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will, and bring them to an obedient temper. To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must with children proceed by slow degrees as they are able to bear it; but subjecting the will is a thing that must be done at once, and the sooner the better. For, by neglecting timely correction, they will contract a stubbornness and obstinacy which is hardly ever after conquered; and never, without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child. In the esteem of the world they pass for kind and indulgent whom I call cruel parents, who permit their children to get habits which they know must be afterwards broken... I insist upon conquering the will of children betimes, because this is the only strong and rational foundation of a religious education...

The children of this family were taught, as soon as they could speak, the Lord's Prayer... They were very early made to distinguish the Sabbath from other days... They were as soon taught to be still at family prayers, and to ask a blessing immediately after...

There were several by-laws observed among us.

1) It has been observed that cowardice and fear of punishment often led children into lying, till they get a custom of it, which they cannot leave. To prevent this, a law was made, that whoever was charged with a fault, of which they were guilty, if they would ingenuously confess it, and promise to amend, should not be beaten. This rule prevented a great deal of lying, and would have done more, if one in the family would have observed it. But he could not be prevailed on, and therefore was often imposed on by false colours and equivocations; which none would have used, had they been kindly dealt with. And some, in spite of all, would always speak truth plainly.

2) That no sinful action... should ever pass unpunished.

3) That no child should ever be chid or beat twice for the same fault; and that, if they amended, they should never be upbraided with it afterwards.

4) That every signal act of obedience.... should be always commended, and frequently rewarded.

5) That if ever any child performed an act of obedience or with intention to please, though the performance was not well; the intention should be kindly accepted and the child with sweetness directed how to do better for the future.

6) That propriety be inviolably preserved, and none suffered to invade the property of another in the smallest matter...

7) That promises be strictly observed...

8) That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well...

We might not entirely agree with the methods used by the Wesley family, as some of them might not be practical to our current situation. Nonetheless, it is clear that, from the account of John Wesley's mother, the most crucial principle that needs to be indoctrinated into the child is discipline. This is arguably the pre-requisite to education, and is clearly one of the driving principles to Wesley's idea of education.

Shouldn't go to university?

There was a recent article in the Times newspaper that argues why people shouldn't go to university. In response to the article, a friend shared the following:

"Recently my friend who is mechanical engineer at aircond factory at Bangi earning 3k decided to resign and open a supermarket back at his hometown, i am thinking, hmm... maybe he should work in supermarket after SPM instead..." (by Tim L.)

Briefly, the story was about a mechanical engineer who was earning an average monthly wage of a university graduate, decided to quit the job in the city and returned to his hometown to start a supermarket. My friend who shared the story, then, argues that it might be better for the "engineer" to venture into the supermarket business immediately after secondary school, instead of going to university.

To many of us, this story seems to be rather familiar. Many university graduates, especially in Malaysia, do not venture into the careers that are expected of them. More often during such discussion, issues such as graduate unemployment, graduate employability as well as the standard of our tertiary education will subsequently be raised.

However, this article attempts to look at this story from a slightly different perspective. While reading the story for the first time, a question immediately came to my mind.

"If this person is "destined" to venture into a supermarket business, how would university education makes a difference to his career?"

I guess, if we are to evaluate this question in relations to the story, our answer will likely to be guided by how we understand university education.

If we take the cost-benefit approach, certainly, the cost will exceed the benefit. The cost will not only include the tuition fees to pursue a degree, but also includes the opportunity costs, i.e. earnings that were foregone while studying and, the possible "experiences" and "opportunities" of working in the supermarket earlier; yet, the "tangible" benefits remain relatively unchanged.

If we assume university education as a form of credential that only leads into the related careers, expectedly, we are likely to argue that university education in such situation is unnecessary.

However, if we return to the basic idea of university education, which is a form of intellectual training and development, then confidently, we can argue that university education will indeed makes a different to the person as a whole.

University education is not only the certificate that one receives at the end of the course or the number of A's that one scores in exams, but rather, it is "the education and training" to become an intellectual person, which can be defined as a person who uses his/her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a professional capacity or for personal reasons. In the book titled "Knowledge and Decisions", intellectual was also used to mean an individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products or services. Briefly, university education could be regarded as a form of training to produce intellectuals, which are then expected to translate their intellectuality into all aspects of life.

It is clear that only through understanding the role of university education, as a form of intellectual training, we could convincingly argue that it remains worthwhile to pursue university education regardless of the career aspiration. This also explains why courses, such as philosophy, classics, literature, languages, history and theology, are relevant and remain as an essential part of the university, despite their practicalities and applicabilities are being challenged.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

University Ranking

Welcome back to the exciting month of university ranking again. Every year during this period, higher education institutions around the world capture headlines like never before. There will be joy for some institutions, setbacks for others and, worse still, these news and rankings might even cause some academics to lose their jobs. What does this means for the higher education sector?

Without doubt, university ranking has become an important component of the higher education sector. Initially, these rankings were supposed to provide a comparative benchmark among higher education institutions as a way to ensured that quality is upheld. However, with all the publicity associated to these university rankings, it has become a rat-race among institutions to compete among one another for a better standing. Today, institutions have to compete not only with institutions within the same country, but the competition has expanded both regionally and internationally. One wonders whether this is truly a competition over quality or merely competition for its own sake.

In the different rankings, institutions are evaluated with a different set of criteria. Some place more importance on peer-evaluation, research funding, publication, international reputation, while others include other criteria such as staff-student ratio or graduate employment. Although most of these rankings measure different criteria, however, when it comes to reporting the findings to the public, all these differences are masked behind statistical weightages and indices which reflect the "quality" of the institutions. In other words, the public is made to believe that University A is better than University B, simply because A is ranked higher than B. However, many fail to ask, "What makes A rank higher than B?"

This leads us to ask two more questions:

"What are the important criteria to measure quality in higher education?"

"Who should decide the components to be evaluated?"

Generally, a university has two major responsibilities: teaching and research. Does this means that quality of higher education institutions should be based solely on these responsibilities. This may not be the case. For example in the World University Ranking (THE-QS), the ranking is based on the following criteria: academic peer review (40%), staff-student ratio (20%), research excellence (20%), international faculty (10%), international students (10%) and employer review (10%). Is this the "correct" ratio to indicate quality?

On top of that, who actually determines that this is the "correct" ratio to measure quality? Are all the institutions being evaluated agreeable to the "ratio"? Furthermore, is this the appropriate ratio to measure higher education institutions around the world? Certainly, we cannot expect universities in US and UK to be evaluated on exactly the same criteria as universities in the developing countries.

Evaluating further the components in the tabulation of these ranking, there are several "questionable" indicators that could challenge the reliability and validity of these rankings. For example in THE-QS ranking, the research excellence criterion (20%) is based on citations, which measures how many times an academic's published work is cited. We ought to take into consideration that in the academia, published work is a form of academic debate. Therefore, there might be a possibility that when someone's work is cited, it does not necessarily indicate that the work is excellent. On the contrary, some shabby and questionable research could also be cited (in a bad and negative way) and challenged. Sad but true, both excellence and terrible research will be measured equally in tabulating the ranking.

On the aspect of teaching quality, the proxy measurement used is the staff-student ratio. In other words, the ideal ratio will be such that a university has a large faculty base and small student population. Such a measure, will expectedly favour the research-driven universities. Although theoretically, a low staff-student ratio is ideal, nevertheless, educational research about class size have not been able to proof the theory right. So in other words, having a low ratio does not necessary guarantee teaching quality. On the contrary, there has been many instances where teaching quality in research-driven universities is being questioned, whereby academics consider teaching as secondary or even as an unnecessary burden.

Although the issue of university ranking has become a publicity gimmick that captures the public's attention towards higher education, nonetheless, this once-a-year limelight provides a perfect opportunity for higher education institutions around the world to take a moment and ponder about the important question of quality. Academia should not compete for the sake of competition, but should rather, be committed to compete for the sake of upholding the true quality of higher education.

Is this Academic Bribery?

One unique feature of the continuous assessment regime in higher education is to evaluate students not solely through their performance in the final exam, but also through other evaluation indicators throughout the course. Typically, the final exam will comprises of 30-70 percent of the final grade, while the remaining percentage are awarded to the students in the form of continuous assessment.

The common evaluation methods used as continuous assessment are certain percentages of the final grade to be allocated for the mid-term exams, tutorial exercises and assignments. However, in most cases, students' attendance will also be given a small percentage, such as 5 or 10 percent. In Malaysian universities, such practice of awarding a certain percentage for students' attendance is very common.

This is where the controversy begins. Is awarding students solely for their attendance a form of academic bribery?

The argument that supports for such allocation argues that students need to be incentivise to attend lectures and tutorials. Furthermore, it was also argued that with such incentive, students will come to lectures and tutorials more prepared and, lecturers are assured of an audience.

On the other hand, critics argue that by awarding students solely for their attendance is a form of bribery that helps student to score higher marks, without any contribution to the intellectual development of the students. (For more arguments, read report).

Is this a form of academic bribery? A point worth pondering.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Plagiarism

Malaysian academics were once again in the news for the wrong reason. Two lecturers were caught plagiarising materials from the Internet to produce a guide book. The punishments for their action include a stern warning that would be included in their service records and they have to return any royalty received for the book. So far, only a politician, who was formerly a professor, has called for the lecturers to be sacked, citing that "plagiarism is the most serious crime in a university".

What exactly is plagiarism? It is defined as a practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. More specifically, plagiarism within academia is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud. No doubt, plagiarism is a serious crime, but what is surprising with this incident was the lack of response from fellow academicians in the country and the public in general.

Is the lack of response due to the fact that such act is common?

From my own experience studying in a Malaysian public university, plagiarism or "partial-plagiarism" is quite a common phenomena. I remembered a core course in my second-year, where the lecturer, a very senior academic and held influential position in the department, "suggests" that all students in the course to purchase the course textbook, which was in Malay. The price of the book was RM10, but was "photocopied" and bind into a book form. Upon reading the book, readers will realise that all diagrams and figures in the book was "copy-and-paste", as the diagrams are worded in English, while the description and the texts are in Malay. Out of curiosity, a fellow coursemate began to search all textbooks and found the original version. When compared, it was obvious that every sentence of the Malay textbook was "literarily" translated and the diagrams and figures were "copy-and-paste" directly from the English version. The "author" to the Malay textbook is the lecturer and no acknowledgement whatsoever could be found that indicate that the Malay textbook was translated or cited from the English textbook.

Is that not plagiarism? Sadly, this is just one of the many incidents that I came across.

On the other hand, as an undergraduate student, I have to admit that we were not given any training to avoid plagiarism, or simply informed what is it all about. There was only one module that taught us how to cite references and perfectly list the references in the bibliography. However, the essence of citation and how to avoid plagiarism remains much a mystery.

How I came to know about plagiarism? I was privilege to have a lecturer, who failed one of my assignments, but later, explained what went wrong and taught me the essence of plagiarism and what it meant by citation and references. If not for the "education" of this lecturer, I might have graduated with a university degree without any hint of what plagiarism is all about.

Clearly, as a way to tackle plagiarism, proper education needs to be given to the students, teaching them what exactly is plagiarism and how to avoid it. On the other hand, strict and stern action is needed to punish those who knows, but yet, plagiarise. After all, plagiarism is a "criminal" act in the academia, very much alike stealing as a criminal act in the society.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

The Making of "Diploma Disease"

The economy is in recession. As part of the stimulus package, tuition fees and research grants were offered to postgraduate students to pursue a PhD or Master's programme locally. Clearly, a strong push factor for graduates to pursue a postgraduate degree, at virtually zero monetary cost. The only cost is probably the opportunity cost of not working in the labour market.

On the other hand, among the many key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess and evaluate academic staffs in public universities, one of the KPI is the number of postgraduate students supervised. Such a KPI provides the necessary incentive for academic staffs to accept as many as possible postgraduate students. For the graduates, this is an indirect pull factor.

Along with the problem of graduate unemployment, these are perfect ingredients for the making of "Diploma Disease". Such phenomenon happens when the number of holders for a qualification increases, and thus, reduces the value of the qualification as an indicator of one's academic ability. As a result, there will be an increasing demand for higher levels of qualification.

We might need to ask that with these developments, will it happen that one day, Bachelor degrees are worthless in Malaysia, and the necessary university qualification is the Ph.D. We certainly hope the answer is no, but this is highly and likely.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Grade Inflation

The UK A-levels examination results were released today; the best results in 60 years. 97.5 percent passed the examination while 26.7 percent were awarded an A grade.

For many candidates, indeed, it is a day of joy for the hard work they have put in to achieve this result. However, as a consequence of this grade inflation, many of them will eventually realise that the admission for university will be much more difficult. As a matter of fact, element of luck will play a greater role than their results, as university admissions will have difficulty distinguishing between the top students.

In response to the grade inflation, the Head of Exam Board has indicated that the Board is considering to include the student's percentage pass marks along with the grades, as a way to differentiate between the top students. Furthermore, there has also been suggestion to review the syllabus and make the examination more difficult.

In reflection to Malaysia, the SPM examination has also inflated greatly in terms of grading. I recalled that back in 1999 before the implementation of the "open paper", three of my schoolmates scored 10 A's with one of them scoring 10 A1's, made it to the front page of the national newspaper. Since implementing the "open paper" system in 2001, 10 A's is considered mediocre and students are striving for more than 20 A's in SPM examination.

The new Minister of Education recently announced introducing a "cap" to only 10 subjects for SPM. Indeed, a sensible initiative to reduce the inflating pressure on grade. However disappointingly, no further initiatives being considered.

In my frank view, besides limiting the number of subjects, there is also a need to:

1) review the syllabus for all the subjects;

2) consider the possibility of reducing the compulsory subjects; and more importantly

3) review the teaching and evaluation of subjects under the SPM examination.

These initiatives are much more important. Placing a "cap" will only reduce the inflationary pressure on the grades, but has no significant effect to enhance the value of examination as an evaluative tool in education.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Graduate Employability

An interview with Mark Disney about Malaysian graduates employability.



Video courtesy of PopTeeVee.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Every Moment with God

Just a catchy phrase from the sharing of Rick Warren. Indeed, an important reminder to me that in every moment, God is part of my life, my work, my family and my all.

Happy moments, PRAISE God
Difficult moments, SEEK God
Quiet moments, WORSHIP God
Painful moments, TRUST God
Every moment, THANK God

Kau Ilhamku

Malay song. Meaningful lyrics. Excellent guitar performance. The title is "You're my inspiration"

This clip brings back many nostalgia memories of 8th College days. It was the unofficial "theme song" for many of 8th College programmes, thanks to Mr Liew. Remembered the song was being played non-stop as the background music throughout the camps, seminars and meetings that we attended. Great memories of university days!

I dedicate this to all 8th College Fellows and friends, as well as Ding who was a fan of this guitar performance.

The Last Interview

The last interview with Yasmin Ahmad, a few days before she passed away. In the interview, she talked about 1Malaysia and race-relations in the country. Indeed, a meaningful farewell message.



Video from Youtube, courtesy of The Star Online.

Childcare Services

Is childcare services related to pre-school education? It seems more than a coincidence that a few days ago, the Minister of Education talked about pre-school and, now, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is talking about childcare services.

Although both issues seem unrelated, but in reality, both politicians are commenting on the exact same issue. Simply, the connection lies in private pre-school centres are also childcare services. They are 2-in-1. It is a trend, especially in urban areas, that these childcare centres also provide pre-school education.

Therefore, on the one hand, the Minister of Education suggested absorbing pre-school into the national education, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so; on the other hand, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is commenting about the different by-laws and regulation under different local authorities to administer and monitor childcare centres.

This is one sector of education that has a large proportion of private initiatives. In addition, pre-school education also involves at least three Federal ministries and other local authorities. So far, politicians in the two major ministries have proposed some changes and highlighted some problems. It seems to me, the Federal government is "eyeing" to "adopt" pre-school education fully into their jurisdiction.

However, the rationale and objective behind such a policy remain to be seen.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

University Branding

A recent article in the Times Higher Education discuss about university branding. I shall quickly list the advantages as well as criticisms discussed in the article:

The advantages:
1) Branding is essential for telling the world what a university stands for and values
2) Brands exist wherever there is a competition, they help people to choose
3) Branding provides a consistent point of contact throughout the whole process
4) Brand is the sum total of ideas, emotions and associations attached to a given institution; branding is the effective expression and management of them
5) Branding is about communication

The criticisms:
1) Branding is unethical because it is intrinsically deceptive, either superficial spin or hollow deception
2) Branding is wasteful indulgence, squandering resources better invested in the core business of learning and research
3) Branding is alien to the culture of higher education
4) Branding is merely cosmetic
5) Universities have reputation, and so have no need for brands

Now, take a moment to ponder, "Do Malaysian universities have branding?"

If yes, what are our brands? Are they portraying and communicating the right values about the institution?

If no, should we have one? What sort of branding should be "the ideal" brand for Malaysian universities, both public and private?

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Aims of Education

What are educational aims? What are the characteristics of a good educational aim?

According to John Dewey, the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education. He argues that an aim relates to results that implies an orderly and ordered sequence of activities. The results must be foreseeable and played a role in giving direction to the activities to reach the end. In other words, aim is a means of action.

More importantly, Dewey emphasises that educational aims should not be imposed externally. He argues that externally imposed aims are fixed and rigid, and they are not stimulus to intelligent, but merely dictating order to accomplish tasks. It was said that these externally imposed aims are responsible for the emphasis put upon the notion of preparation for a remote future and for rendering the work of both teacher and pupil mechanical and slavish.

Hence, do we have educational aims in Malaysian education system? (I guess schooling might be more appropriate word to substitute education). Almost the entire education system is externally dictated and without the flexiblity that enables individuals to be schooled at their own pace. It seems to me that the "aim" of the education system is strictly preparing students to sit for the various examinations, in which the results then indicate and reflect the "education" received.

This rigidity of educational aims is further complemented with the highly-structured curriculum, where teachers are expected to "deliver" to the pupils. Education is not about delivery, it is about educating. A Professor of Philosophy of Education that I knew, was extremely critical about this, where he argues that "deliver" or "delivery" are mechanical processes, like postman delivering letters, and education can never be delivered.

Therefore, the highly-structurised curriculum and examination-oriented education system, has not only restricts the flexibility of the teachers to teach, but indeed encourages the "delivery of education". I can't help but felt puzzled, "Where are the educational aims in the Malaysian education system?" or rather "Are there educational aims in Malaysian schooling system?"

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

What is next after PPSMI?

The fiasco about Teaching Science and Mathematics in English (TSME, or in Malay known as PPSMI) is finally over. Although opinions in the country remained divided over this issue, it is highly unlikely that a flip-flop will happen and it is safe to infer that TSME is now a part of history. So what is next for the Malaysian education system?

Certainly, in this recent fiasco, it is heartening to see the Minister of Education publicly recognising our weakness in the proficiency of the English Language. Is the government really serious about improving the English language, or merely, just to divert the criticisms of reverting TSME? Anyway, giving politicians the benefit of doubt, I shall presume that this is a genuine effort to tackle the problem.

As this is a long article, I will summarise it here for those who read "efficiently":
First half - just critically "dissecting" some proposals;
Second half - constructively discussing other proposals.

The Minister of Education has outlined some proposals to strengthen the learning and teaching of English language in schools. Among those initiatives were: increasing time allocation for English, setting up laboratories for English, emphasising the grammar component, introducing the Contemporary English Literature Programme For Children (CELPFC), having English Day and summer camp during holidays. Are these initiatives going to improve our English proficiency?

First and foremost, the grammar component has always been part of the English Language curriculum. How are we going to further emphasise? Does that mean doing more grammar exercise of filling-in the blanks? Shamefully, I am a living testimony that 13-years of grammar exercises and scoring distinction in all public exams, do not equate to having proper understanding about the usage of grammar. I'm sure one can easily identify this weakness in my writing.

Second, English Day has always been part of the school's calendar. My primary and secondary school used to have English Week, but my English proficiency remains terrible. What else do we expect from just a day?

Third, what is the different between Contemporary English Literature Programme for Children (CELPFC) and the current literature component in the secondary school English curriculum?

Fourth, I am terribly surprised by the idea of setting up laboratories for the English language. How is the laboratory going to improve English proficiency? The Language Laboratory in the University of Oxford Language Centre is merely a computer lab that is equipped with more advance technology for teaching and learning of languages. Is it really necessary to be building another laboratory in schools just for English language, where most schools in Malaysia already have a big "white elephant" in the form of a computer lab?

Last, increasing the time allocation for English language. Is this going to help? Is the declining proficiency a result of the constrain in the timetable? Without any significant improvement to the curriculum, teaching method and teaching quality, increasing the time allocation is just a waste of time.

Well, it's half time. Enough of being overly critical. From here onwards, I will attempt to look at the issue more constructively. Second Half

While discussing this topic with a friend, he asked me this question, "If you were in the position of the Minister, what is the best initiative to improve English proficiency?".

The Minister of Education proposed to "import" 1000 teachers from overseas, hiring 600 retired teachers and producing additional 12,333 teachers. To be fair, this initiative is the most logical of all the initiatives suggested and I have kept this idea for discussion here. However, it is still far from perfect.

Firstly, how did the figure 12,333 teachers come about? Is it another "guesstimation", like what the Deputy Minister did a few weeks ago? Nonetheless, regardless of the figures, the idea of producing additional teachers does not tackle the core problem. We ought to remember that the core problem at stake is quality, not a shortage of English teachers. The more we emphasises the quantity, the more we are going to compromise the quality. Therefore, what the education system needs are more competent and qualified English teachers.

Secondly, it is also highly unlikely to improve English proficiency with the current stock of "human resources" that the country possess. It is important to note that the Malaysian education system has neglected the English language since mid-70s, which has been more than 30 years. Within this period, the quality of English language in our education system has continuously declined. A large majority of Malaysians, myself included, have been "taught English in Bahasa Malaysia" (a quote from RPK). Therefore, to produce more local teachers to teach proper English is a near-impossible task.

Similarly, even if we are to employ retired teachers, a large majority of them might not have the capability to restore the quality of English language, simply because, if they were capable of doing so, our standard would not have deteriorated over the years. To put it bluntly, Malaysia does not have the necessary resources to improve our English proficiency.

On the other hand, there are some positive aspects in this idea, which is acknowledging that we need external assistance. In answering to my friend's question, I felt that in order to impact the system throughout the country, the most practical initiative is hiring foreigners. Therefore, it left us with only one possible aspect of the Minister's initiative, which is to "import" English teachers.

However, three questions remain, "Who to employ?", "How many?" and "How long?" The most straight-forward answer to the first question is to hire teachers from countries where English is the native language - US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, we might only be able to hire "a handful" of English teachers from these countries, as we are taking into account the amount of English teachers needed for several thousand schools throughout the country. As such, perhaps it is more sensible to hire foreigners from countries like the Philippines or India, considering the cost-efficiency.

Therefore the next question is "how many?". In order to strengthen the impact nationally, at least one foreigner per level in a school is needed. Only 1,000 foreigners as the Minister proposed, is not even sufficient to distribute them in every school. (What the Minister proposes is teachers; not trainers or instructors in teachers' training). It is way too small to impact the system. Moreover, this proposal should not be short-term. We need at least one whole cycle of students to have the slightest chance of improving the overall standard of English, that is at least 10 years. Therefore, such a short-term initiative is merely educational gimmick with no hope of success.

What other initiatives could we have?

My friend suggested to send all potential English teachers overseas to pursue a degree in English, as part of the teacher's training, after which bond these teachers for 10 years. The suggestion to send these teachers overseas is to enable them to immerse themselves in the culture to enhance their learning. This could be one possible ways of strengthening teaching and learning. In fact, to my understanding, there is already such a scheme within the Ministry of Education. Still, will such an initiative have sufficient impact to improve the entire system? The English language problem has become a national issue. Probably a five to ten-fold increment to the existing programme is needed.

Another possible suggestion is to enhance teachers' training and provide continuous professional development. This suggestion will work, provided there is a concurrent revamp to the assessment in the education system. Currently, teachers already have numerous trainings and workshops to enhance their professional development. However, after attending all the courses, who actually assess the teachers and ensure that what they learn were implemented in the classrooms?

The more we think about what could be done, the more pessimistic the situation seems to be; without even taking into account the expected costs.

Simply, all that is left in me after this long article is this question: "Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?" I am doubtful!

Bottom-up Approach

Subsequent to DAP's proposal of introducing flexibility for bottom-up approach in the debate about Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (TSME or PPSMI), could we try to stretch the argument a little further and relates that to the bigger question about quality in schools and education in Malaysia?

Basically what DAP suggests is to allow schools and parents to decide which is the best language for their students/children to learn Science and Mathematics. Such flexibility to the policy could be regarded as bottom-up approach.

Now, the Malaysian education system is not only facing the dilemma of choosing between English or Malay in teaching of Science and Mathematics (which Malay has already been chosen), but other more pressing and important problems, such as quality of education, teacher's quality, and the question about what it meant by educating our children. I would argue that a significant portion of Malaysia's educational problems have been due to the "one size fits all" approach in policy-making.

I will attempt to discuss only of them, teacher's quality and curriculum.

First, teachers in Malaysia are all assume to be homogeneous. When we have shortage of teachers, the policy dictates recruiting simply anyone who is interested to teach will become a teacher. However, as teachers are considered civil servant and employed by the government, it would be almost impossible to sack or terminate teachers who do not performed. Therefore, the system is stuck with the chicken-and-egg dilemma; choosing between quality or quantity.

In my sincere opinion, in order to get out of this dilemma, perhaps schools should be allow to make decision which is the best teacher to hire. In other words, government gives up their monopolistic rights as the sole employer and allows the teaching profession to function in a free market. As such, the role of the government is not to provide teachers for schools, but rather, takes a regulatory role to ensure the teaching market do not fail. In addition, the government would subsidise or allocate educational funding to schools according to the number of students, and if the government is serious about closing the disparity between urban and rural schools, this is the change to allocate more to the rural school where the additional could be regarded as developmental fund. Therefore, the schools will have incentive to do their best as a way to uphold their reputation and increase their students; at the same time, teachers will have more incentive to teach effectively, as their wage and salary will be more deterministic of their performance and workload. Certainly, not a "one size fits all" policy, and indeed very much needed one in Malaysia.

Second, our education system emphasises on delivering the education to students for them to score in examination. Our curriculum has been rigidly structured and examination questions focus on testing the facts and figures, rather then their ability to think and analyse. A recent education review in the UK, the Nuffield 14-19 Review, made 31 recommendations. In one of their recommendation about the curriculum, the Review suggests, "Curriculum should be developed cooperatively and locally between schools, colleges and other providers, albeit within a broad national framework". In other words, there should be room for flexibility in curriculum to adjust and accommodate teaching and learning to the local context. Again, we should not "one size fits all" for education policy.

The essential idea about education is fundamentally related to individuals. Hence, it is important to question whether is it possible for these "one size fits all" educational policies to achieve any education purposes and aims.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

The "Expected" Outcome

The long-awaited decision about Teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (TSME) has been announced. After implementing the policy for the past six years, the policy will be revert back to the usage of Malay language and vernacular languages respectively in teaching of Science and Mathematics. I share my observation about this "expected outcome" from several perspectives.

Firstly, the U-turn in the policy, without much doubt, has been driven largely by political influence. Retrospectively, TSME was one of the last legacy of the longest serving Prime Minister of Malaysia. The revert is certainly a way to dismantle that legacy, to make way for new legacies of the current government. On top of that, with the rating of the current government at an all-time low, it came as no surprise to adopt this decision, simply because the voices to abolish have been more vocal and even took to the streets in protest. Without much doubt, political influence has been one of the major forces to change.

Secondly, from policy implementation perspective, it seems to me there isn't much implemented for the past six years. Looking at the UPSR 2008 statistics, the policy has certainly failed in terms of implementation, especially in Chinese schools. No wonder, the Chinese educationalists have been advocating the abolishment of TSME, or rather, it seems like the policy has not been implemented at all.

The Minister of Education in explaining the decision to revert to the old system revealed that only 19.2% and 9.96% of secondary and primary teachers respectively who were sufficiently proficient in English. Again, this relevation came as no surprise, due to the fact that the implementation of TSME six years ago was carried out in a rather haphazard way. However, is this a good reason to revert?

Today we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in English and therefore we abolish TSME. What if tomorrow, we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in Mathematics? Will the government, then, propose to scrap Mathematics in the schools? To me, such reasoning should not be used as an excuse for poor implementation and abolishment of the policy, but rather look at the positiveness, that more initiatives should now be targetted towards the remaining 80% of teachers.

Thirdly, is it ethical that this change will only be implemented from 2012 onwards. In other words, another 3 batches of students will have to undergo this "flawed" policy. Isn't that unethical? If the government is so certain that TSME has failed, why not immediately revert the policy?

Fourthly, I strongly felt that the educational perspective in the policy has been severely neglected. Many quarters have been using the policy as a "proxy war" to fight for their respective interests, but sadly, the core educational issue in the policy has not been addressed accordingly. What have both governments, the one in 2002/3 and now, based their decision on? Were the decisions to implement or abolish TSME based on solid educational research or merely based on "pre-conceived" ideas and hearsay.

There is a huge amount of educational research, especially in the teaching of Science and Mathematics as well as linguistic application, both in Malaysia and overseas, that have vast potentials to inform policy-making. However, not much attention has been given to understand these research, or at least cite a few of them, in consideration of implementing or abolishing this education policy. Sadly, TSME is an educational policy that has no educational aim and inputs!

Lastly, a fellow colleague and Professor in Linguistics once told me, after the implementation of TSME in 2003, our neighbouring country, Indonesia, has been inviting Malaysian linguistic experts over to help with a similar initiative. Six years down the road, Indonesia's initiative is flourishing, but Malaysia has just abolished the policy.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

An Insult to UM

What is wrong having a non-Indian to be the Head of Indian Studies Department in the University of Malaya? Some fundamental questions need to be asked regarding this fiasco:

What is the rational that only Indian can be the Head of Indian Studies Department?

Are Indians the only people who are scholars of Indian cultural?
What about other Indian Studies in other universities, both in Malaysia and overseas?
Are they all only for Indians?

What if the best Indian studies scholars in Malaysia are Malays, Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans or Orang Asli?
Does that mean they are disqualified simply because they are not Indian? Shouldn't the most qualified academician be appointed the Head of Department?

Where is the spirit of meritocracy?
Is our university moving in the right direction?

Isn't such proposal racist?

Sadly, this incident left an ugly impression on Malaysian public universities. It reflects the narrow-minded and racist mindset. Most worrying, it questions Malaysian public universities' readiness to compete with other international universities. What our institutions need are not figure-head leaders who are there because of their ethnicity or even political affiliations; but genuine academic leaders that are able to provide scholastic leadership to lead our institutions forward.

In the world of academia, scholastic ability is paramount. Neither nationality nor citizenship are being questioned. Otherwise, London School of Economics would not have appointed a Malaysian Chinese to become the Head of Economics Department in this world-renown institution.

Adios La Salle Brothers

It's a strange feeling for an Old Free to be writing about another rival school.

It was reported that the last La Salle brother in Malaysia, the Headmaster of St' Xavier Institution has retired, and thus, marked the end of an illustrated era of La Salle influence in Malaysian education system. These La Salle brothers have contributed remarkably to the development of education in the country. Many Malaysians owe it to them for the dedicated education and teaching that these La Salle brothers have passionately given their life for. Without doubt, these La Salle schools have produced many remarkable Malaysians, and proud to say, my father is a product of the La Salle school.

To be fair, where credit is due, it should be given. The La Salle brothers had indeed contributed incredibly to the education of Malaysia and their contribution ought to be recorded as an integral part of the nation's historical account about education.

Prediction, estimation or pure random "guesstimate"?

The Deputy Minister of Education was reported by the media saying that 80% of Malaysians are in favour of making English as a make-pass subject in SPM. In view that this policy has vital implication to the education, the economy and even the Malaysian society, how could a politician made such a irresponsible "guesstimate".

How could "prediction" be made based on emails and text messages received? "Prediction" or "estimation" such as these are misleading and the effect is certainly detrimental, purely without statistical principles to be called an estimation. Frankly, such prediction looks more like a pure random "guesstimate", or rather, like the old Chinese supersitious tradition of interpreting their dreams and turned them into numbers to buy lottery.

However, to have such a high-profile person in the Ministry of Education to make such an un-intellectual guess, I wonder, what is the advantage of making English as a must-pass subject?

From the standpoint of the society, does it make any good to have less people with a SPM certificate? Failing the English language subject in SPM, in many ways, is already a bad result to have. By making English as a must-pass subject, it will only make those who are already bad to look even worse. To deprive them of a SPM certificate because of the English language, to many weak students, this is practically killing the "dying lifeline" for them to pursue further education and training. What's the point?

Frankly, I do not see much advantages of making English as a must-pass subject, both from society and educational viewpoints. Perhaps, as a politician, the Minister or Deputy Minister has other agendas for Malaysian education system.

P/S: Just a point to ponder, what is the Deputy Minister's viewpoint of teaching Science and Mathematics in English?

English in SPM

It came a little surprising that the Minister of Education did not know that English is not a "must-pass" subject in SPM (O-levels). I wonder, what about his predecessors? Do they actually know anything about the Malaysian education system? Anyway, I am not interested to question politician's knowledge about education. What I am more interested is the Minister's comments and initiatives.

I wish to point out that I have used the term "must-pass" instead of compulsory. This is simply because English language is already a compulsory subject in SPM examination, whereby all students must sit for this paper. What the Minister does not know, is that in order for students to be considered to have acquired the SPM (O-levels) certificate, Malay Language is a "must-pass" subject and English is not. Therefore, what has been reported in the media about suggestion to turn English into compulsory subject should in fact be reported as making it a "must-pass" subject.

I applaud more initiatives to improve the standard of English language in Malaysia. As a product of the Malaysian education system, the level of my English language proficiency, particularly in writing, has always been a concern. I have tried to improve but, as a result of poor understanding to the basic foundation of the language, improvement has been slow and painful (I do not blame any of my English teachers. In fact, they have taught me more than I could have learnt). Even until now, I am still attending English writing courses. Therefore, I have personally felt the inadequacy of English proficiency, hence I understood the importance that more initiatives to improve the level of proficiency among students is much needed.

However, I view the call for making English a "must-pass" with much skepticism. In fact, I do not agree with having any "must-pass" subjects in examination. The idea of having "must-pass" in examinations heavily contradict the purpose of examination. Examination is an opportunity for students to gauge their understanding and knowledge. By placing a "must-pass" criteria for one or two subjects, it will shift the focus from measuring the level of mastery into striving for A's.

Moreover, if a student scores A's in mathematics and science (the essential basics to be a scientist) but failed the "must-pass" subject, does this means that the student has failed the entire examination, and hence, all doors to further education will be closed? What is important with examinations, such as SPM, is to provide more flexibility for students to gauge their strengths and weakness, as well as a form of measure of their knowledge and ability.

If improving English language is prime concern, then Malaysia needs to have more properly-trained English teachers, who are committed and passionate to help students learn the English language. For the last three to four decades, the Malaysian education system has "neglected" the importance of the English language, and hence, several generations of truly-competent English teachers have been lost. Most of the teachers within the system were students trained in the era where Malay language is the utmost important language and the importance placed upon English has been minimal. Therefore, efforts need to once again begin from the basics, which means beginning at teachers' training and primary schools.

As way forward, much drastic yet creative initiatives are needed to revamp and improve English proficiency, but certainly, introducing English as a "must-pass" subject in SPM is not going to solve the problem. In fact, there is a high possibility that it might further deteriorate the English proficiency of Malaysian students.

Maximum 10 for SPM

Malaysian Minister of Education announced that students sitting for SPM (O-levels) examination would only be allowed to sit for a maximum 10 subjects. Personally, I felt this is the way forward from the education viewpoint.

Why it's good?

Firstly, this initiative reduce the highly-intensive rat-race for scoring more A's in examination. Under the current open examination, it seems almost "ridiculous" to have students sitting for 23 subjects, possibly all the available subjects. However, what's the point? It is just producing "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Secondly, this limitation is the right way to re-align the focus of education, which should be about learning and not examination. In a way, by reducing the numbers, students can now give more attention to the learning of the subjects, rather than preparation for examination. After all, the purpose of learning is to master the subject.

Thirdly, this initiative also enable students to think carefully about the subjects that they are interested. I recalled that when I was studying in STPM (A-levels), I have to make an important decision in choosing the subjects due to the limitation of only 5 subjects. Therefore, I was forced to seriously think about my strengths, weaknesses, abilities as well as the practicality of the subjects that I will be taking. After making such decision, learning seems to be more "purposeful" and interesting.

What else need to be done about SPM education?

Firstly, the Minister, policy-makers and educationalists should consider reducing the number of core subjects in SPM examination. As far as I could remember, students have to take Malay Language, English Language, Mathematics, Islamic Studies or Moral Education and History. Perhaps, consideration should be given to reduce the number of core subjects. Although I do not doubt the importance of history, but forcing everyone to study history for the sake of examination certainly isn't the best way to learn history. As for moral education, my frank opinion is that this subject should not even exist in the first place; plainly redundant and ridiculous.

Secondly, as I applaud the initiative to place a maximum cap to the number of subjects, I also wish to contend that the minimum cap to be reduced or removed. In a way, the system should be more flexible for students at the other spectrum, those with low academic abilities, to take less number of subjects. It is important to note that, while public examinations at Year 6 and Form 3 require all students to attempt similar number of subjects, nevertheless, considering those who failed terribly in these previous examinations, it is almost unthinkable that they will be able to cope with 8-10 subjects at this level of examination. Perhaps, it would be more practical and useful for these students to concentrate on two or three subjects, rather than taking 10 subjects and failing all of them. After all, education is about learning, and more importantly, should be an enjoying experience for all.

How to define a Top Scorer?

Subsequent to the article about JPA scholarship, I wish to take this opportunity to examine another important element in the discourse - "top scorer".

How do we define a top scorer?

Is Student X with 17A's smarter or cleverer than Student Y who scored 9A's?

The mere comparison based on examination result can be misleading.

First, are we assuming all students are given the equal opportunity in terms of number of papers? Although technically, students are allowed to attempt as many papers as possible, in SPM, nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that not all schools in Malaysia are capable to provide adequate "education" and support. Therefore, there might be an element of inequality creating further inequalities, whereby students in the less developed schools will have great difficulties to compete with those in better schools on a level playing ground.

Second, the core subject we are discussing is education. Is scoring more A's means the person is better educated or more intellectual? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in equating what it meant to be educated and being a top scorer. With this strong emphasis on examination results, it will eventually drives Malaysian education system to become even more exam-oriented. Again, isn't this what our Education Minister is trying to change?

Third, relating to my previous article about the distinction of financial aid and scholarship, I wish to re-emphasise that if JPA scholarship is meant to be a "scholarship", then what concerns this debate is developing the best brains for civil service. However, do we really need all the top scorers to be civil servant? If the answer is no, then JPA scholarship needs to further tighten the regulation to ensure all the scholars ultimately return to serve in the civil service, and at the same time, only provide the scholarship for those with great potentials to be capable civil servant. Hence, being a top scorer is just an additional plus-point to the application, and not the criteria.

Fourth, if JPA scholarship is playing the role of financial aid, then, the award needs to seriously re-consider providing a greater weightage to the financial needs of the applicants according to their needs. Again, being a top scorer is just an additional bonus, not a definite criteria.

Fifth, taking into consideration that JPA scholarship awards according to disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, law etc., therefore, the evaluation on the academic results need to be more refined. The definition of top scorer should be not used as the overall indicator, but more importantly, the academic performance of the related subjects to the disciplines of the scholarship. For example, if an applicant scores 10A's in pure sciences but applies for law, then it certainly does not make sense to award the JPA scholarship to this applicant. Therefore, evaluating specific subjects performance is a more practical and sensible way to determine the awarding of the scholarship; if examination results remain the most important measurement.

In conclusion, before continuing this discourse about scholarship, it is essential to take a moment and ponder upon the very crucial question, "How to define a top scorer?"

JPA Scholarship

The debate about JPA scholarship has began to heat up again, with MCA and MIC calling for the scholarship to be awarded based on merit. (For the benefit of non-Malaysian readers, JPA scholarship is the Public Service Department scholarship).

On a personal note, I would call for JPA scholarship to be revamp. The following are my reason and how the revamp should be:

Don't award scholarship based on SPM (o-level equivalent) results.

• It does not make sense to award a university-level scholarship strictly based on an examination taken two level before. Many cases in the past where after receiving the scholarship, students do not do well in their A-levels and subsequently do not meet the requirement to qualify for university

Need to differentiate between scholarship and financial aid.
This distinction needs to be clearly specified.

1. If JPA scholarship is going to help students from poor background to succeed, then it should take the form of financial aid. Give to students who are academically deserving, but more importantly, those with genuine financial needs. Fundamentally, financial aid could be allocated based on quota according to the needs of the target groups. In such circumstances, the financial aid should also provides the flexibility for students either to serve their bond or repay the financial aid after graduating. After all, these aids are intended to help the poor come out from poverty through education, and it should not concern about training and keeping the best brains.
   
2. On the other hand, if JPA scholarship is a "scholarship", then it should be strictly merit-based and given out to the best brains in the country, regardless of background and ethnicity. Adding to that, students should be assessed not only by their academic result and extra-curricular activities involvement, but more importantly, their suitability to serve in the civil service. In addition, the Public Service Commission must ensure all these brains will eventually come back and serve the country in the civil service. This is one important aspect JPA scholarship must improve for the country to reap the benefits.
   

Without this clear distinction of scholarship and financial aid, the debate about equality and the objective of JPA scholarship is misleading and a waste of time.

Why waste "university-level" scholarship money for A-levels tuition fees?

• The more rationale method would encourage all students, regardless of how smart and bright, to continue STPM or "Matriculation" programme in public schools. After all, isn't the STPM a globally recognised qualification examination to university worldwide? If this is not the case for both STPM and Matriculation, then it's about time the Malaysian education policy-makers began to fundamentally think about this. I know for sure, National University of Singapore do not recognise Malaysian Matriculation programme.

Scholarship to be awarded after receiving a University offer.

• This is the best way to ensure that the scholarship is given out based on merit. Why award a scholarship when the student have not even got a university placement? Isn't gaining entry into the best university such as Harvard or Cambridge, a better and more accurate indicator of the student's ability and competence, rather than just relying on SPM results and extra-curricular activities? In a way, JPA also do not need to be worried about the suitability of the students to excel in their particular field of interest. This responsibility has been given to the admissions officers in these university.

Additions:
DAP has also joined the bandwagon to discuss about JPA scholarship through organising a public forum. I wonder, is it possible to distangle politics from education? Perhaps only without political influence, educational decisions could take place. Well, just my naive thinking.
(Again for the understanding of non-Malaysian readers, MCA and MIC are political parties in the ruling coalition that "represent" the Chinese and Indians, while DAP is another political party on the opposition side in Parliament).

My Prayer for Malaysia

My prayer for social justice in Malaysia.

"Almighty God, who hast created man in thine own image; Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice among men and nations, to glory of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. "

Prayer taken from The Book of Common Prayer (1928). May God be merciful to the nation of Malaysia, despite the constitutional and political turmoils.

No Pork

Take a break and laugh your head off!

Chinese Road Sign in London

I was in London last week. Went to Chinatown. To my surprise, the road signs in this area were bi-lingual. Let us not forget that this is London, the "Capital City of England" and supposedly the heart of English language in the world.


This reminded me about all the controversies in Penang, when the State Government proposed to use bi-lingual road signs in certain part of Georgetown. I would not dwell back into these meaningless controversies, but as a whole, it reflected the myopic and narrow-mindedness of the critics in the issue.

I strongly believe these bi-lingual road sign initiative should not be confined merely to Penang (or Georgetown), but to all major road sign in Malaysia. When we think about tourism, do not side-track into other issues like politics. After all, Malaysia's tourism promotes itself as "Malaysia, Truly Asia". The multi-lingual road sign initiative is certainly a way forward.

Written English: Keep it clear, Keep it simple

This article was published on February 27, 2009 by The Straits Times in Singapore. A speech given by Lee Kuan Yew exactly 30 years ago.

WRITTEN ENGLISH
Keep it clear, keep it simple

I WANT to discuss the importance of simple, clear, written English. This is not simple. Dr Goh Keng Swee gives every officer whom he thinks is promising and whose minutes or papers are deficient in clarity, a paperback edition of Sir Ernest Gowers' The Complete Plain Words.

It presupposes that the man who attempts to read the book has reached a certain level of literary competence. The book, written words, cannot convey to you the emphasis, the importance, the urgency of things, unless the receiver is a trained reader. And in any case, human beings are never moved by written words. It is the spoken word that arouses them to action. Arthur Koestler rightly pointed out that if Adolf Hitler's speeches had been written, not spoken, the Germans would never have gone to war. Similarly, Sukarno in print did not make great sense.

The spoken language is better learnt early; then you will have fluency. However, my thesis is that the written language can be mastered at any age without much disadvantage. It is learnt fastest when your written mistakes are pointed out to you by a teacher, friend, or senior officer. That was the way I learnt.

When I was in school my compositions were marked. When my children were in school they simply got grades for their written work. Their teachers had so many essays that they never attempted to correct the compositions. This has contributed to our present deplorable situation.

I want to convince you, first, of the importance of clear, written communication; second, that you can master it, if you apply yourself.

The use of words, the choice and arrangement of words in accordance with generally accepted rules of grammar, syntax and usage, can accurately convey ideas from one mind to another. It can be mastered.

When I was a law student I learnt that every word, every sentence has three possible meanings: what the speaker intends it to mean, what the hearer understands it to mean, and what it is commonly understood to mean. So when a coded message is sent in a telegram, the sender knows what he means, the receiver knows exactly what is meant, the ordinary person reading it can make no sense of it at all.

When you write minutes or memoranda, do not write in code, so that only those privy to your thoughts can understand. Write simply so that any other officer who knows nothing of the subject can understand you. To do this, avoid confusion and give words their ordinary meanings.

Our biggest obstacle to better English is shyness. It is a psychological barrier. Nobody likes to stop and ask, 'Please, what does that mean?' or 'Please tell me, where have I gone wrong?' To pretend you know when you don't know is abysmal folly. Then we begin to take in each other's mistakes and repeat them, compounding our problems.

The facility to express yourself in a written language is yet another facet or manifestation of your ability, plus application and discipline. It is a fallacy to believe that because it is the English language, the Englishman has a natural advantage in writing it. That is not so. He has a natural advantage in speaking the language because he spoke it as a child, but not in writing it. It has nothing to do with race. You are not born with a language. You learn it.

Without effective written communication within the government, there will be misunderstanding and confusion. Let me give a few recent illustrations of writing so sloppy that I had to seek clarification of their meanings:

'With increasing urbanisation and industrialisation, we will require continued assistance particularly in the technological and managerial fields.'

I asked myself: What have I missed in this? What has the first part about urbanisation and industrialisation to do with the second part about continued assistance? Why do we need more assistance, particularly in technological and managerial skills, because of increasing urbanisation and industrialisation?

It is non sequitur. We need technological and managerial assistance anyway. The first part does not lead to the second part.

'It is necessary to study the correlation between language aptitude, intelligence and values and attitudes to ensure that the various echelons of leaders are not only effectively bilingual but also of the desirable calibre.'

I read it over and over again. It made no sense. This is gibberish! I enquired and I was told, well, they were trying to find out how language ability and intelligence should influence the methods for instilling good social values and attitudes.

Well, then say so. But somebody wanted to impress me by dressing up his ideas in big words. Next time impress me with the simple way you get your ideas across.

'France is the fourth major industrial country in Europe after West Germany, Britain and Italy.'

Calculating backwards and forwards, I decided France cannot be the fourth. I queried. The reply was that France was fourth in terms of number of industrial workers. Now, China probably has the largest number of industrial workers in the world. In some factories they may have 14,000 workers when a similar factory in America would have 4,000. Does that make China the first industrial country in the world?

'The Third World has the stamina to sustain pressure for the Common fund. Progress will probably be incremental with acceleration possible if moderation prevails.'

Now what does this mean? By 'incremental' the officer meant 'slow'. 'Slow', I understand; but 'acceleration possible', I do not.

If we do not make a determined effort to change, the process of government will slow down. It will snarl up. I have noted this steady deterioration over the last 20 years. I want to reverse it. If we start with those at the top, we can achieve a dramatic improvement in two years, provided the effort is made.

Now I want to discuss how we can do this:

To begin with, before you can put ideas into words, you must have ideas. Otherwise, you are attempting the impossible.

The written English we want is clean, clear prose - not elegant, not stylish, just clean, clear prose. It means simplifying, polishing and tightening.

Remember: That which is written without much effort is seldom read with much pleasure. The more the pleasure, you can assume, as a rule of thumb, the greater the effort.

When you send me or your minister a minute or a memo - or a draft that has to be published like the President's Address - do not try to impress by using big words; impress by the clarity of your ideas.

I speak as a practitioner. If I had not been able to reduce complex ideas into simple words and project them vividly for mass understanding, I would not be here.

The communists simplified ideas into slogans to sway the people's feelings - to get them to move in directions which would have done us harm. I had to counter them. I learnt fast. The first thing I had to do was to express ideas in simple words.

My experience is that attending courses helps but not as much as lessons tailored for you. You have written a memo. Somebody runs through it and points out your errors: 'You could have said it this way'; 'this is an error'; 'this can be broken into two sentences' and so on.

In other words, superiors and peers and even subordinates who spot errors should be encouraged to point them out. My personal assistants point out my mistakes; I tell them to.

Some final examples on how urgent the problem is, from two papers coming before Cabinet: The first, a very well-written paper; the other badly written. But even the well-written paper contained a repetitious phrase which confused me. Because it was well-written, I thought the repeated words must be there to convey a special meaning:

'If the basis for valuation is to be on a basis other than open market value as evidenced by sales, arbitrariness and protracted litigation would occur, thus tarnishing the credibility of government machinery.'

I ran my eye back to the opening words. I queried: 'Do we lose anything if we dropped the words 'to be on a basis' before 'other'.' Answer came back: 'No meaning is lost.' And this was in a well-written paper.

Let me read from the second paper, which tried to explain why we must set up an institute:

'The need for such services is made more acute as at present, there is no technical agency offering consultancy services in occupational safety and health.'

I asked: 'What's happening 'as at present'? Why 'as at present'?'

What the officer meant was: 'There is acute need because there is no department which offers advice on occupational safety and health.'

We have taken each other's mistakes. He had constantly read 'as at present', 'as of yesterday', 'as of tomorrow', so he just stuffed in three unnecessary words - 'as at present' - into his paper.

There is such a thing as a language environment. Ours is a bad one. Those of you who have come back from a long stay in a good English-speaking environment would have felt the shock when reading The Straits Times on returning.

I spent a month in Vancouver in October 1968. Then I went on to Harvard University in Boston. For one month, I read the papers in Vancouver. They were not much better than The Straits Times. They had one million people, English-speaking. But there was no sparkle in their pages.

The contrast in Harvard was dazzling. From the undergraduate paper, The Harvard Crimson, to the Boston Globe, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, every page crackled with novel ideas, smartly presented. Powerful minds had ordered those words. Ideas had been thought out and dressed in clean, clear prose. They were from the best trained minds of an English-speaking population.

Let us try to do better. We are not doing justice to ourselves. I know the ability is there; it has just not been trained to use the written word correctly and concisely. And it is not too late to start.

It is not possible to conduct the business of government by talking to each other with the help of gesticulation. You have to write it down. And it must be complete, clear and unambiguous.