Categories
Education

[1988] Of address the PSD scholarship awarding process by using grade point average

In response to the scholarship controversy, the Deputy Prime Minister — or more appropriately the Education Minister — Muhyiddin Yassin shared that there are plans to limit the number of subjects students can take “to enable a fairer selection for the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarship.”[1]

This solution should be rejected because it is a blunt approach to address a specific but nonetheless big problem. The approach should not be taken unless there is something holistic behind it. That means, if it aims to address the education system. The education system however is a different set of issues altogether and this entry is not meant to address that.

If we are to restrict our discussion to the awarding of scholarship as with the apparent intention of the Minister, what should be addressed is the awarding process, not the education system. It is utterly ridiculous to shape whole the education system to fit the awarding method in order to address the problem.

The issue here is not the education system. This is not to say that the current education is not problematic but again, the issue needing solution is the awarding system. But even if the education system was excellent, the proposal would be all the more revolting. Imagine a hypothetically perfect education system being molded to fit an imperfect scholarship awarding process.

At the same time, to restrict the maximum number of subjects in order to address the awarding method is missing the whole point.

Worse, it seeks equality of mediocrity in the name of fairness when fairness can be achieved by addressing the awarding process instead. People that are able to take up a lot of subjects should not be prevented to do so. They should not be prevented from exploring their options just because some other students are unable to do so. If that reason sounds familiar, it should be: it is the idea that has been derided as equality of poverty; it comes eerily close to one pillar of communism, if it is not communism itself.

Whether it is good to take a lot of subjects at one time is another matter which this entry does not seek to address. I have my own opinion on the matter but I will not share it here in fear of digressing too much from the issue at hand.

I have a better proposal to how to make the award of scholarship by addressing the issue straight on rather than widen the problem. I propose for the PSD to internally utilize grade point average (GPA) method in awarding the scholarship. By internal, I mean it is used to filter all applicants even when the GPA approach is not used in the education system. And how the GPA is calculated should be made public.

The GPA system is not new and is widely used in universities all around the world. To those unfamiliar with the system, it basically assigns point to a particular grade and averages all subjects taken by utilizing weight. In universities, that weight is the number of hours required per week to read a particular subject. In the case of PSD, the weight can be how important a particular subject is perceived as. A subject like economics can be weighted highly while a fluffy subject like English for science and technology or can be weighted very lowly.[2]

Observe that this address the awarding process rather than trying to mold the education system to fit the awarding process.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: There are plans to limit the number of subjects students take in the SPM examination to enable a fairer selection for the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarship, said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Currently residential school students are only allowed to take nine or 10 subjects while those from rural areas had to take lesser due to lack of facilities.

As there is no restriction on the number of subjects students at normal schools could take, some have taken up to 19 subjects, he said.

When students from residential or rural schools with 9As are given PSD scholarship, students from normal schools who scored more As became displeased, he said, adding that it would be unfair not to select those from residential and rural schools as they could not take more subjects even if they wanted to. [DPM: Govt plans for easier PSD scholarship selection. Dharmender Singh. The Star. May 21 2009]

[2] — For a detailed example of a GPA system which I am familiar with, see an explanation of how a school of my alma mater — the University of Michigan — does it.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1987] Of my support for election does not negate my belief in freedom of association

Why election in Perak? Why do I support dissolving the state assembly in light that I see no wrong in a person exercising his or her freedom of association? Is it not political defection that caused the whole fiasco in Perak?

Am I being inconsistent?

No. I hold consistency as a personal value and therefore, I can say with certainty that I am being consistent. Allow me to explain my position and demonstrate my consistency.

From my perspective, the issue in Perak has long stopped being about freedom of association. It is not about political defection of the three state assemblypersons from DAP and PKR that brought down the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak. Therefore, point raised by Barisan Nasional — and more so by UMNO members as BN component parties begin to break rank on the matter — about BN having the majority in the state assembly is moot.

It is clear to me that there is a serious deadlock in the state assembly even after accounting for the 3 defectors who are now supposedly to be independent assemblypersons friendly to BN. The deadlock comes not from the composition of the legislative hall which practically favors BN but is caused instead by the fact that the Speaker and the de facto government — BN, that is — are terribly hostile against each other. It is this deadlock, not the defection per se, that convinces me to support dissolution of the assembly and inevitably election.

Speakers in Malaysia, be it at the federal or state level, have extensive powers that he is the dictator of the house. With a culture of neutrality that should be held by Speaker absent, the Speaker is able to frustrate the government and bring any government’s business to a halt. However disagreeable a Speaker’s action is, the fact is in the imperfect system that Perak and Malaysia adopt considers Speaker’s extensive power as legal.

Not only that, the Speaker can suspend anybody seemingly indiscriminately.

BN tried to remove the Speaker but the truth is that BN cannot hope to succeed if they want to remove the Speaker legally without dissolving the state assembly. What happened on May 7 was a series of constitutional violations where BN eventually usurped the power the Speaker. It was wrong.

The power of the Speaker needs to be addressed but it has to be addressed through amendment of laws, not through the illegal use of brute force as was done on May 7 by BN. This means I consider Sivakumar as the only lawful Speaker.

While BN’s action on May 7 compounds the problem from imperfect system to dishonorable disrespect for the Constitution, it is really irrelevant to my support for dissolution and election. While it does have a great impact on political reality — I think it does make the emotional case for election stronger — the trigger point for my support of election is, as I mentioned, the conflict between the Speaker and the de facto government, the BN government in Perak.

Yes, the de jure government is the Pakatan Rakyat government as highlighted by the High Court in its May 11 ruling but the de facto government is the BN government.

Furthermore, if the apex Court reaffirmed the High Court’s decision, Pakatan Rakyat may become a minority government. Theoretically, if the laws are observed, Pakatan Rakyat can remain a minority government until 2013 because the Speaker can ensure any vote of confidence to bring down the minority government is thrown out. To me, a minority government is unacceptable if there is another group in the same House which is able to form a majority government. It is undemocratic.

To solve the issue, dissolution is necessary.

Notice, the two points do not at all affect freedom of association.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government Society

[1986] Of democracies exist because…

For those who fear confrontation with respect to Perak may lead us to the path of Thailand:

Democracies exist only because enough people were unwilling to be sheep, and brave enough to fight violent wars to achieve a share in power. [Page 227. Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government. Geoff Mulgan.]

I consider it as a game of war of attrition.

Categories
Books, essays and others Liberty

[1985] Of Mill alluding to externality and solving it through utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill in his introduction to On Liberty writes:

It is proper to state that I forgo any advantage which could be derived to my argument from idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man’s duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is a rule; to make his answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet, there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amendable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good reasons for not holding him to the responsibility; but these reasons must arise from the special expediencies of the case: either because it is a kind of case in which he is on the whole likely to act better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their power to control him; or because the attempt to exercise control would produce other evils, greater than those which it would prevent. When such reasons as these preclude the enforcement of responsibility, the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgement-seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection; judging himself all the more rigidly, because the case does not admit of his being made accountable to the judgement of his fellow creatures. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]

First of all, wow. Look at that. That is one paragraph. But at least, it is more readable than Kant’s impossible Critique of Pure Reason.

Secondly and more importantly, it is beyond doubt this particular paragraph of Mill is filled with utilitarian idea. He justifies compulsion by society on individual by doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Gee, what am I talking about. This is Mill after all.

I am not quite sure if I agree with Mill when he writes there “are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform.” This may refer to externality but reading the whole paragraph within the context set by the introductory chapter by Mill, his idea may go beyond mine. While do believe certain negative externality requires action — for instance carbon emissions with respect to climate change — Mill mentions common defense, which may or may not mean conscription. I do have certain distaste for free riders; yet, I do have problem utilizing compulsion in against free riders. Mill suffers no such issue by reverting to utilitarianism.

Nevertheless, I am relieved to read that a “person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”

Indeed.

Mill writes further immediate after that paragraph. and it is more agreeable if I might add. I am reproducing it for the benefit of the readers here:

But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly, and in the first instance: for whatever affects himself, may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]

Categories
Economics

[1984] Of inverse relations between safety net and savings

If you think of the exports as the first link in the causal chain, the resulting pile of Chinese savings is the second. Much of this savings has been by the corporate sector, which is subsidized by the government in all sorts of ways (an undervalued currency, low interest rates, cheap energy). The economic boom brought big profits, and companies held on to much of them. The government has also increased its savings in this decade by collecting more taxes and, until the financial crisis, running a budget surplus. And households increased their own savings in the 1990s, in reaction to the dismantling of many bloated state-run companies and the cradle-to-grave benefits, known as the ”iron rice bowl,” they once provided to their workers. When a Chinese citizen is rushed to the hospital after a car accident today, the first stop for the victim’s family is often the cashier’s window. Many hospitals won’t admit patients until they have paid, and many families have no health insurance. Instead, they insure themselves, by saving. [Will China still bankroll us? David Leonhardt. New York Times. May 13 2009]

Leonhardt’s article suggests that lack of social safety net encourages saving. It makes sense.

The reversed relation is interesting: does availability of safety net discourage savings?

Indirectly, this asks how does that affect consumption? Does it increase consumption?

Implicitly, this may suggest that people may be less judicious with their consumption and more happily go into debt to spend with the presence of safety net. This is so when one contrasts the situations without social safety net in China and the availability of one in the United States as described by Leonhardt; massive savings in the former and large debt in the former on individual level, on average.

I really think I want to explore this when I finally get back to school. Ah, approximately 72 days before school begins. I just cannot wait.