First published in The New Straits Times on 24th December 2008.

IN a troubled world, during troubled times, poetic justice is something we desperately need. We need to see bad guys get their retribution.

Or, as John Lennon suggested, instant karma should get them.

But, of course, it seldom does.

The believers among us will look for retribution in the hereafter. Mob rule or mob justice is often tempting in our moments of weakness. But we can hedge it by taking legal action to get our justice here and now.

When the hills collapsed, we secretly wished those responsible would have been buried as well.
It would not have done us any good, of course, but it would have seemed as if the stars had re-aligned to see to it that those who were clouded by greed were made accountable in the manner most apt.

In the James Bond movies of old, the villains would likely have met their end by the very same devious tools they had created for world domination. The film directors knew we craved poetic justice, and delivered it by the bushel load.

In real life, however, we are left to rage that the guilty can move freely among us or, if hauled up, get off lightly with a slap on the wrist.

So when property developers say their hillslope developments are safe, I wish we can require that they and their families, as well as their businesses, be re-located at the foot of their slope developments, if only during the period of construction.

They would need to look up at the sky each day and wonder if it were going to rain or if the retaining wall would hold.

Perhaps, we could tie the project approvals to the willingness of chief executives and board members to subject themselves to the noise, the dust when it is dry and the murky surface run offs when it rains.

And if there were landslides, well, they should be there, too.

Perhaps, the threat of karmic comeuppance would make people more circumspect.

It can make us more cautious, meticulous and careful.

Officials of companies that pollute the waters or dispose of toxic waste indiscriminately should be required to build their homes in the area polluted. Or, if they were incarcerated, be held at jails to be built there.

How we secretly wish that the reckless road racer and Mat Rempit would meet the next lamp post or tree at top speed. For all their terrorising and unsafe driving, they should get a taste of their own bother, but they seldom do. And, if they did, I am not sure I would feel good about it.

How I wish that all the politicians who speak indignantly about declining values or wanting to be our moral guardians will be found out for the sham that they are. Some were caught with their pants around their ankles, but many continue to moralise and demonise others as if they walked on water.

For those who are corrupt and yet rail against corruption, I wish they will get a taste of their own call for transparency to expose them for what they are.

Of course, calling for retribution could land one on the wrong side of the law. How many times have we wished that we could just run someone off the road, or smash the television for the things that get beamed into our living rooms?

How we wish for poetic justice to restore our faith in mankind. I could hardly contain my glee when the Iraqi journalist threw not one, but both, of his shoes at United States President George W. Bush. His off-target missiles told the US leader in the clearest terms possible how he felt.

It is politically incorrect to feel the way that I do. But, a shoe in the face is nothing compared with the thousands who died and millions who suffered for Bush's adventurism.

For all that he will be remembered, the shoe attack, and what it stood for, will remain high on the list. It is as close to poetic justice as can be for George Walker Bush Jr.

First published in The New Straits Times on 17th December 2008.

I MANAGED to wrangle an invitation to the fifth Ministry of Education roundtable to discuss the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English, and I came out convinced that we, as a nation, are capable of politicking almost anything, even the colours of the traffic lights, if we could.

All manner of opinions were given, often couched with care and concern for our children as well as our national interests, of course. But ironically, they merely confirmed my suspicion that many are using the issue as a proxy for interests other than our children's.

I went there without slides or Powerpoint charts, minus studies or papers, bereft of statistics or findings. I went there as a parent representing 7-year-old Zuleika, and I would also like to think, many other children in the country.

I was there with an agenda that is basically my child's; they are neither political, nor chauvinistic nor unreasonable.

In fact, my agenda is practical and pragmatic -- offer our children the tools to prosper in a globalised world. There is even a sub-plot of making our schools the integrator of the various races.
Many of those opposing the present policy -- and wanting to revert the teaching of the two subjects to Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin or Tamil -- found unlikely comradeship. The Malay nationalists and literary groups argued for the primacy of Bahasa Malaysia, while the Chinese political parties and non-governmental organisations, about preserving their culture and identities.

There were all manners of arguments, some of them convincing, but none moved me to think that Zuleika will be better off without the policy.

Amidst all the dust stirred, sparks created and emotions riled, we have actually managed to get ourselves all tangled up in blue funk and find ourselves mixing up the issues at hand, and hence, making solutions rather impossible.

I believe we have to identify the issues, and for each of them, their own sets of problems, needs and solutions.

I would say there are three at the moment. The first being the effectiveness of English as a medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science; second, the position of Bahasa Malaysia; and third, the decline in English language proficiency. We may even add a fourth one, which is the issue of national unity.

The first, of course, is that no one can deny the superiority of English as a language for mathematics and science. It is proven that there are more knowledge sources in English than in any other language, so why should we deny our children access to them? Try Googling anything.

If we have issues, it would be with the teachers, who should be trained and re-trained periodically. This is an evolution, not a revolution.

The second issue is the position of the national language in schools and in society. Judging by the eloquence of the non-Malays who spoke at the roundtable, including Deputy Education Minister Datuk Wee Ka Siong, there is no doubt that the future of the national language is secure.

What is needed is to teach it better, perhaps including Malay literature at an earlier age. Do our school kids know the work of Usman Awang or Samad Ismail, unless if they had taken literature as a subject?

Someone said that we need to make Bahasa Malaysia stronger by making it a language for science and technology. But we cannot. That train left the station long ago. All over the world, people are facing the dilemma of creeping Anglicisation of their languages, largely due to advancements in science and technology. It is a fact of life.

The third issue is, of course, proficiency in the English language, which, we all agree, has gone down drastically over the years. Obviously, Mathematics and Science in English would not solve it, but it could create some degree of comfort in the language. These days, English only becomes a language when it is used in Mathematics and Science, or else it is just a subject for kids to mug for examinations.

There are tens of thousands of retirees, teachers and others, who are fit, ready and eager to be let loose on our children. If we are still lacking, hire native speakers from abroad.

Nevertheless, the series of roundtables have given rise to several alternatives on how to address the issue.

Alternative 1: Continue with the present policy of teaching Mathematics and Science in English.

Alternative 2: The policy to continue in secondary schools, but in primary schools they are to be taught in Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin or Tamil.

Alternative 3: The subjects to be taught in English beginning Year 4 of primary school.

Alternative 4: Revert to teaching Science and Mathematics in Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin or Tamil in primary and secondary schools.

Alternative 5: Schools to determine the medium of instruction for the subjects.

Alternative 6: The subjects to be taught in Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin or Tamil at Primary One, bilingual in Primary Two onwards, and in English for secondary schools.

Alternative 7: Science not taught in Primary One, but its content integrated into other subjects.

Perhaps the government should let us have a say in this matter.

My choice for Zuleika is, of course, Alternative 1, but given the tonnes of speeches yesterday, it is getting to be less likely. So my other choice is Alternative 5. How about you?

First published in The New Straits Times on 10th December 2008.

THE Chinese-education lobby group Dong Jiao Zong, according to a news report, is threatening a nationwide protest should the government decide to continue with teaching Science and Maths in English.

The group and many others want to revert to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, and Mandarin and Tamil in vernacular schools.

If the report is true, Dong Jiao Zong's threat can be seen as a pre-emptive strike to put pressure on the government, ahead of the Education Ministry's fifth roundtable meeting for stakeholders on Dec 16 to get feedback on whether to continue with the policy

Political parties and various other groups have also weighed in, many siding with Dong Jiao Zong, though none has threatened as blatant a show of dissent as it has in promising to gather opponents of the policy for a nationwide protest if the current policy is not reversed.

The leaders of Dong Jiao Zong know how such a threat would play out in public, but the fact that it does so anyway suggests either naivete, or arrogance. And I do not believe it is the former.

I thought the recent Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) results, which was to be a key factor in determining the fate of the policy, showed that it was not damaging and that more students answered their questions in English. Interviews with students, which I must admit could be misleading, suggested that they preferred the subjects to be in English.

One can drag out all manner of studies and statistics to prove or disprove the consequences of the current policy, but all I know is that English is a superior language for science and technology. I am as sure of that as Dong Jiao Zong has been on the superiority of Mandarin and Tamil for the subjects.

And please don't tell me about the Germans or Japanese or French or everyone else who prospered without English. For one, we are not them. And guess what, they are learning English, if they are not already proficient in it. And why would you not want your children to get a head start in an international language?

Incidentally, I know few Malaysian Chinese whose "actual" mother tongue is Mandarin. Most have had to learn Mandarin since they actually speak Cantonese, Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew, etc., at home. But I would be attracting brickbats by saying this, I suppose.

I understand the appeal to keep vernacular schools alive, the Constitution notwithstanding. But are Chinese schools, for example, popular because they are well-run, or because they use Mandarin as the medium of instruction?

I bet it would be the former, and the schools would continue to prosper regardless, even if Mathematics and Science are taught in French.

I have always believed that any attempt to belittle or complain of a poor command of English is largely unfair to the unfortunate targets, if not downright mean. In most instances, people who have a bad command of English have little to do with the fact.

They are a victims either of an educational system that de-emphasised English or of parents and guardians who did not encourage them to pick up the language. Or perhaps of politicians merely paying lip service to the idea of promoting the language and looking at the interest of our kids, while yet again, in their many guises and agendas, jeopardising the future of our children.

It is also not politically wise, it seems, to be championing English no matter whether you are a Malay, Chinese or Indian politician.

It is another matter of course when it involves your children: then you would be registering them in a private or international school, hiring private language tutors, and later packing them off abroad.

Personally, as a parent, I am tired of people who think they know better than me on what is good for my children. I don't have any political or cultural supremacy agenda: maybe I am shallow that way. All I want to do is to give my daughter a fighting chance in this globalised world.

I pity the insecurity of those who oppose English, but for their righteousness and chauvinism, they deserve my contempt. I wish they would all disappear, but alas they would not.

I have been using this weekly soapbox to occasionally call for the strengthening of national schools. As much as it goes against nation-building, parents should have a choice of which school they want their children to attend, be they national, vernacular, religious, private, or international schools, or even to be home taught.

My suggestion is simple. So as our sensibilities are not offended, and Dong Jiao Zong's constitutional rights assured, let vernacular schools choose whatever language they want to teach the subjects in. Give them the special privilege to prosper as they wish.

However, at least allow these subjects to be taught in English in national schools.

We have never had a referendum of any sort in the country since the people of Borneo were asked whether they wanted to join Malaysia. Perhaps it is a good time for the Government to ask the people again.

We have enough of activists and politicians talking. You know where they will eventually lead us to.

First published in The New Straits Times on 3rd December 2008.

I BELIEVE, deep in our hearts, even those who champion variety in life would admit that the existence of multiple streams and mediums of instruction for our schools is not good for the nation. Thus the call by Jerlun member of parliament Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir that vernacular schools be abolished for its divisive ways was greeted by the refrain "Yes, but the Constitution guarantees..."

The predictability of the responses is also due to the fact that no politician would want to have anything to do with anything that might hurt vernacular schools. Everyone, it seems, thrives on racial insecurities, even when he piously claims not to practise race-based politics.
Close down vernacular schools? Given the Constitution's guarantees, some suggested Mukhriz had committed sedition.

He may, or may not, but underneath all the sparks and smoke arising from his statement, and the Constitution notwithstanding, no one can deny the fact that keeping our kids apart is not going to get them closer.

Many of our politicians claim to be working to build a better future for us and the nation, but most have failed us as far as promoting unity is concerned.
For example, I have not heard many serious debates on the education system, which is the very core of our national unity and integration strategy.

All of us, yes us non-politicians, too, are too engrossed in the politicking of the here and now, and busy proving that everyone else, but ourselves, are wrong.

I am very much aware of the protection given by the Constitution to vernacular schools and thus, unlike Mukhriz, do not feel that they should be closed down despite subscribing to the notion that it would be beneficial for the nation.

We should instead make the national schools better, in fact superior than the others, so that people can naturally see their benefits. Build up the national schools and they will come.

In Johor, every morning, over 1,000 kids wake up as early as four in the morning to begin preparing for their commute to Singapore to attend schools there. Why? The parents want them to be educated in English, and in presumably better schools.

But our politicians oppose English schools, even the semblance of a semi-English education as per the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English.

The policy now sees 40 per cent of classes in primary schools conducted in English, as opposed to under 20 per cent if we were to revert to Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin or Tamil for the subjects

But yet, we are now dithering whether to retain the policy or not. Less English is better than a semi-English medium, so it seems.

How I wish parents get to vote on the policy, and not politicians.

Also, I have heard few politicians calling for improvements in our national schools, which would presumably address many of our race-related problems, as passionately as they have when championing vernacular or religious schools.

Why are our MPs not demanding for better schools, better curriculum, better pay and training for teachers, or better building and other facilities for our children?

Why are our lawmakers not treating the national education system as a matter of national importance?

Many parents have complained that many national schools are being hijacked and slowly turned into Malay or, in some instances, religious-centric schools.

But why are our elected representatives not making a big deal about this in Parliament?

Or take it another way. I have not heard of any current politician who has spoken passionately on ways to improve national schools in a manner perhaps as blasphemously as Mukhriz.

I think if we are really interested in making the national schools strong, we should speak up.

I believe if we care about the nation, we must be able to withstand the slings and arrows of our detractors. A cure is pleasant only when the wound heals.

I tend to believe most politicians are just paying lip-service on national unity. At the end of the day, we are not really keen on keeping up with the tune.

I tend to believe that there is a high level of hypocrisy working here, too.

I sense, despite the complaints about the national school system, some are nevertheless secretly hoping for it to fail so vernacular schools will prosper. I will be glad to be proven wrong.