Under 1Malaysia, one has to be careful about the purity of one's blood.
Cases reported here.
1. Marina Undau, 18, of SMK Simanggang scored 9As and 1B in the SPM examinations last year. She thought she could undergo a university matriculation programme, but was rejected by the Ministry of Education because was deemed not to be a Bumiputra. Her father is Iban but her mother is Chinese.
2. Lymie from SMK Kuching Town No 1 scored 9As and IB in her SPM examinations but was also rejected because her father James is Iban-Bidayuh but her mother is a Chinese-Iban.
The decision on the classification of whether a person is a Bumiputera or a non-Bumiputera for the purpose of entering the national universities or its matriculation programme is made by the Student Intake Management Division, Higher Learning Department and Higher Education Ministry.
The classification is apparently based on Article 161a of the Federal Constitution:
"(6) In this Article "native" means:
(a) in relation to Sarawak, a person who is a citizen and either belongs to one of the races specified in Clause (7) as indigenous to the State or is of mixed blood deriving exclusively from those races; and
(b) in relation to Sabah, a person who is a citizen, is a child or grandchild of a person of a race indigenous in Sabah, and was born (whether on or after Malaysia Day or not) either in Sabah or to a father domiciled in Sabah at the time of the birth.
(7) The races to be treated for the purposes of the definition of "native" in Clause (6) as indigenous to Sarawak are the Bukitans, Bisayahs, Dusuns, Sea Dayaks, Land Dayaks, Kedayans, Kelabit, Kayans, Kenyahs (including Sabups and Sipengs), Kajangs (including Sekapans, Kejamans, Lahanans, Punans, Tanjongs and Kanowits), Lugats, Lisums, Malays, Melanaus, Muruts, Penans, Sians, Tagals, Tabuns and Ukits."
Comments/Questions:
1. Is the Ministry of Higher Education run by people of lower education?
2. Is it trying to mix education with politics?
3. Is the federal government trying to undermine another of its state governments?
4. Doesn't the article read dated and rigid and disregarding the dynamics of human love and emotions?
5. Is the ministry concerned about supporting students with good marks - the future leaders of the nation?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Economics of Wasteful Spending
For those who think that quick spending by the government including the construction of mega projects is the way to go for stimulating the economy, then wasteful spending is really not a bad thing.
It does not matter how one spends the money so long as one spends it. They may even quote the great mighty Lord Keynes to lend support to their thinking - "You can employ men to dig holes on the road...."
There is a certain truth in this kind of thinking. The whole idea is to put cash into people's pockets so that they can spend in order to keep factories running so that people can continue to be employed by these factories.
At the macroeconomic level, it does not really matter how the money is spent - because we are thinking in the aggregate - not that the microeconomic workings are not important but that they are not being considered yet.
At the extreme, we could have money being printed and passed in boxes from the mint to the central bank who then delivered the cash to the government to be distributed - by some criteria - to the people.
The people receiving the cash would in principle spend on the things they need - like rice and salt - and then are happy. This is the political side. This is how elections in the free world are won.
But the economic consideration is slightly tricky. You want to see how that cash is used, specifically whether that cash can be used to stimulate production of products that people want. If the additional cash does not trigger additional effort on the part of the people, then the whole economy is in deep trouble. You have money without effort. This may sound like utopia for individuals, but it spells disaster for the whole nation - because it is not sustainable. More money can be printed - for forever - but the nation is likely to be incapable of doing anything else.
So when we are talking about "stimulating" the economy, we are talking about how to excite people into effort or more effort because they have become motivated to become active in the economic mainstream. There are incentives that they can see, incentives that excite them to excellence, that there is reward at the end of the day - either in terms of cash, awards or mere recognition from peers or community.
The money part is an important and crucial part, but it is only one small little part. The money is required because of the structure of the modern economic system, where there is such a great dicotomy between production and consumption - of the right stuff - that without money, we as individuals are dead in society.
The money part is the wheel that moves. The real part is the exercise of men and women in their daily existence - of the things they do to make themselves feel alive, every day, every moment.
The judge of the correctness of our government spending is whether it is exciting the right thing in the people. This is how we know whether we are heading the right direction, and whether we are going to have an economic future.
It does not matter how one spends the money so long as one spends it. They may even quote the great mighty Lord Keynes to lend support to their thinking - "You can employ men to dig holes on the road...."
There is a certain truth in this kind of thinking. The whole idea is to put cash into people's pockets so that they can spend in order to keep factories running so that people can continue to be employed by these factories.
At the macroeconomic level, it does not really matter how the money is spent - because we are thinking in the aggregate - not that the microeconomic workings are not important but that they are not being considered yet.
At the extreme, we could have money being printed and passed in boxes from the mint to the central bank who then delivered the cash to the government to be distributed - by some criteria - to the people.
The people receiving the cash would in principle spend on the things they need - like rice and salt - and then are happy. This is the political side. This is how elections in the free world are won.
But the economic consideration is slightly tricky. You want to see how that cash is used, specifically whether that cash can be used to stimulate production of products that people want. If the additional cash does not trigger additional effort on the part of the people, then the whole economy is in deep trouble. You have money without effort. This may sound like utopia for individuals, but it spells disaster for the whole nation - because it is not sustainable. More money can be printed - for forever - but the nation is likely to be incapable of doing anything else.
So when we are talking about "stimulating" the economy, we are talking about how to excite people into effort or more effort because they have become motivated to become active in the economic mainstream. There are incentives that they can see, incentives that excite them to excellence, that there is reward at the end of the day - either in terms of cash, awards or mere recognition from peers or community.
The money part is an important and crucial part, but it is only one small little part. The money is required because of the structure of the modern economic system, where there is such a great dicotomy between production and consumption - of the right stuff - that without money, we as individuals are dead in society.
The money part is the wheel that moves. The real part is the exercise of men and women in their daily existence - of the things they do to make themselves feel alive, every day, every moment.
The judge of the correctness of our government spending is whether it is exciting the right thing in the people. This is how we know whether we are heading the right direction, and whether we are going to have an economic future.
Blogs & Budget 2010
I haven't been writing of late basically because I have been very busy, including three weeks of ale and fish and chips. Second, I feel there is nothing worth my trouble to put thoughts to print - not even Budget 2010. Third, blogging has failed to become a pleasant thing for me to do. I write to entertain, not to please. I write to provoke, not to justify. The sanctity of the freedom to think and write is paramount - I am wry of thought-police.
Nonetheless, there are 3 things I can say about Budget 2010.
1. Budgets, by definition, are basically about the government's finances. Should the government balance its budget? Yes, if you can't borrow any more. No, if you can continue to live on credit. This question is important because it affects all the other issues. Budget 2010 promises to bring down the deficit as a proportion of the national income. This percentage balloons in recent years for two reasons: that the national income failed to grow or even contracted, and that as a result the government borrowed more to try to beef up the economy. This is a double whammy for the target percentage but it is something that one should expect. Once the economy recovers strongly, we will see a sharp reduction of that percentage by virtue of the improvement in the denomination of the measurement. Budget 2010 expects its deficit to fall to 5.6% of GDP from 7.4% in 2009 as a result of a sharp reduction in the Federal Government's operating expenditure - if this effort fails, the deficit will be back up to 7%. But it doesn't matter.
2. The direction of Federal Government spending especially development expenditure is crucial because it is strategic. It is a bit off the point when the government is talking about the efficiency of spending - although important for the purpose of stopping a corrupting culture - but not for saving the economy from nosediving further or turning it around. The government should spend to build new foundations for the new economy. Properly educated children is necessary but not sufficient. We have to lay the foundations for our technological base. Importing expensive foreign machines is a first step so long as we have money. But getting our young men and women to invest their time and talents to build sophisticated things need to be encouraged. I am happy with some encouragement for the arts (RM200 million) but I hope will not be squandered on some undisciplined wannabes. Creativity is serious business.
3. The 15% flat income tax for Iskandar Corridor is a curious case. While it is now unfair by being preferential, it cannot be removed at all in future without the collapse of Iskandar. The only future move for it must be, if it proves itself to be good, to apply it nationwide. The whole country should be competing with the rest of the world, and not Iskandar competing with the rest of the country.
In all, Budget 2010 is champagne without the bubbles. To be fair, it is only an annual budget. The bigger directional one must be the 10MP.
Nonetheless, there are 3 things I can say about Budget 2010.
1. Budgets, by definition, are basically about the government's finances. Should the government balance its budget? Yes, if you can't borrow any more. No, if you can continue to live on credit. This question is important because it affects all the other issues. Budget 2010 promises to bring down the deficit as a proportion of the national income. This percentage balloons in recent years for two reasons: that the national income failed to grow or even contracted, and that as a result the government borrowed more to try to beef up the economy. This is a double whammy for the target percentage but it is something that one should expect. Once the economy recovers strongly, we will see a sharp reduction of that percentage by virtue of the improvement in the denomination of the measurement. Budget 2010 expects its deficit to fall to 5.6% of GDP from 7.4% in 2009 as a result of a sharp reduction in the Federal Government's operating expenditure - if this effort fails, the deficit will be back up to 7%. But it doesn't matter.
2. The direction of Federal Government spending especially development expenditure is crucial because it is strategic. It is a bit off the point when the government is talking about the efficiency of spending - although important for the purpose of stopping a corrupting culture - but not for saving the economy from nosediving further or turning it around. The government should spend to build new foundations for the new economy. Properly educated children is necessary but not sufficient. We have to lay the foundations for our technological base. Importing expensive foreign machines is a first step so long as we have money. But getting our young men and women to invest their time and talents to build sophisticated things need to be encouraged. I am happy with some encouragement for the arts (RM200 million) but I hope will not be squandered on some undisciplined wannabes. Creativity is serious business.
3. The 15% flat income tax for Iskandar Corridor is a curious case. While it is now unfair by being preferential, it cannot be removed at all in future without the collapse of Iskandar. The only future move for it must be, if it proves itself to be good, to apply it nationwide. The whole country should be competing with the rest of the world, and not Iskandar competing with the rest of the country.
In all, Budget 2010 is champagne without the bubbles. To be fair, it is only an annual budget. The bigger directional one must be the 10MP.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Deficits & Taxes
I read with great alarm in recent press reports about the need to close the budget deficit and the need to raise consumption taxes to close the gap.
1. For the record, the budget has always been in deficit - saved for the period from 1993 to 1997 when the privatisation of natural monopolies reduced government expenditure and clawed back some revenue. It is therefore not factually correct to argue the overall deficit of the Federal Government should be in surplus.
2. Furthermore, it has always been the traditional discipline of Malaysia to maintain a surplus on the operating expenditure of the Federal Government so that we live within our means. This has always been true except during times of exceptional difficulties such as 1972 and 1986-87.
3. The deficit on the budget in Malaysia, therefore, has always come from development expenditure. This is a good thing so long as the development expenditure is properly planned in order to increase the productive capacity of the economy.
4. It is for this reason that the EPF was set up to fund domestically the economic development of the nation - so that with the increase in productive capacity, tax revenue will rise and sufficient to give a good return to EPF. It is correct that the future income stream of long-term savers should be tied to the long-term prospects of the national economy.
5. The problem of the economy started when the government focused more on job creation rather than increasing productivity - by giving excessive concessions to transnationals whose profits are not translated into the national revenue. The opening up of the stock market to entice stockbroking activities to fund investments provided another leakage to the national revenue. In the end, this arrangement fell flat in its face in 1997.
6. With the holes created in the direct taxation system and the loss of economic direction, the government stifled its own capacity building without properly rejuvenation of the civil service and raised development expenditure to resuscitate a dying economy. As the economy falters, the cost of keeping it alive becomes higher and higher.
7. The economy fails to recover even with constant fiscal stimulation because there is massive structural breakage in the economy. The manufacturing sector that was to be did not materialise.
>The privatised monopolies became GLCs whose KPI to turn a profit without appreciable improvement in their operating systems or future development plans means an economy burdened by higher costs.
>The FDIs all disappeared to China, together with the SMEs which had cashed out through the second board.
>What we have left is a plantation economy that is reliant on a low-currency policy and low wages (through imported labour) to survive in the increasingly competitive global economy.
>The only activity worth pursuing is speculation as a result of an easy money which stimulates the real estate sector - which is probably the only game in town.
>The investments in manufacturing that was to come from Khazanah did not materialise in this country - Khazanah is making splendid investments abroad developing foreign economies in search of paper profits.
8. In other words, the Malaysian economy has come round one big circle to become yet another commodity exporter, now with more housing estates and shopping malls and more roads for more cars to drive around - financed by oil money and an incapacitated banking system.
9. With the economy in the doldrums, it is perverse that experts are calling for the imposition of the consumption tax to burden the people by raising their purchasing price and reducing the volume they consume - in order to close the gap in the budget. If that is the objective, it is far better to reduce the development expenditure called stimulus packages and keep the consumption tax at bay, at least, for the time being.
10. To rebuild the economy, we have to rebuild our industrial base. We have to retrain our entrepreneurs and SMEs not to speculate in the stock market and the real estate and to devote their talents to creating goods for which there is a need for, to create a new world. The services sector should grow but not on its own; it should be in conjunction of the needs of the agriculture and industrial sectors. The central policy should mature from an agarian concern to one of the needs of modern industries where the challenge is to set the environment for the rewarding of the persistent efforts at increasing productivity gains and hence the payment of higher income per head when benchmarked internationally.
1. For the record, the budget has always been in deficit - saved for the period from 1993 to 1997 when the privatisation of natural monopolies reduced government expenditure and clawed back some revenue. It is therefore not factually correct to argue the overall deficit of the Federal Government should be in surplus.
2. Furthermore, it has always been the traditional discipline of Malaysia to maintain a surplus on the operating expenditure of the Federal Government so that we live within our means. This has always been true except during times of exceptional difficulties such as 1972 and 1986-87.
3. The deficit on the budget in Malaysia, therefore, has always come from development expenditure. This is a good thing so long as the development expenditure is properly planned in order to increase the productive capacity of the economy.
4. It is for this reason that the EPF was set up to fund domestically the economic development of the nation - so that with the increase in productive capacity, tax revenue will rise and sufficient to give a good return to EPF. It is correct that the future income stream of long-term savers should be tied to the long-term prospects of the national economy.
5. The problem of the economy started when the government focused more on job creation rather than increasing productivity - by giving excessive concessions to transnationals whose profits are not translated into the national revenue. The opening up of the stock market to entice stockbroking activities to fund investments provided another leakage to the national revenue. In the end, this arrangement fell flat in its face in 1997.
6. With the holes created in the direct taxation system and the loss of economic direction, the government stifled its own capacity building without properly rejuvenation of the civil service and raised development expenditure to resuscitate a dying economy. As the economy falters, the cost of keeping it alive becomes higher and higher.
7. The economy fails to recover even with constant fiscal stimulation because there is massive structural breakage in the economy. The manufacturing sector that was to be did not materialise.
>The privatised monopolies became GLCs whose KPI to turn a profit without appreciable improvement in their operating systems or future development plans means an economy burdened by higher costs.
>The FDIs all disappeared to China, together with the SMEs which had cashed out through the second board.
>What we have left is a plantation economy that is reliant on a low-currency policy and low wages (through imported labour) to survive in the increasingly competitive global economy.
>The only activity worth pursuing is speculation as a result of an easy money which stimulates the real estate sector - which is probably the only game in town.
>The investments in manufacturing that was to come from Khazanah did not materialise in this country - Khazanah is making splendid investments abroad developing foreign economies in search of paper profits.
8. In other words, the Malaysian economy has come round one big circle to become yet another commodity exporter, now with more housing estates and shopping malls and more roads for more cars to drive around - financed by oil money and an incapacitated banking system.
9. With the economy in the doldrums, it is perverse that experts are calling for the imposition of the consumption tax to burden the people by raising their purchasing price and reducing the volume they consume - in order to close the gap in the budget. If that is the objective, it is far better to reduce the development expenditure called stimulus packages and keep the consumption tax at bay, at least, for the time being.
10. To rebuild the economy, we have to rebuild our industrial base. We have to retrain our entrepreneurs and SMEs not to speculate in the stock market and the real estate and to devote their talents to creating goods for which there is a need for, to create a new world. The services sector should grow but not on its own; it should be in conjunction of the needs of the agriculture and industrial sectors. The central policy should mature from an agarian concern to one of the needs of modern industries where the challenge is to set the environment for the rewarding of the persistent efforts at increasing productivity gains and hence the payment of higher income per head when benchmarked internationally.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Six National Key Result Areas
The government announces 6 National Key Result Areas:
KRA1: Reduction of Crime Rate
>KPI1.1: Reduce Street Crime by 20% by 2010
KRA2: Combat Corruption
KRA3: Widening Access to Affordable and Quality Education
KRA4: Raising the Living Standard of the Poor
KRA5: Improving the Infrastructure in Rural Areas
>KPI5.1: Add 1,500 km roads in Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.2: Not more than 5km of walking to tar roads in Peninsular by 2012
>KPI5.3: Clean water supply to 90% of Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.4: Electricity cover of 95% in Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.5: 24-hour electricity supply to 7,000 orang asli families in Peninsular by 2012
KRA6: Improving Public Transport in the Medium Term
>KPI6.1: Increase the number of public transport users from 16% to 25% by 2012
>KPI6.2: Add 35 sets of four-car trains on Kelana Jaya LRT by 2012
These KRAs are important for providing the basic rudiments of a modern life to all Malaysians.
I suppose we shall now have to wait for the New Economic Model to bring the whole economy to greater heights.
KRA1: Reduction of Crime Rate
>KPI1.1: Reduce Street Crime by 20% by 2010
KRA2: Combat Corruption
KRA3: Widening Access to Affordable and Quality Education
KRA4: Raising the Living Standard of the Poor
KRA5: Improving the Infrastructure in Rural Areas
>KPI5.1: Add 1,500 km roads in Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.2: Not more than 5km of walking to tar roads in Peninsular by 2012
>KPI5.3: Clean water supply to 90% of Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.4: Electricity cover of 95% in Sabah and Sarawak by 2012
>KPI5.5: 24-hour electricity supply to 7,000 orang asli families in Peninsular by 2012
KRA6: Improving Public Transport in the Medium Term
>KPI6.1: Increase the number of public transport users from 16% to 25% by 2012
>KPI6.2: Add 35 sets of four-car trains on Kelana Jaya LRT by 2012
These KRAs are important for providing the basic rudiments of a modern life to all Malaysians.
I suppose we shall now have to wait for the New Economic Model to bring the whole economy to greater heights.
Promoting A Language
It stands to reason that, if the objective is to promote a certain language and ensure that it is alive by being properly spoken and properly written, then the logical action is to promote it properly.
In this country, it is strange to have a policy to hire native-speaking experts to promote English as a language - when the strategy should be to hire native-speaking experts to promote Malay as a language - not only to the Malays and Malaysians but also to other people.
We should have language experts in the Malay language to teach properly so that the language can be used properly.
Those of us who had spent some years in a foreign country know that the natives or the local people cannot read and write their own language as well as non-native users like us students who had learned to write and spell properly. Although the spoken part wasn't initially good enough but improved within months through practice with natives.
A language, therefore, can be kept alive by illiteracy by the poor and those who cannot get onto the mainstream - for they are the ones who have to live with what they have inherited from their parents and ancestors. This language is spoken everyday in the street markets. It will be a stretch of logic to argue that promoting tourism in remote parts of the country will help to spread the spoken language to foreigners.
In the area of education, it does not necessarily follow that native-speaking teachers in technical subjects will (a) speak and write the local language well for thinking and communicating abstract ideas and (b) will be competent in teaching those technical subjects.
If a learned language is better written (and fairly well spoken), then there is a case for teaching a foreign language in schools in the early years to inculcate in the young minds the importance of the need to put in effort to acquire knowledge in order to join the mainstream. The emphasis is on the need for conscious effort.
There is also a case for learning a language even if that language is the so-called mother tongue - for really there is no such thing as the mother tongue. Different communities even within the same political confines speak their own dialects no matter how similar the sound may be. There are so many dialects of the Malays, as there are for the Chinese and the Indians and all the other colourful tribes of our nation.
There is clearly a case for having a special strategy to promote the Malay Language and keeping it alive and kicking. The promotion can be through setting up a language institute - which I presume was what Dewan Bahasa was originally established for. There should be Malay Language Centres where one can seriously study the language and be exposed to its usage and beauty.
Personally, I would love to have a TV programme that gives a good Malay lesson for English-speaking Malaysians - not just in grammar but also in the literature, poetry including pantuns, and the wisdom that has been handed down in the form of sayings.
Conclusion
The our national education system must be founded on two cores: (a) language and communication ability, and (b) thinking and problem-solving ability. We should hire the experts and specialists in their fields, regardless of nationality, to teach our young.
In national schools, the young can be taught (a) English as a language and through literature and Maths and Science and thinking and problem-solving skills, (b) Malay as a language and through literature, history, culture, moral lessons, and (c) Mandarin as a language.
There should be the Malay Language Centres to promote the Malay Language to Malaysians and foreigners.
In this country, it is strange to have a policy to hire native-speaking experts to promote English as a language - when the strategy should be to hire native-speaking experts to promote Malay as a language - not only to the Malays and Malaysians but also to other people.
We should have language experts in the Malay language to teach properly so that the language can be used properly.
Those of us who had spent some years in a foreign country know that the natives or the local people cannot read and write their own language as well as non-native users like us students who had learned to write and spell properly. Although the spoken part wasn't initially good enough but improved within months through practice with natives.
A language, therefore, can be kept alive by illiteracy by the poor and those who cannot get onto the mainstream - for they are the ones who have to live with what they have inherited from their parents and ancestors. This language is spoken everyday in the street markets. It will be a stretch of logic to argue that promoting tourism in remote parts of the country will help to spread the spoken language to foreigners.
In the area of education, it does not necessarily follow that native-speaking teachers in technical subjects will (a) speak and write the local language well for thinking and communicating abstract ideas and (b) will be competent in teaching those technical subjects.
If a learned language is better written (and fairly well spoken), then there is a case for teaching a foreign language in schools in the early years to inculcate in the young minds the importance of the need to put in effort to acquire knowledge in order to join the mainstream. The emphasis is on the need for conscious effort.
There is also a case for learning a language even if that language is the so-called mother tongue - for really there is no such thing as the mother tongue. Different communities even within the same political confines speak their own dialects no matter how similar the sound may be. There are so many dialects of the Malays, as there are for the Chinese and the Indians and all the other colourful tribes of our nation.
There is clearly a case for having a special strategy to promote the Malay Language and keeping it alive and kicking. The promotion can be through setting up a language institute - which I presume was what Dewan Bahasa was originally established for. There should be Malay Language Centres where one can seriously study the language and be exposed to its usage and beauty.
Personally, I would love to have a TV programme that gives a good Malay lesson for English-speaking Malaysians - not just in grammar but also in the literature, poetry including pantuns, and the wisdom that has been handed down in the form of sayings.
Conclusion
The our national education system must be founded on two cores: (a) language and communication ability, and (b) thinking and problem-solving ability. We should hire the experts and specialists in their fields, regardless of nationality, to teach our young.
In national schools, the young can be taught (a) English as a language and through literature and Maths and Science and thinking and problem-solving skills, (b) Malay as a language and through literature, history, culture, moral lessons, and (c) Mandarin as a language.
There should be the Malay Language Centres to promote the Malay Language to Malaysians and foreigners.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Language As A Policy
When language becomes a policy matter, the crux is the policy intent.
For the purpose of enhancing the livelihood of the people, the intent must be commercial and economic.
In the matter of culture, if culture is seen as a way to increase the likelihood of the survival of a people (which also means an improvement to their welfare) under all circumstance, then culture should have a stronger economic element than mere sentimentality over an established sense of identity.
Preserving a culture strictly in its old mode may be a futile attempt at stopping the flow of time and the changes in the environment. It resists adaptability and resourcefulness. It builds up narrowness for ease of control which in turn may quicken its own demise.
A good language policy is one that liberates the young from the grips of the old so that the young can chart a new future for themselves in the new world that will confront them, where they like it or not, as a direct consequence of the mindless actions of the old generations. The young will suffer the consequences of our errors and we must give them the means to save themselves from us. We must educate them by exposing to the frontier knowledge of the world, rather than hidding them under the coconut shell.
A good language policy should enourage the flourishing of knowledge in order for wisdom to grow.
For the purpose of enhancing the livelihood of the people, the intent must be commercial and economic.
In the matter of culture, if culture is seen as a way to increase the likelihood of the survival of a people (which also means an improvement to their welfare) under all circumstance, then culture should have a stronger economic element than mere sentimentality over an established sense of identity.
Preserving a culture strictly in its old mode may be a futile attempt at stopping the flow of time and the changes in the environment. It resists adaptability and resourcefulness. It builds up narrowness for ease of control which in turn may quicken its own demise.
A good language policy is one that liberates the young from the grips of the old so that the young can chart a new future for themselves in the new world that will confront them, where they like it or not, as a direct consequence of the mindless actions of the old generations. The young will suffer the consequences of our errors and we must give them the means to save themselves from us. We must educate them by exposing to the frontier knowledge of the world, rather than hidding them under the coconut shell.
A good language policy should enourage the flourishing of knowledge in order for wisdom to grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)