of new schools of thought…

I was reading the news when I came across this article. Interesting and eye-opening in nature. I am amazed and in awe to such a degree as to believe that I was in the presence of a God. Allow me to introduce you to Nazri-ology. Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department known for his antiques and in-your-face comments has officially established a new height in his train of thought. The article in question has been shortened for your viewing pleasure.

Nazri: Putrajaya has no funds for bright students

MON, 14 JUN 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 — Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz admitted today that the government did not have the “capacity” to finance the studies of the growing pool of bright students in the country.

“We have to tell the truth. We just cannot afford it. Just like how a parent cannot afford to send their children abroad to further their studies, the government cannot afford it.”

“There are two things here. One, it is financial capacity. Secondly, it is this: however we do it, whether we reclassify the As that the students get to A+, A and A-, the fact remains that in this year alone, the number of students who obtained 9A+ were over 1,200 “This means that the boys and girls are getting more and more clever and we cannot reduce the number of scholarships we give out by re-grading the As any further,” he explained.

As a result, said Nazri, the Cabinet last week agreed that PSD scholarships given to students applying for courses in foreign universities would only go to those pursuing postgraduate courses and not undergraduate courses. He noted that the 1,200 of the 1,500 presently offered to the students would slowly be phased out from next year onwards.

The Perdana Scholarships, he noted, would be given out to the cream of the crop and only to those accepted in Ivy League schools.

Nevertheless, Nazri said that the extra funds would be given out as scholarships to students pursuing courses in the local universities. “Ultimately, the purpose is also to retain our good students here in our local universities. “We want our universities to be first-class. We want to retain the money here, so we finance those in local universities — we want the talent here,” he said.

Nazri noted that one of the reasons behind the brain drain problem in the country was that many students pursued their studies in foreign universities. “And when they are there and they have the connection, they no longer want to return,” he said.

—————————————————————————

On a more serious note now, this new school of thought – Nazri-ology was not meant to be defamatory but rather sarcastic. If you hadn’t noticed the many flaws in the logic of Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, allow me to point them out to you.

1. Firstly, poor parents and inability and unaccountability on the side of the government. What is the connection between the two? The face of the matter is, the government has the duty of providing for the people. Without invoking terms like the Social Contract or Utilitarianism, the simple logic is the idea of democracy, of being representatives of the people. This job would demand such a level of assistance, what more in the face of students who deserve it but cannot afford it.
2. Secondly, the number of students. If the government does not have the capacity to sponsor all of these bright students, then there should be a screening process to only allow the crème de la crème. Is total abolishment of this policy really a solution? If the new grading system is insufficient, would the problem not lie with either a low standard of grading or a faulty screening system? As that age old saying goes, its the people who control the system, not the system itself.
3. Next, postgraduate vs. undergraduate courses. What is the justification for eliminating assistance of undergraduate courses for postgraduate courses? Does the benefit outweigh the cost? What is the reason? Is it that the number of people who pursue postgraduate courses is minimal and therefore its easier to do this rather than screen the bright minds of Malaysia? Or perhaps postgraduate courses are cheaper compared to undergraduate courses and therefore less cost would be incurred?
4. Further, the noble ideal of improving the quality of our local universities. By eliminating assistance for these courses, this would prevent people from leaving the country and keep them here. Firstly, the embarrassingly low rank of our universities would only worsen the problem because it would prevent people from pursuing their dreams and achieving their highest potential. This is discrimination, a blatant abuse of humanity. Secondly, would the ranking and quality of our universities miraculously improve when we keep our graduates in the country? Those people would be handicapped compared to the foreign degrees others would get.
5. The last idea, seemingly the most bizarre, the idea of solving the brain drain problem. Would the reduction, abolishment and isolation of these funds for only postgraduate courses serve to be an incentive for people to stay in the country? This could force Malaysians to apply more fervently to assistance from foreign parties. The GIC Scholarship, just to name one of them, offered by the government of Singapore requires that their candidates be bonded to the initiative for 6 years! Does this work better with a reduction of assistance? On another level, would the connection they make last if they had love for Malaysia? Would they migrate if they were patriots? The core of this problem lies elsewhere, rather than blame it on an excess of funds being used to develop the future of our country.

Datuk Seri, I hope that before this policy actually happens, some changes need to be made. Possibly a panel of experts must be created to analyse the problem.

Pope Baldie

Advertisement