FMT - Language requirements just good business for the private sector (extracts):
Private sector employers have every reason to employ graduates who are able to speak more than one language. Politicians and university dons should not link issues surrounding the matriculation intake quota with language requirements for jobs, as these two issues are not the same.
The education ministry should be aware that commercial Chinese language skills are becoming important, and that many countries have included the teaching of this language in their education curriculum.
Being able to speak Mandarin and other foreign languages has always been an asset in the business world. Politicians and dons should stop claiming that advertisements by the private sector seeking employees with knowledge of a foreign language are discriminatory in nature.
This cannot be considered ethnic-based discrimination. There are reasons as to why some sectors in the private world seek employees who can speak a specific language.
Logic, truth and business reality - who the eff cares!
The linking of the Matriculation 90:10% ratio with Mandarin requirements for jobs didn't take into considerations such silly issues such as logic, truth, nor business sense - Sheeesh WTF.
It was just an excuse to maintain the ratio - and eff you nons if you don't like it. Mahathir started the Matriculation process at 100% Malays in 1997, as he said, to provide a backdoor as well as, my take on the latter, a truncated haang-fai-tee-lah STPM.
Haang-fai-dee-lah is a Canto-expression which means 'cepat jalan lah'.
Everything is short - masuk universitas melalui pintu belakang tanpa STPM, the duration of the pre-university matriculation studies, and I would imagine, standards too.
As Nathaniel Tan wrote in the Star Online (extracts only):
The other brief comment on the matriculation issue is the manner in which the Education Ministry has stated that despite the increase in matriculation spots, students taking STPM will not be affected, and criteria for entry into university is based entirely on merit. Said merit is apparently based primarily on CGPA scores from both matriculation programmes and STPM.
There appears to be some logical disconnect here. If CGPA scores from matriculation and STPM are weighted the same, this implies that the two courses are of the same academic standard.
If this is true, then this negates the raison d’etre of matriculation in the first place – why not just make everyone take STPM?
If this is not true, and one of these programmes is easier than the other, then surely it is facetious to suggest that comparing these two CGPAs side by side – when in fact they are apples and oranges – will produce a meritocracy that is completely blind to race, religion and background.
As Nathaniel Tan wrote in the Star Online (extracts only):
The other brief comment on the matriculation issue is the manner in which the Education Ministry has stated that despite the increase in matriculation spots, students taking STPM will not be affected, and criteria for entry into university is based entirely on merit. Said merit is apparently based primarily on CGPA scores from both matriculation programmes and STPM.
There appears to be some logical disconnect here. If CGPA scores from matriculation and STPM are weighted the same, this implies that the two courses are of the same academic standard.
If this is true, then this negates the raison d’etre of matriculation in the first place – why not just make everyone take STPM?
If this is not true, and one of these programmes is easier than the other, then surely it is facetious to suggest that comparing these two CGPAs side by side – when in fact they are apples and oranges – will produce a meritocracy that is completely blind to race, religion and background.
And do you think Mahathir would change or back away from what he had initiated?
Damn AAB for introducing that 10% for nons (mainly marginalised Indians), wakakaka.
 |
你们好 nǐmenhǎo |
So, providing the explanations and having prominent socio-political workers-activists speak up against the LOP-SIDED ratio, and rationale on why some business sectors require Mandarin-speaking as a job requisite are blardy useless as it's not appreciated or even heard. In fact the powers-that-be don't want to know about it.
Suck on the ratio, mongrels, wakakaka.
Very apt photo of Maszlee....with an empty bookshelf behind his head, which reflects his empty brain. And this PhD graduate is trying to write something with a pen(?) with the cap still on.
ReplyDeletePeople often say he is misquoted but even by saying nothing he is a walking disaster.
Parents who don't believe in learning other languages as an additional skill set for their children's future are actually fools and depriving their own children of opportunities in whatever economic, religious or social spheres. They see things only within their own blinkered small world like what their parents were and how they were brought up in their own small world and not knowing that times have changed and we are now living in the 21st Century where the world is an open space which rewards and open opportunities for those who have more skill sets. And knowing other languages than one's own mother tongue is definitely one of the skill sets required.
ReplyDeleteIt's disgusting and shameful to see such blinkered parents esp those who are politicians, unity language champions, cultural language champions, racist champions, religious champions, academicians etc using such blinkered views also trying to make other parents (esp those who are less expose to information) to be as blinkered as them and handicapping their children's future.
Parents who knows and understands that the more skill sets their children have to learn to have a brighter future for themselves just ignore such blinkered parents and not follow them as fools.
From the point of view of a Non-Bumiputra who is also not a Mandarin speaker, I would say both Metriculation Bumi quotas and obligatory Mandarin-speaking requirements for jobs are discriminatory.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that being able to speak or read/write more languages is an asset on the job.
But in the modern Malaysian economy, the number of jobs where Mandarin language skills are mandatory - as opposed to being an advantage - are really the exception, not the rule.
The huge number of job advertisements today where firms state "Mandarin speakers required" I consider more an indirect form of Racial discrimination by employers who simply want to hire a mono-ethnic workforce.
Lets be honest, They are no better than the Civil Service heads who want to hire Melayu only.
Which is MORE discriminatory:
DeleteOnly bumiputra can apply or only Mandarin speaking persons need to apply
!!!
So, what discrimination fart r u talking about?
Linguistics ability IS an acquirable skill if one puts some effort into learning it.
Race pigeonholing CAN'T be undone by whatsoever mean (with the sole exception of the melayu, as defined under the FedConst. Wakakakaka…).
"The huge number of job advertisements today where firms state "Mandarin speakers required" I consider more an indirect form of Racial discrimination by employers who simply want to hire a mono-ethnic workforce."
Only if u can prove that such companies have NO employees who can speak Mandarin BUT r not of Chinese by race!
Bloody suanku - only want to stick with what u know & not willing to learn more than necessary!
Let's be honest, can a non-Malay be PM or DPM, even if the Constitution does not prohibit it?
ReplyDelete