From The Star Online:
Matriculation score: Old Malaysia: 9; New Malaysia: 1
by nathaniel tan
 |
It's a Win-Win situation, I get 90% and you 10% |
AN in-class experiment conducted in one of my university classes a lifetime ago seems to have stuck with me for quite some time.
The experiment involved giving each individual a simple choice involving said individual and a stranger sitting beside him or her.
Option A: I will give you 10 dollars and I will give the stranger beside you 20 dollars.
Option B: I will give you 20 dollars and I will give the stranger beside you 500 dollars.
Take some time to think about the choice that you yourself would make (the quantums chosen are somewhat arbitrary, and can be altered).
The results from the class that day, and from my recently conducted straw poll were the same: a considerable majority would choose Option A.
This finding was deemed significant because many classical economic theories might have predicted that most people would choose Option B, simply because this maximises their utilitarian gain – 20 dollars is after all twice of 10 dollars, a hundred percent increase in personal gain.
Why then do so many people choose to receive less?
It would seem that humans tend to have a strong, inherent sense of justice.
In Malaysian parlance, Option B would appear to be "tak achi" (unfair) for us. It offends some sensibility wired into us somewhere.
The government recently announced that in response to protests concerning a return to the 90%-10% (bumiputra-non-bumiputra) quota system for the matriculation programme into public universities, they would keep the quota, but increase the number of spots from 25,000 to 40,000.
The experiment above seems to explain why this "solution" was met with considerable outrage and frustration.
Even say a quota based on the demographics of Malaysia would be debatable, but 90%-10%?
One might justifiably speculate that it was exactly this type of discrimination that formed a large part of non-bumiputra voting sentiment over the last decade or so; indeed, for many Malaysians, this was supposed to be a big part of what differentiated Old Malaysia from New Malaysia.
Education is a particularly sensitive topic in Malaysian ethnopolitics, because education is seen as the primary vehicle that enables social mobility – the key for those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds to better their lives.
Being told that you are going to be denied this opportunity because of the colour of your skin is probably one of the worst things someone can hear.
I know people in my parent's generation who believe they were denied a place in university because of their race, and who have carried that scar and grudge their entire lives – making it the source of resentment and racism towards bumiputras.
In the experiment above, it is true that Option B does give the individual greater personal benefit.
Likewise, there is no denying that increasing matriculation spots from 25,000 to 40,000 will result in more opportunities for the non-bumiputra.
Still, it seems like many cannot shake the feeling that something is still very wrong.
After the announcement about increasing the total number of spots while maintaining the quota, the iconic "Senyum Kambing" comic on the front page of Utusan Malaysia commented on this issue: "Harap semua puas (Hopefully everyone will be satisfied)".
For many years, I have tried as a writer to avoid feeding into this narrative of bumiputers against non-bumiputers.
Hearing "harap semua puas" however, one cannot help remember the decades of condescending Umno type thinking which can be summarised as: you should consider yourself lucky to have whatever leftover scraps we generously feed you from our table.
This is especially galling for those who feel that they contribute as much as anyone else to the nation and its prosperity.
In the days of Pakatan Rakyat, the economic solution that was proposed was to make needs-based aid the core principle of all such policies.
The concept was simple: aid should be given to those who need it the most.
The justification was equally simple: If bumiputra were in need of more assistance because they formed the majority of those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds, then they were just as likely to receive that assistance under a needs-based system as they were under a race-based system.
Under a purely race-based system, a very rich bumiputra is equally likely to receive aid – say a spot in a matriculation programme or a housing discount – as a poor bumiputra.
Surely that does not make sense?
This discussion would not be complete without at least a brief examination of the educational aspects of this decision as well.
There are about 45,000 spots in public universities. If the number of students offered spots in a matriculation programme is raised from 25,000 to 40,000, then either only 5,000 spots will be available to other students, or not every student from a matriculation programme will be offered a spot in a public university.
Neither option sounds good. The former option would render STPM almost useless, while the latter option makes the whole exercise somewhat redundant.
This is an example where a "solution" is chosen based on its perceived political marketability, instead of a proper understanding of its wider repercussions.
The double whammy in this case is that not only does this "solution" create problems for national education, it does not even solve the political problem.
There is no space here to go through every angle of the educational aspects of this problem. Scholar Lee Hwok Aun however has written a good overview in pursuit of this goal, in which he outlines several variables that need to be considered carefully in pursuit of a holistic, comprehensive set of principles with regards to our meta policies for education – it is well worth a read.
The reason this issue is in the headlines is of course because it involves more than just education.
Malaysia has been torn apart for long enough due to race-based policies. This is our single best opportunity to move away from such divisive mentalities, towards core values that emphasise helping Malaysians who truly need it the most – no matter what they look like, or where they come from.
The experiment involved giving each individual a simple choice involving said individual and a stranger sitting beside him or her.
Option A: I will give you 10 dollars and I will give the stranger beside you 20 dollars.
Option B: I will give you 20 dollars and I will give the stranger beside you 500 dollars.
Take some time to think about the choice that you yourself would make (the quantums chosen are somewhat arbitrary, and can be altered).
The results from the class that day, and from my recently conducted straw poll were the same: a considerable majority would choose Option A.
This finding was deemed significant because many classical economic theories might have predicted that most people would choose Option B, simply because this maximises their utilitarian gain – 20 dollars is after all twice of 10 dollars, a hundred percent increase in personal gain.
Why then do so many people choose to receive less?
It would seem that humans tend to have a strong, inherent sense of justice.
In Malaysian parlance, Option B would appear to be "tak achi" (unfair) for us. It offends some sensibility wired into us somewhere.
The government recently announced that in response to protests concerning a return to the 90%-10% (bumiputra-non-bumiputra) quota system for the matriculation programme into public universities, they would keep the quota, but increase the number of spots from 25,000 to 40,000.
The experiment above seems to explain why this "solution" was met with considerable outrage and frustration.
Even say a quota based on the demographics of Malaysia would be debatable, but 90%-10%?
One might justifiably speculate that it was exactly this type of discrimination that formed a large part of non-bumiputra voting sentiment over the last decade or so; indeed, for many Malaysians, this was supposed to be a big part of what differentiated Old Malaysia from New Malaysia.
Education is a particularly sensitive topic in Malaysian ethnopolitics, because education is seen as the primary vehicle that enables social mobility – the key for those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds to better their lives.
Being told that you are going to be denied this opportunity because of the colour of your skin is probably one of the worst things someone can hear.
I know people in my parent's generation who believe they were denied a place in university because of their race, and who have carried that scar and grudge their entire lives – making it the source of resentment and racism towards bumiputras.
In the experiment above, it is true that Option B does give the individual greater personal benefit.
Likewise, there is no denying that increasing matriculation spots from 25,000 to 40,000 will result in more opportunities for the non-bumiputra.
Still, it seems like many cannot shake the feeling that something is still very wrong.
After the announcement about increasing the total number of spots while maintaining the quota, the iconic "Senyum Kambing" comic on the front page of Utusan Malaysia commented on this issue: "Harap semua puas (Hopefully everyone will be satisfied)".
For many years, I have tried as a writer to avoid feeding into this narrative of bumiputers against non-bumiputers.
Hearing "harap semua puas" however, one cannot help remember the decades of condescending Umno type thinking which can be summarised as: you should consider yourself lucky to have whatever leftover scraps we generously feed you from our table.
This is especially galling for those who feel that they contribute as much as anyone else to the nation and its prosperity.
In the days of Pakatan Rakyat, the economic solution that was proposed was to make needs-based aid the core principle of all such policies.
The concept was simple: aid should be given to those who need it the most.
The justification was equally simple: If bumiputra were in need of more assistance because they formed the majority of those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds, then they were just as likely to receive that assistance under a needs-based system as they were under a race-based system.
Under a purely race-based system, a very rich bumiputra is equally likely to receive aid – say a spot in a matriculation programme or a housing discount – as a poor bumiputra.
Surely that does not make sense?
This discussion would not be complete without at least a brief examination of the educational aspects of this decision as well.
There are about 45,000 spots in public universities. If the number of students offered spots in a matriculation programme is raised from 25,000 to 40,000, then either only 5,000 spots will be available to other students, or not every student from a matriculation programme will be offered a spot in a public university.
Neither option sounds good. The former option would render STPM almost useless, while the latter option makes the whole exercise somewhat redundant.
This is an example where a "solution" is chosen based on its perceived political marketability, instead of a proper understanding of its wider repercussions.
The double whammy in this case is that not only does this "solution" create problems for national education, it does not even solve the political problem.
There is no space here to go through every angle of the educational aspects of this problem. Scholar Lee Hwok Aun however has written a good overview in pursuit of this goal, in which he outlines several variables that need to be considered carefully in pursuit of a holistic, comprehensive set of principles with regards to our meta policies for education – it is well worth a read.
The reason this issue is in the headlines is of course because it involves more than just education.
Malaysia has been torn apart for long enough due to race-based policies. This is our single best opportunity to move away from such divisive mentalities, towards core values that emphasise helping Malaysians who truly need it the most – no matter what they look like, or where they come from.
I call it the KIASU mentality - you can have a little more as long as I have A LOT LOT more.
ReplyDeleteWakakakakaka
ReplyDeleteIs the experiment in choosing Option A or B and subsequent assumption by the writer of sensibility, fairness to show social justice/keadilan playing second fiddle to the greed, envy, jealousy inherent in human beings?
You don't get fairness, justifiable reasons, sensible, and wise solutions for the good of every Malaysian so long as it comes out from politicians/supporters who camouflage their party/personal/dedak driven/racist/religious bigotted agendas as the fear of losing votes in in their mindset remains.
They are just not credible leaders to lead Malaysians. They will not be able to justify/deliberate their decisions with facts and statistics and will be muted/dumb struck about the decision made or push the decision making to someone else if it gets too hot for them to handle.
If some worst cases of explanations by politicians, the answer would be an arrogant, abusive retort of "So, what?" or "I know what the people wants" and edged on by their fellow politicians quietly behind their backs with "Don't rock the Boat".
Isn't the purpose of having quotas whether it be education/scholarships/subsidies/licenses etc is to ensure social justice for all Malaysians whether they be rich or poor, advantaged or disadvantaged, black, brown, yellow or white?
So, why isn't a needs based system in place instead of a race based quota system?
Social justice based on needs and not wants (by race) will surely make it sensible and fair/adil backed by justifiable statistics of those in need.
Isn't that what most Malaysians want, instead of following a false sense of social justice via politiking with concepts and rhetorics of Ketuanan, race, religion etc?
"In the Spring and Autumn Period, a man in the state of Song raised monkey. The monkeys could understand what he said. As the man became poor, he wanted to reduce the monkey's food. He first suggested that he give them three acorns in the morning and four acorns in the evening. thereupon, the monkeys protested angrily. Then their owner said "How about four in the morning and three in the evening?" The monkeys were satisfied with that."
ReplyDeletea story we read in primary level n its really happened under ph. omg.
Wakakakakaka…
DeleteF*cked 'sinologist' of the blurred kind!
I'll give u the REAL version of that fable in the next posting!
Meanwhile, just for a trailer, here's a question for u.
Why monkeys?
What does it imply based on 老祖宗的智慧？
Quick, faked China reader goes dig into the 史记！
fable oso got real n fake version kah? i now know y use monkey wakaka.
DeleteSee… can't get the REAL drill.
DeleteProve conclusively about yr understanding of the 老祖宗的智慧!
Ooop… is yr 老祖宗 of the Chinese descent?
Perhaps monkey sees monkey does lah!
Semua tak mau nampah that big pink elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteIt's the QUALITY of the exam, not the TYPE of exam that is separating the chaff & wheat types of university entrance students.
Get rid of ALL the govt sponsored ad-hoc university exams & replace them with just one single meritocratic entrance exam!
All over the world, countries r admitting students to tertiary education based on the test results of a COMMON entry exam.
College Scholastic Ability Test or CSAT is a type of standardized test accepted by South Korean universities.
The National Center Test for University Admissions is a type of standardized test used by public and some private universities in Japan.
The National College Entrance Examination, commonly known as Gaokao, is an academic examination held annually in the People's Republic of China.
GCE A–Levels in the UK, or French Baccalaureate, are the de facto admission tests in these countries.
SABER 11 Exam – Test for all undergraduate students that want to apply to a university in Colombian territory.
All these countries r also having some variations/allocations, based on special needs/circumstances, to allow small minority of the socially 'disadvantaged' admittees, usually based on a vetted criterions & quotas, to be enrolled into the universities.
They do have SOCIALLY 'handicapped' group of citizen that they NEED to bootstrapping to better socia-economic standing with state helps via education. Those under the scheme r usually the cream of the selected group of individuals who have shown academic potential despite the environmental hardships they r experiencing. They r expected to uplift their own class of people via umbrella modelling effect. There r NEVER any free lunch!
But NEVER in the scale adopted & practised as in M'sia for the bumi intakes - in race based combined with outrightly free lunching.
Highly leveraging on this averaging-to-doom practice, instead of nurturing role models based on meritocracy, this twisted policy nurtures umbrella models of the advantages-taking mentality, usually based on know-who than know-how!
The true essence of a trained professional IS lost along with the process. It creates a group of self-assured incompetent weaklings usually snap impulsively when the 'cake' they r so used to enjoy IS been assumed to be threatened.
Any wonder WHY China can uplift 80M of the desperately poor peasants in the rural to decent set of modern livings in just 40 yrs.
Meanwhile, the ketuanan freaks & the blur-sotongs r still chanting that never-ending story of still needing tongkat outright after 40+ yrs of positively affirmative discrimination BCOZ they r still cannot compete with the Nons!