Contingent liabilities = 或有负债

一线之间，可以成家！

Challenging times ahead

Challenging times ahead - by Anthony Das of AmBank on 11.12.2015

1. Near term moderate global outlook.

2. Global trade is slowing down. Cyclical issue outweighs structural issue. Geopolitical risk becomes greater. IS n Syria. 2016 may see strong war - to divert attention.

3. 2016-19

a) US - 4 trillion in system cf 0.8-1.2 trillion
b) EU - ECB stimulus not strong enough.
c) Japan in recession
d) China - income distribution.
Ginni coefficient - 0.5. If it is high,  more rich people.  If 0, no poor people. Volume of usage of steel n other material has gone up.
e) India - 8% growth
f)  Malaysia - household debt 88%

4. Positive on retail,  tourism,  education,  healthcare.

5. Negative on construction.

6. Real challenge - interest rate policy
US n UK tightening
Euro n Japan - stimulus
China - easing

7. Expect gradual appreciation of Yuan in 2016.

8. By 2032, Malaysia will be aging country.

9. 55% at SPM level. 66 universities,  80 private schools.

 

If we cannot do the great things,  do the small things in a great way.

婆婆的家书 1973

婆婆的家书1

 

1973年8月19日。家，在四条港。

婆婆接到家书，欢迎她回乡。

婆婆生在地主家，小时在家有仆人侍候。童年时家里养牛，她负责牧牛。放牛时与牧童们对唱潮州山歌。她只教了我们几首还记得的，其他的都忘记了。

长大后经媒妁之言嫁给公公，经历村落仇杀、水災、飢荒。死别，是常常发生的痛。尔后投奔怒海，落足番邦，生离，是永不再见的愁。

1974年敦拉萨访问中国,带给老人家希望,有生之年可以返乡,大概是那时候兴奋中写信回家报讯。

终其一生,婆婆没再踏足神州。

婆婆的家书2

1973年11月10日。家，在四條港。

婆婆接到家书，报的是死讯。我不知道婆婆当时的反应。

入学以前，记得的事只有䢟玩、钓鱼、中秋节提灯笼、拜月亮、收集残蜡做蜡烛而烧到眉毛、大年初一，大伯天未亮就点炮，把大家吵醒。那时的我，不知大人的世界，充满的是恐惧，不安。

我不知道的是，更早几年，家，在九条沟。搬家，是因为513。甘榜里只有四家华人。事故发生时，有人在我家门前排了一列巴冷刀，一群人拿着武器游行，大声呼喊口号，华人家门窗紧闭，只敢从窗缝悄悄观看动静。最后只好落荒而逃，来到四條港。

我不知道的是，从甘榜搬到漁村，大人们过的是草木皆兵的日子，一有风吹草动，全村人马上跳上各自的漁船，出到海中，或无人的灌木林躲着，直到探子回报安全，才敢回村。

或许，那个时代的大人们，为一日生计而忙，为三歺温饱而烦，没有太多时间与空间 -- 悲伤。

Letter to Minister of Education dated 28.5.2013

Letter to the Minister of Education, posted on the website of the Ministry when it asked for feedback on the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. I have received no feedback from the Ministry.

Dear Sir,

I read with concern the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 wherein it was concluded that the vernacular schools are the cause for polarisation among Malaysian students.

The cause of the racial polarisation in Malaysia is not the vernacular schools but unfair treatment of the students and unjust policies of the government. Let me share my experience.

When I was growing up in Kuala Kangsar, Perak, I studied in a Chinese primary school. There were very few Malay or Indian students in our school. During this period, we were taught that we are citizens of Malaysia and we have to love Malaysia. We were not aware of the differences between us and other Malaysians. We were inculcated values, I believe, the same as the students in the national schools.

My father had Malay and Indian friends and we would visit them during Hari Raya or Deepavali and they would visit us during Chinese New Year. Then, our Malay friends were not so concerned whether the food we prepared was halal or otherwise.

Unfair treatment

When I went into secondary school, I studied in a national type school. Except for one subject in Chinese and one in English, the rest were all in Malay. When I grew older, I began to learn that there were differences between Bumiputra and Non-Bumiputra students:

1. We had to study harder because of quota system. The doors of ivory tower were narrower for us. For Chinese students, we have to get better results than the Malay students in order to get enrolled into national universities. We could not afford an overseas education, therefore the national universities were the only hope we have to get tertiary education.

1. The national schools were given more resources and therefore could afford more facilities compared to other schools. The difference in facilities was so apparent. Our chairs and tables were worn out. We do not have big football field, just a basketball court. Sadly, 30+ years later, my sons’ schools suffered from the same lack of facilities.

Seeing the quota system in action

I studied in a national school in Kuala Kangsar from 1986 to 1987 for Form 6. At the beginning of the school term, there were about 50 of us in our class 6 Science 3, about 50% Malays, and another 50% Chinese and only 1 Indian. Then half of the Malay students were gone, having been absorbed into matriculation in local universities. Few weeks later, the rest except two were gone, having been enrolled in colleges or universities overseas. I remember a girl, seated next to me, failed her mathematics in the first examination in the school but she told me she was going to Scotland (if I remember correctly) to do architecture on government scholarship.

For the Chinese, the trend was that students with 5 to 6As would get offer to go into UTM or UPM. This is very obvious from the following statistics from my school:

1. Students who took SPM in 1983 – 1 with 6As went to UTM to do petrochemical engineering course;
2. Students who took SPM in 1984 – 1 with 5As (if I remember correctly) went to UPM to do veterinary course;
3. Students who took SPM in 1985 (my year) – 1 with 6As went to UTM to do engineering course.

Students who got better results didn’t get any offers.

When I got into the law faculty of University of Malaya, we did a survey of the Chinese students in the faculty. I remember the lowest marks for Chinese was 70 points (STPM results) and there was only one student with 70 points. The rest were 74 and above. We did not survey the Malay students but 1 resident college-mate I spoke to had only 48 points (again if I remember correctly as it was almost 24 years ago).

Unjust policies

It was reported in the newspapers that the Minister of Education had reported in parliament that under the 9th Malaysia Plan, the national primary schools were alloted with RM4,468,100,000 which was RM22,450,000 per school whereas the Chinese primary schools were alloted with  RM142,500,000 which is RM1,740,000 per school. The Tamil primary schools were alloted with RM119,100,000.

In terms of percentage, national schools got 94.5%, Chinese schools 3% and Tamil schools 2.5% of the allocations.

This explains the lack of facilities in the national type schools.

It was reported on 16.10.2012 that the Minister had said that in 2012, a sum of RM937,000,000 was allocated to 8,216 national primary and secondary schools, RM87,000,000 to 1,294 Chinese primary schools and RM19,200,000 to 523 Tamil primary schools. On average:

1. A national school gets RM114,045.76;
2. A Chinese school gets RM67,233.38;
3. A Tamil school gets RM36,711.28

The above does not take into account the number of students in the schools and therefore I could not get the allocation per student in each of the different types of schools. As far as I know, most of the Chinese primary schools in the cities are crowded with about 50 students in a class.

Before the government implemented the “pinjaman buku” scheme, I remember the children of a lawyer in my firm were loaned textbooks but children of a clerk (who earned much lesser than the lawyer) who was in a national type school (formerly a mission school) were not eligible.

There are many other examples.

So, tell me, honourable Minister, are the vernacular schools or the unfair treatment of the rakyat and unjust policies the cause for disunity?

Please don’t start calling me a racist as I am not against the quota system but its implementation must be fair – help all the students who need help, regardless of race and religion. Further there must be minimum requirements for enrolment into institutions of higher learning, otherwise we will produce students which the work market does not want and the government needs to come up with schemes to help them get jobs.

Regards,

Ktkiak

Melaka

28.5.2013

Hiring

If you hire only those people you understand, the company will never get people better than you are. Always remember that you often find outstanding people among those you don't particularly like.    - Soichiro Honda