Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Friday, October 19, 2018
Chinese Education in Malaysia - Media Interview (via email)
A few weeks ago , my friend Dr Mustafa K. Anuar posted me 6 questions, wanted to get my views on Chinese schools in Malaysia. Below are my replies:
1. Generally speaking, what are the problems faced by Chinese
schools, both primary and secondary, in Malaysia?
One should not lump the situations faced by Chinese schools at
primary and secondary level. First of all, the Chinese primary schools are
generally called ‘SJK(C)’ which are fully (and some partially) funded by the Federal
government and they use government’s KSSR syllabus and content as SK do. SJK(C)
are largely the first choice for many ethnic Chinese families to send their
kids to. However, about 18% non-Chinese enrolment in SJK(C) was reported in
2016[1].
On the other hand, Chinese secondary schools are better known as
Chinese independent secondary schools, their existence are largely due to historical
reason [2].
Only about 10% of SJK(c) students enroll in this school system the number stays
at 60 institutions since 70s. The students have to pay fee to study (without
federal government subsidy), and have different co-curriculum and syllabus to
government secondary schools which are based on KSSM.
Demand for places beyond the current capacity and supply, especially
plague the SJK(C) in urban areas, while the number of incoming students in
rural areas is declining (some decline more rapidly) due to migration pattern
of citizens. Increasingly more non-Chinese also demand for places in SJK (C),
this increases the pressure of some overcrowded and oversubscribed urban
Chinese schools. However, this may not last long, as the birth rate of ethnic
Chinese citizens is falling, and at least for the past 5 years the number of
enrolment in SJK (C) schools is in the decline (518,543 in 2018; 560,788 in
2014[3],
a reduction of 7.5%).
The other major long-standing issue for SJK(C) schools is the insufficiency
of Chinese-speaking teachers teaching in various subjects. This was always
promised by previous MCA-deputy education Ministers but they never resolved the
issue. The main contention point is not the teacher supply itself but mainly
mal-distribution of resources. Other issues for SJK(C) are either
educational-related (e.g. too heavy school bags and homework workload for
students) or administration-related (e.g. some headmasters/mistresses were
accused of ‘corruption’ for collusion with vendors).
Issues for Chinese independent secondary schools include the worrying
trend of declining number of incoming students in some schools, less diverse
racial interactive environment and non-recognition of their major certificate
(UEC) (even though many students also sit for SPM examination). The latter
issue on UEC is not just for job opportunities in public sector per se, but
more symbolic in terms of national recognition of their existence and
competence. The non-recognition policy, to them, is amounting to
discrimination, it might have created distrust and racial sentiments which are unhealthy
to national unity.
2. The long-standing criticism against Chinese schools by certain
quarters is that their existence poses a threat to efforts at national
integration. What is your view on this taking into consideration the entire
national education system of the country?
There are many debates on how to work towards national integration
or racial harmony, and many approaches were also suggested. No matter what the
approach is, In my opinion, first and foremost, the current overarching
government policies must be seen as fair to all races, otherwise there could be
no guarantee that even putting all children together under one roof can promote
racial harmony when one particular group is clearly more preferred or
privileged to others.
If we just talk about SJK(C), they are already using the same
co-curriculum as with the National school (SK), the difference in most subjects[4]
is probably down to teaching medium. By right, all SKs and SJKs are assumed
learning similar contents including values in promoting national integration,
so why does it matter in what language these are taught? Lest should we forget that there is also a
small number of government-aided religious school at primary level (544
institutions in 2018), we should also include them for national integration.
Should we also be more concerned about ‘class segregation’ because the combined
enrolment at primary and secondary international schools as well as private academic
secondary schools is 71,640, overtaking the total enrolment at Chinese
Independent schools (66,723)?
Also, now there is a more diverse outlook of racial profile in SJK(C)
than in SK, who is right to say that the existence of SJKs poses a threat? Even
now, many sitting in the government frontbench used to study in the SJKs.
3. The Mahathir administration is thinking of the possibility of
reviving the Vision School. What do you think of this?
By whatever name the school may be called, if the government actually
means building more schools of different teaching mediums sharing facilities
and resources in an area where there is clearly a demand/need for these schools,
I do not think it is a bad idea. I hope that this policy does NOT mean that
Vision School is the only way to build any school (esp. SJKs).
Interaction among school kids from different background in this way would
be more natural and less forceful while parents still have choice to decide
which language medium best served the interest for their children.
The tricky part on the Vision School might be the role and
appointment of school board members, especially for SJK(C) where traditionally
they are independent to government and collectively they form ‘Dong Zong’.
4. Some of the Chinese schools are overcrowded with students. How
do you account for this phenomenon – despite the government’s refusal to
recognise the Unified Examination Certificate?
Currently, there are only some Chinese independent secondary schools
are considered overcrowded (ie. running at full capacity with overdemanding
enrolment), especially the 8 institutions located in the Klang Valley. The
reasons that the students (or their parents) decide to study in the Chinese
independent secondary schools could be largely cultural and linguistic. Also,
not all the national secondary schools provide Chinese language classes in
preparing for SPM, some students might want to further study in Chinese
language. Some parents may deem national secondary schools are too Islamic and intolerant
to their non-Muslim children. Some of them might generally perceive that the
national schools lack quality.
Even though UEC is not recognised by Federal government, it is
widely recognised by many private and overseas education institutions as well
as private sector. If the students really desire to study in local public university,
they could still use SPM certificate and enroll in STPM/Matrikulasi (though
there are not many cases). Thus it is not a total disadvantage studying in the
Chinese independent schools with the UEC being not recognised.
5. Why do non-Chinese children increasingly go to Chinese schools
despite certain problems faced by these schools?
In my opinion, for primary school, that must be the decision made by
the parents. These non-Chinese parents probably see the economic value of
Chinese-learned education which may enable their children to be more
competitive in their career in future. This coincides with the current trend of
China rising to become one of the most dominant economic powers in the world.
Secondly, these parents might appreciate that their family has a
member learning another major local language and culture (so that he/she could connect
with another community in their own language). This phenomenon could be more
prominent in Chinese-majority areas. Some might even see SJK(C) as more
superior in educational quality compared to the current SK. In addition, some
of them might not like the development of SK becoming more Islamic and racial
monotonous.
6. What do you think of the Dual Language Programme that allows for
schools to choose the language to be used for the teaching of Science and
Mathematics in schools?
From what I learned from educational experts and academics, to excel
in acquiring knowledge, it is most effective when one starts learning the
subject in their own mother tongue. Thus, if this programme is aiming at
primary schools, I would object unless there is clearly evidence showing
otherwise. Dual language learning on the same subject is such a waste of time
and energy, surely the teaching in the second language will not raise student’s
interest or curiosity in Science and Mathematics, why duplicate the efforts?
If the purpose is for the students to become familiarize with the
terms in English, why not just incorporate them additionally just as a
translation directly in the (first language) textbooks?
When it comes to voting, age not just a number
LAST month, the cabinet announced its decision to lower the eligible voting age from 21 to 18, thus fulfilling one of Pakatan Harapan’s 14th general election manifesto promises. This should come as good news for those aged between 18 and 21, who, according to the latest population statistics, number over two million.
Youth and Sports Minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman estimated that the new policy would likely add 3.7 million, or 25% more, voters to the electoral roll.
Prior to this, among Asian countries that hold democratic elections, only Singapore and Malaysia had voting age limitations at 21 years old. In fact, across the world, voting rights at 18 are institutionalised in a majority of countries. Some go even lower – the voting age in Indonesia is 17, and 16 in Brazil.
The age of 21 was originally chosen because it was embedded in our constitution and passed down since independence was gained 61 years ago. It originated from the English Law, and the definition of “adult” back in those days. But things have changed since the 1950s. The Age of Majority Act 1971 in Malaysia states that adults are defined as those above 18.
Under the law, a person aged 18 has the right to drive, marry, choose a religious belief, sign legal agreements and serve in the army, and must bear legal consequences if convicted. Given that they already have the power to decide on such major life events, why should these youth be regarded as “not mature enough” to have the right to vote?
Some argue that bearing responsibility for decision-making at a personal and family level does not necessarily mean that young people know how to make reasonable judgments for the future of the community and country. However, I am not confident that all “experienced” senior voters act on reason rather than emotion when the time comes to cast their ballots.
Also, if that is a valid argument, it must imply disapproval of the qualification and ability of 18-year-old voters around the world, too. Furthermore, 18-year-old youth are expected to have election experience in school, through societies or organisations in their high school years, and they should not, therefore, be too unfamiliar with voting in the collective interest.
Regardless of their age group, a good voter should meet four criteria:
1) Show up at the polling station and vote;
2) Think rationally and carefully about political parties, candidates and election issues;
3) Be able to differentiate right from wrong, and weigh the pros and cons of the voting choice in order to make the best call; and,
4) Care about and balance the entire local community’s interest up to national interest, but not vote purely out of personal interest.
Judging on these four criteria, I believe many probably did not perform well. If you ask them why they voted for this candidate or that party, the likely response would be that they voted based on sentimental attachment, or based on their family’s historical voting record (e.g. my dad/mum/husband/wife always votes for this party).
There are many who do not even fulfil the first and foremost criteria, which is to simply turn up and vote. This has nothing to do with age. In this regard, voter education should be considered a vital component of lifelong learning – the earlier one engages and practises it, the better.
Before GE14, a number of news outlets reported a lukewarm response from youth when political parties launched their voter registration drive. At the same time, a survey showed that 70% of youth admitted an indifference to politics. The Undi18 movement’s online petition did not meet even half of the targeted number (5,000) of endorsement signatures, despite having been circulated for over a year.
However, on polling day itself, according to estimates from the Merdeka Centre, the youth turnout rate reached 81% – not too far from the national average of 82.3%. This proves that young voters are very much willing to fulfil their obligations as citizens, and are, perhaps, not as politically negative or indifferent as previously thought.
Politicians’ ability to attract the attention of young voters depends on the current political climate, as well as whether the main issues relate to them. In the 2017 UK general election, about 64% of young voters, aged between 18 and 24, turned up to vote, contributing to the highest turnout rate for the past 25 years.
In Germany’s 2013 general election, the voter turnout rate for the 18-21 age group was higher than that of the 21-25 and 26-30 groups. This again shows that youth are taking an interest in voting for their future.
The policy of lowering the eligible voting age enables youth to participate in policymaking, while also giving them a head start in cultivating political awareness. This can hardly do any harm.
Political parties seeking to woo these voters and gain their support have to offer comprehensive policies that are beneficial to youth, considering aspects such as job opportunities, higher education and skills training, transportation, housing, family development, culture and sports, and personal safety. Politicians also need to proactively reach out to the younger generation, using communication platforms and language that make up youth’s common mediums, so that they can connect well with these young minds and win their hearts for votes.
Political awareness (but not political propaganda) should be included in the secondary- and tertiary-level civic education syllabus, so that youth can understand and differentiate political values and the philosophies behind them. And, the content should go beyond merely the processes and proceedings of our political system. Students should also be allowed and encouraged to have more open political debates and discussions.
Young people, with their innovative vision and creative ideas, have great potential to have an impact on nation-building, through influencing political discourse and challenging “outmoded” ways of thinking. Giving them the freedom to vote not only encourages them to contribute (through greater political recognition), but also to advocate for reforms where needed, and to develop a love for the community and country based on a tangible hope for the future.
Malaysia has not escaped the political trap of race and religion, but the country’s new political hopes will be in the hands of youth. Educating and training them early, as voters, could certainly be helpful.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
廢死是為了走出一個崇尚暴力和具報復心的社會
記得小時候，我跟小我兩歲的弟有時愛互追打。他打了我一下就落跑，我被打了當然不甘願就追著他喊打，打到了條氣才順‘覺得公平’。更多時候，這變成了一個循環，最後總有人打不到不爽而去‘政府’媽媽那裡告狀，不是說‘是他先開始的’就是‘他打了我多一次’。我媽通常就會叫我們停不要再打了，她兩邊都不想聽，再鬧就兩個都捉來打...其實有時真的會到那個地步，媽媽拿起藤鞭走向我們，我們倆兄弟就嚇跑趕快躲進房間‘碰’的一聲把房門鎖起來不讓媽進來。媽就會生氣地說，你們最好就不要出來。
在那種情況，即使早前鬧著打的兩兄弟也因為‘共患難’而和好如初，休戰不打了，等媽媽氣消才出去。藤鞭是我最先領會到的‘國家暴力’，但慶幸的是沒有一方能動用到媽媽的藤條向另一方下馬威，至少媽媽灌輸我們的是不管誰先打後打都不對，她不偏幫。回到剛才的情景，要是我媽會聽一邊執行懲罰的話，告狀喊冤的一方一定會爽，不是嗎？但是，媽媽用藤條打了其中一方後，問題真的解決了嗎？正義有了嗎？除了鞭打懲罰告訴你這是你‘應得’的報應，這過程到底還有教導了些什麼？
再來一個情景。就說一個個性較軟弱的學生（你可以想象‘大雄’）長期被壞蛋大隻的同學暴力欺負（你可以想象‘技安’）。弱小的學生不可能反抗打回bully，但是如果他敢告狀到訓導老師那裡，老師因此召了校園霸王而處罰了他。你們認為‘大雄’就可以從此天下太平不會被欺負了嗎？‘技安’被打完後，又有誰能擔保他不會再欺負人了嗎？如果你認為是，那你的邏輯是不是這樣：一個人不欺負他人，因為怕被懲罰。一旦被懲罰了後，那人就會領悟了不再有問題了。
如果你要問‘大雄’的感受，他當然一定想要看到‘技安’被懲罰啦，這才公平，不是嗎？或許你會這樣問我，你不是‘大雄’又沒被欺負過，為何你不試想想‘大雄’的感受？
這裡，‘大雄’的感受（或‘大雄’同情者的感受）就是正義了嗎？校園霸凌事件會因為訓導老師的懲罰這樣就被解決了嗎？校園問題就無端端被簡單化了。
我沒說‘技安’所作所為應該被縱容，無需負上任何責任或接受任何懲罰，而為何一旦說到懲罰一定需要用到暴力？‘技安’會不會這樣想，為何我打人就錯，你打人就對？暴力可以‘對’的嗎？這無關什麼‘愛的教育’，而是教育本身。相信用暴力懲罰就可達到目的的人，本身或許不一定懂教育，但絕對相信暴力。
這是一個崇尚暴力和具報復心的社會。他們不相信人性，也不願看到更大的制度問題，只問受害者的感受為了他出口氣。這是錯把報復心當同理心。
這讓我想起中古時代群眾喜歡去城市廣場圍觀刑場公審與懲罰，然後歡呼執法者仿佛執行鞭打或斷頭就是執行正義。執行了刑罰以後，大家就氣爽了，人散了，還有人關心到底還有其他人也同時是受害者需要幫助支援嗎？執法者一定是對的嗎？是一定要‘寧可殺錯不可放過’嗎？解決掉了人就等於把問題解決掉了嗎？問題就真的只是社會上有壞人那麼單純嗎？
我不要活在這種計時炸彈的暴力社會。這不單止沒有理性和文明，而是繼續怠惰看待‘製造壞人’的社會問題根本，企圖欺騙自己讓情緒繼續控制自己看待問題。
所以，廢死是走出這種走捷徑、充斥報復心理的暴力社會的第一步，讓社會去思考受害的人除了是失去的摯愛，也包括被告和受害雙方的家庭，還有整個社會。死刑的存在不會給你任何安全感的，不然你去問看哪個死囚因為有死刑懲罰而不幹案犯錯？
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
為改革公交而站出來的講座
感謝當今大馬的忠實且詳盡報導。（嗯，照片也把我拍得很有'勢'，讚啦！ xD）。這是現場報導，自然我的說辭和呈現方式與今天下午我分享的幻燈片解說有一點不一樣。
以下我就摘錄我所講的部分，與大家分享。
***
希盟政府宣布最迟2020年推出第三国产车，但公共交通倡议者反对第三国产车，不仅与鼓励使用公交及减少使用私家车起矛盾，更不符合时代背景及浪费钱。
群议社社员林志翰昨晚在“对症下药：改革公共交通”论坛上质疑，若第三国产车的销售以本地市场为主，则将与政府推动公交的努力有所冲突。
“第三国产车是要卖出去还是卖本地是关键，若不是卖给国外而是卖给本地人，这代表与推广公共交通是有矛盾。”
“我觉得政府若有意愿要推动公共交通，但又要大量生产国产车卖给本地市场，到底本地市场是否能支撑，若要支撑是否要更多车上路，这不是我们想要看到的。”
林志翰也是槟城研究院吉隆坡分院高级政策分析员，他也质疑，国库控股子公司矽佳马来西亚私人有限公司（SilTerra）可能参与第三国产车计划一事，并担忧这或会涉及公帑。...他也疑惑，政府是否具备技术条件，以推出第三国产车，并且能媲美现在的制造商。
...
林志翰表明支持公交，并希望政府能大刀阔斧去改革公交，以给人民更多选择，让人民了解坐公交其实比自己开车更安全、舒适、速度和开车也一样，也更省钱。
“若建很多停车场和道路就会占了城市很多空间，若只是在高峰时段大家才使用这些驾驶设备，非高峰时段就不使用，这对城市空间运用来说是没效率。”
他认为，人民对汽车依赖将会带来恶性循环，包括没车似乎就无法到达目的地、社会歧视，例如认为巴士乘客普遍上是移工或非有钱人等。
“社区概念也会恶化，因为没人走在街上，在城市建设的安排都以汽车为主时，就少了以人为先元素。”
“所以逐渐的大家可以住更远，因为有车子可以去到更远的地方，这逐渐引发城市扩张，更多人买车，这些就是恶性循环。”
林志翰认为，城市密集发展是好事，因为这代表有更多设备集中，例如便利店、诊所和学校等，这些设备在方园两公里内可到达就不需开车。
“所以其实密集的城市发展不是坏事，反而若城市越往外扩张，如居住在安邦或士毛月但开车到吉隆坡市中心，就需要有高速公路，城市的扩张就会加剧社会的成本，因为大家都买车。”
“所以这就影响政府建路的意愿，政府建路也需要拨款，不如拿这笔拨款放在医药更好。所以当城市密集化和公交的服务增加后，路就反而铺得少，钱就用来公交的建设，也会促进更多人搭公交，最后就会减少使用私家车的必要。”
冀望政府往永续性发展
林志翰认为，成功的公交不仅依赖有轨交通，如捷运，反而需要更多巴士，以便能走入社区及达到各种衔接。
“不可能把有轨交通建在每个地方，所以必须有巴士走进小地方。有轨交通要成功，必须依赖良好的公共巴士服务。”
“例如在新加坡虽然有捷运，但他们有更多巴士衔接，新加坡很多人是先搭巴士才去捷运，而非直接走路去捷运，所以新加坡模式成功不是因为捷运，而是巴士涵盖率高，走在路上几乎有一或两辆巴士会经过社区小路。”
他也认为，马来西亚目前还是以汽车为中心的城市，建很多路及盖停车场，周围也有更多地方是低密集度发展，需要很多高速公路来驱散车。
“当越来越多车上路，到了一定程度将到瓶颈，即使多宽的道路也是无济于事，因为道路的成长是不如汽车数目的成长。”
他认为，政府必须朝永续性发展方向，着重公共交通，如把人行道做得更好，鼓励人们走路。
“或在社区里种更多树，让人觉得很舒服，要骑轿车或散步。当私家车的需求量下降，到时你买车不是因为你需要，公共交通不是要把汽车彻底排除，而是让人民认为我们不需要依赖汽车。”
“所以到那个时候，人民将认为社区是美丽，可种更多数木，不需要用来当作更多停车场。”
原報導：
巴士專用道
我問了以下的問題，記者也記載了，希望很快可以知道答案...
***
针对巴士准时一事，林志翰则建议交通部，或许可开发巴士专用道，不只能让巴士准时，也能避开塞车而鼓励更多民众乘搭巴士。
“若没有巴士专用道，即使买几千辆巴士上路也会塞车，因而没人要坐巴士，最难过的是巴士空空，买了很多但没人坐。”
“所以怎样能确保大家看到巴士呼啸而过，其他人则塞着车，而巴士又能准时到。第二则是必须要有即时数据，让大家可检查每个时段或过去的记录，了解巴士路线。”
原報導：
交通部公交改革三要项：准时、开放数据、放权
18岁投票有利民主建设
上个月19日，內阁宣佈决定把合格选民的投票年龄从21岁降至18岁。这项决定兑现了希盟的大选竞选宣言，「2000年后」的年轻选民自然雀跃万分可提早获得投票权。按照目前我国的人口统计，18岁至21岁的年轻人有超过200万人。青年及体育部部长赛沙迪则预料这新项政策將增加370万或25%选民纳入选民册，数目相当可观。內阁的决定无疑赋权於年轻人，让上百万把声音和政治想法能提早释放出来、参与决定国家的未来。
这项政策宣佈后，朋友们甚至媒体也前来问这个已渐渐不再年轻的我，年轻人18岁投票到底已够不够成熟？再来，就问这项新政策的利与弊，以及对选举政治和民主社会的影响。
数字说不出「成熟」
在此之前，在拥有选举制度的亚洲国家当中，除了新加坡，就只有我国才有21岁投票年龄限制。事实上，18岁投票早已是全球绝大部分国家落实的政策和主流趋势。邻国印尼的投票年龄是17岁，巴西甚至是16岁。
相信不少人也不知道原来我国已「落伍」了。而「21」这组岁数数字，自独立以来纳入我国宪法沿用至今61年了，当初参考当时的英国法律及成人的定义。
如今时空转换，《1971年成年法令》（Age of Majority Act 1971）已鉴明18岁是法定成年，基本上18岁已可合法开车、结婚、入教、签合约，甚至去当兵或负上法律责任被定罪。如此一来，18岁后已可对自己的各种人生大事作出决定和负责，拥有投票权还要被爭议说「不够成熟」？
有人辩称，能对自己和家人负责，不代表这些18岁年轻小伙子就已懂得为社区乃至国家的未来作出合理的判断，甭说要他们负责。我对类似的论述咋舌和感冒，主要是因为我都不敢说有些人即使到了乐龄阶段「经验丰富」的选民来到票箱前投下的那票，会不会就纯粹仅是情绪票或「跟大队」而已。
同时，这个论述如果可成立似乎也正否定著目前全世界大部分的18岁选民的能力和判断？再况且，18岁的年轻人应该在校园学会组织里也曾经歷过选举，对投票不应感到陌生，更不能说他们不懂得为集体利益作出决定。
无论年龄是18岁甚至到100岁，身为选民应做到这四点：1.选举当天出来投票履行责任；2.能理性认真地思考关於政党、候选人和选举课题；3.能辨別是非、深入分析其投票选择的利与弊，並作出最佳判断；4.关注和衡量整体社区、地方乃至全国的利益，而非纯粹本身的利益。
如果把要求標准从第一点拉到后面的三点，相信很多人也许都没做得好。若你去问他们为何会投选这个人或党，或许到了最后就仅剩下他们喜欢或討厌某个政党等的既定印象，又或者家族惯常的投票倾向（我爸妈/老公/老婆都投票这个党）。也有些人甚至连最基本的第一点（出来投票）都没办到，无关年龄。由此可见，选民教育是不少公民需要终身学习的项目，越早接触和学习越好。
年轻人非政治冷感
在大选前，有报导消息指出政党协助年轻人登记为选民的运动似乎热不起来，另一边厢有调查显示高达70%的年轻人直言对政治冷感。再来，年轻活跃分子发起的Undi18运动网上请愿书，自从开始流传超过一年，到了截止日期甚至无法达到招募5000个联署签名目標的一半。
但是到了大选当天，根据默迪卡民调中心的预算，年轻人的投票率达81%，与全国平均投票率82.3%相差不多。这显示了年轻人依然愿意履行公民责任，不至於如此政治消极和冷感。
到底大选课题能不能吸引年轻人关注，那么这得看当时的政治气候和主要议题是否与他们有关。2017年的英国大选，大约64%年龄介於18至24岁的年轻选民就积极出来投票，创近25年来的歷史新高。有评论分析说这归功於工党党魁科尔宾深入民间的关怀形象引起旋风，他的进步竞选论述也获得共鸣，年轻人因而得到了关注、找到了声音。
2013年的德国大选，18至21岁的选民投票率甚至比21至25岁和25至30岁的选民来得更高。这显示了18岁的年轻人未必比较不懂或不愿参与选举政治。
政党將「年轻化」
降低投票年龄这政策让年轻人更早能参与政治决策同时拥有社会醒觉，肯定不是坏事。这样一来，各政党既然要拉票得到这些年轻人的认同，就得端出与年轻人切身课题有关的全方位政策，例如就业机会、高等教育和技术训练、交通、房屋、家庭发展、文化及体育、社会治安等等方面的政策考量。政治人物也会接著更努力更敏感地使用年轻人的沟通平台和语言，以方便与他们接轨並俘虏这群选民的芳心贏得选票。
当然，政治醒觉（而不是政党宣传）应纳入中学到大专的公民教育课程纲领，以让年轻人更能明白和分辨政治价值观和哲理，学校不能仅是介绍政治制度运作和过程而已。同时，校方应允许学生有更多公开的政治辩论和討论空间。
年轻人若能得到更多的社会关注和政治认同，这將有助於栽培他们爱护家园之心，让他们看到未来希望並贡献给国家社会。如此一来就可避免人才流失。毕竟，年轻人应最具备有理想和创意、不拘於泥勇於挑战，这可对当前的政策思维带来一定的衝击。改革不就是需要不断地检视和破除旧有的思维，与时並进，少不了以当代最佳实践（best practice）和普世价值观作为参考。我国至今仍没跳脱种族宗教政治泥沼，国家未来新的政治希望就会落在这些年轻人来改变现况。提早训练和教育他们肯定百利无害。
刊登于《東方日報》東方文薈版2018年10月7日
此外，馬新社在9月20日那天向我做了個採訪。最後登上電視熒幕的片段如下:
https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1970634353002412&id=646746759030301&_rdc=1&_rdr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)