Dear Readers,
Thank you for all your support over the years.
I am pleased to inform you that my blog has been migrated to www.zairil.com.
Please visit the new website for my latest articles and statements.
Regards,
Zairil
NB: This speech was delivered on 30 October 2013 in Parliament.
Pendidikan: Hasil yang tidak sepadan dengan pelaburan
Izinkan saya bermula dengan memetik Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan sebagai pedoman utama ucapan saya pada hari ini:
“Pendidikan di Malaysia adalah satu usaha berterusan ke arah memperkembangkan lagi potensi individu secara menyeluruh dan bersepadu untuk mewujudkan insan yang seimbang dan harmonis dari segi intelek, rohani, emosi dan jasmani.”[1]
Pada hemat saya, ini bermaksud bahawa dasar pendidikan negara seharusnya bertujuan untuk mencapai dua matlamat teras. Pertama, untuk menghasilkan modal insan terbaik yang berpengetahuan dan berdaya saing di peringkat antarabangsa. Kedua, untuk memastikan tiada anak Malaysia yang tercicir atau ketinggalan dari segi peluang pendidikan, selari dengan Matlamat Pembangunan Milenium (Millennium Development Goals) Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu.
Justeru, apa pun keputusan yang ingin kita ambil, dasar yang ingin kita gubal dan tindakan yang ingin kita laksanakan harus berdasarkan dua matlamat teras pendidikan ini.
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Saban tahun Kerajaan memperuntukkan sekitar 20 peratus belanjawan Persekutuan untuk tujuan pendidikan. Pola ini berterusan dalam Belanjawan 2014 yang baru dibentangkan Perdana Menteri, dengan peruntukan sebanyak RM54 bilion untuk Kementerian Pendidikan atau 21 peratus daripada keseluruhan belanjawan.
Ini menunjukkan Kerajaan meletakkan keutamaan yang besar terhadap pembangunan modal insan negara. Berdasarkan Laporan Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025 (PPPM), perbelanjaan awam Malaysia dalam pendidikan asas, dari prasekolah hingga menengah, sebagai peratusan KDNK, adalah melebihi dua kali ganda purata negara ASEAN (3.8 peratus berbanding 1.8 peratus), dan juga lebih tinggi daripada negara-negara Harimau Asia seperti Korea, Hong Kong, Jepun, dan Singapura. Malahan, perbelanjaan pendidikan di negara kita juga lebih tinggi daripada purata negara OECD (3.4 peratus).
Jika dibandingkan pula dengan negara-negara yang setara dari segi KDNK per kapita seperti Turki, Chile, Romania dan Mexico, Malaysia mempunyai perbelanjaan per murid yang lebih tinggi, iaitu USD1,808 setahun.
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Walaupun jumlah yang dibelanjakan untuk pendidikan di negara kita adalah tinggi, persoalannya adalah, adakah perbelanjaan itu menghasilkan pulangan atas pelaburan ataupun ROI (return on investment) yang setimpal?
Malangnya, jawapan daripada laporan PPPM sendiri mengatakan tidak. Menurut laporan tersebut, prestasi Malaysia ketinggalan berbanding negara-negara lain yang memperuntukkan perbelanjaan yang setara. Malah laporan tersebut juga mengakui bahawa “tahap perbelanjaan lebih tinggi tidak semestinya dikaitkan dengan keberhasilan lebih baik.”
Kegagalan ini dicerminkan dalam taraf kebolehupayaan murid kita apabila diukur bersama negara-negara lain. Ambil sebagai contoh kajian Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Kali pertama anak-anak kita mengambil bahagian dalam kajian ini pada tahun 1999, skor purata murid negara kita telah mengatasi purata antarabangsa dalam Matematik dan Sains. Namun, sejak itu prestasi kita telah merudum sehingga ke kajian mutakhir pada tahun 2011 apabila negara kita mencatatkan penurunan yang paling ketara antara semua 59 negara yang dikaji. Daripada kedudukan no.16 bagi subjek Matematik pada tahun 1999, Malaysia telah jatuh ke no.26 pada tahun 2011, sementara subjek Sains pula menampakkan kejatuhan daripada no.22 kepada no.32 dalam jangka masa yang sama. Tambahan pula, 38 peratus murid kita telah gagal mencapai penanda aras minima dalam Matematik dan Sains. Kini, prestasi murid Malaysia berada di bawah purata antarabangsa – satu pola yang juga dicerminkan oleh kajian-kajian lain seperti Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) yang dijalankan oleh OECD.
Punca kemerosotan prestasi pendidikan
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Tidakkah ia menghairankan? Bagaimanakah prestasi murid kita boleh semakin merosot walaupun perbelanjaan pendidikan semakin meningkat? Jelas, hasil yang diperolehi adalah tidak setimpal dengan pelaburan yang dibuat. Malah, kenyataan ini sendiri diakui oleh Perdana Menteri semasa membentangkan Rang Undang-Undang Perbekalan 2013.
Namun, tidak sukar untuk kita memahami mengapa kritikan Perdana Menteri itu hanya setakat mengakui kelemahan sahaja dan tidak pula sanggup untuk menyenaraikan punca-puncanya, apatah lagi mengambil langkah-langkah proaktif untuk menangani kelemahan ini.
Maka yang demikian, saya akan membantu untuk merungkaikan punca-punca rendahnya prestasi murid di negara kita di sebalik pelaburan tinggi yang diperuntukkan setiap tahun.
Pertamanya, ketirisan dan pembaziran yang berlaku akibat ketidakcekapan pengurusan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Laporan Ketua Audit Negara setiap tahun. Contohnya pelbagai, seperti dalam isu keselamatan di sekolah dan institusi pengajian. Walaupun RM2 bilion dibelanjakan, laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2012 telah mendapati kepincangan dalam pemantauan di pintu masuk dan keluar sekolah, di samping pengawal yang tidak mencukupi atau tidak menepati aspek kesihatan, kontrak keselamatan yang diluluskan oleh Kementerian tanpa mengikuti prosedur yang ditetapkan serta pembayaran kepada kontraktor yang tidak menunaikan tugas mereka.
Keduanya, tiada kajian yang menyeluruh sebelum sesuatu dasar dilaksanakan. Ini mengakibatkan dasar flip-flop dan pembaziran besar-besaran. Ingatkah lagi kita kepada dasar Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) yang bukan sahaja gagal meningkatkan penguasaan bahasa Inggeris murid, malahan juga menyebabkan pencapaian Sains dan Matematik murid merosot berdasarkan penilaian antarabangsa.
Tambahan pula, PPSMI telah menelan belanja sebanyak RM3.2 bilion, di mana dua pertiga daripada kos tersebut telah digunakan untuk pemerolehan perkakasan dan perisian. Apakah sudah terjadi dengan peralatan komputer berjumlah lebih RM2 bilion itu, memandangkan dasar PPSMI sudah pun ditamatkan?
Kini, Kerajaan ingin melaksanakan projek besar-besaran 1BestariNet yang akan melibatkan pemasangan jalur lebar berkelajuan tinggi 4G di kesemua 10,000 sekolah di Malaysia. Tujuan pemasangan internet di setiap sekolah ini adalah untuk membolehkan pelaksanaan Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) ataupun pelantar pembelajaran maya yang menyediakan akses kepada kelas maya, mata pelajaran maya, kerja sekolah dan sumber-sumber lain.
Pendekatan pembelajaran maya ini kononnya akan meningkatkan prestasi pendidikan murid kita, demi mencontohi negara seperti United Kingdom dan Korea Selatan. Namun, kita harus sedar bahawa sistem pendidikan di negara-negara tersebut sudah berada di tahap yang matang, di mana pembelajaran maya melalui VLE ini adalah langkah yang lazim, ataupun natural progression, manakala sistem pendidikan di negara kita masih lagi jauh keterbelakang.
Pun begitu, laporan daripada Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), sebuah badan pemantau pendidikan di United Kingdom, mendapati bahawa teknologi ini tidak semestinya menghasilkan perkembangan murid yang memberangsangkan. Sebaliknya, kejayaan VLE sangat bergantung kepada sikap dan kemahiran guru yang mengendalikannya.
Oleh itu, kita berbalik kepada persoalan kebolehupayaan guru kita. Mampukah guru dan murid kita memanfaatkan penuh sistem yang canggih lagi mahal ini? Memandangkan dasar PPSMI telah gagal kerana guru kita tidak mempunyai asas penguasaan bahasa Inggeris yang kukuh, apakah jaminan Kerajaan bahawa tragedi PPSMI tidak akan berulang lagi?
Tambahan pula, semasa Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13, Menteri Pendidikan telah berjanji untuk membekalkan setiap murid di Malaysia dengan satu komputer riba menjelang tahun depan. Projek ini sekarang dikenali sebagai “1 Murid 1 Peranti.” Dengan jumlah 5.5 juta murid di peringkat sekolah rendah dan menengah di seluruh negara, apakah kos yang bakal dibelanja untuk memastikan setiap murid mempunyai satu peranti, dan apakah asas kepada dasar ini? Adakah ia perlu?
Daripada keghairahan untuk melaksanakan program 1BestariNet atau 1 Murid 1 Peranti dan sebagainya, saya mencadangkan adalah lebih baik Kementerian memberi tumpuan untuk memastikan satu sekolah mempunyai satu padang dan satu murid mempunyai satu meja. Biar perbelanjaan itu mengutamakan perkara yang asas terdahulu, daripada membazirkan wang dengan projek berbilion ringgit yang bakal terbengkalai menjadi gajah putih.
Masalah profesion perguruan
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Sekali lagi, saya mempersoalkan sama ada perbelanjaan Kementerian betul-betul disasarkan kepada punca masalah. Saya percaya, faktor utama kemerosotan prestasi pendidikan di negara kita adalah kelemahan tenaga pengajar. Masalah ini pula bertunjang kepada kegagalan untuk menarik calon guru yang baik.
Mengikut laporan Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10 (RMK10), setiap tahun Kementerian Pendidikan menerima lebih 175,000 permohonan untuk menyertai profesion perguruan. Malangnya, hanya 7 peratus daripada pemohon bagi program latihan di IPG merupakan pelajar cemerlang yang mendapat 7A dan ke atas. Manakala, bagi kursus Perguruan Lepasan Ijazah pula, hanya 3 peratus pemohon mempunyai purata gred terkumpul (CPGA) 3.50 dan ke atas.
Justeru, sasaran yang dinyatakan oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri Pendidikan II (Dato’ Seri Idris Jusoh) untuk menetapkan keputusan 7A sebagai syarat minima permohonan program perguruan di Semenanjung Malaysia adalah tidak realistik.
Pokoknya, kita harus memahami masalah ini dengan lebih mendalam. Berdasarkan Laporan RMK10, jelas profesion perguruan bukanlah pilihan calon cemerlang. Persoalannya, mengapa? Sudahkah Kementerian melakukan kajian berkenaan kegagalan untuk menarik pelajar cemerlang dalam profesion perguruan? Jika ya, apakah hasil kajian tersebut? Adakah profesion perguruan kini bukan menjadi pilihan kerana profesionalisme institusi pendidikan negara kita telah diabaikan? Adakah ia kerana sistem pendidikan negara sudah menjadi mangsa percaturan politik, di mana dasar pendidikan tampaknya digubal atas pertimbangan politik semata-mata?
Memperkasakan pengajian tinggo
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Saya juga ingin menyentuh mengenai sektor pengajian tinggi di negara kita. Dalam ucapannya Jumaat lalu, Perdana Menteri telah menyatakan bahawa Kerajaan akan “memberi fokus memperkasakan institut pengajian tinggi… ke arah melahirkan graduan yang berkualiti dan memenuhi permintaan pasaran kerja.”
Namun begitu, usaha paling asas dalam hal ini nampaknya tidak mahu dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan. Sebaliknya, Kerajaan memilih jalan yang sukar serta membebankan dari segi kewangan dan birokrasi dengan memusatkan segala pentadbiran, termasuk pemilihan Naib Canselor di Putrajaya.
Pemusatan kuasa ini sudah tentu tidak akan menggalakkan pembangunan sektor pengajian tinggi yang sihat. Sebagaimana semua maklum, universiti sebagai medan pembentukan korpus ilmu seharusnya diberi autonomi dan ruang untuk membangun. Tanpa memahami dan menghormati prinsip paling dasar institusi keilmuan ini, segala usaha untuk memartabatkan ilmu di negara kita akan bertemu dengan kesukaran.
Sebagai contoh, kerajaan telah mengumumkan Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) sebagai Universiti APEX yang menurut laman web rasmi Kementerian adalah bertujuan untuk mencapai status universiti bertaraf dunia. Namun begitu, berdasarkan QS World University Rankings 2013, kedudukan USM makin merosot dan berada di tangga ke-355 sekarang. Malah, ironinya, ranking USM telah menurun tahun demi tahun sejak penarafannya sebagai Universiti APEX.
Isu ini pernah saya bangkitkan dalam dewan yang mulia ini, tetapi jawapan yang saya terima menyatakan bahawa ranking sama ada QS World University Rankings mahupun Times Higher Education World University Rankings bukanlah indikator yang digunapakai oleh USM. Saya menyedari bahawa universiti tidak seharusnya berorientasikan ranking semata-mata, namun dari segi pemetikan antarabangsa (international citation) juga, prestasi USM tidak terlalu membanggakan. Lalu, apakah indikator sebenar universiti bertaraf dunia mengikut pandangan Kementerian?
Persoalan ini sangat penting kerana universiti di Malaysia bukan sahaja sukar untuk menarik minat pelajar terbaik rantau ini, malah kebanyakan pelajar tempatan yang mempunyai pilihan juga akan menyambung pelajaran di luar negara.
Lebih parah lagi, jika dahulu universiti tempatan boleh berbangga dengan kehadiran ramai ahli akademik bertaraf antarabangsa yang terhormat dalam bidang masing-masing seperti John Funston, Harold Crouch, Clive Kessler, James C Scott dan Arndt Graf, kini amat sedikit yang masih kekal di universiti tempatan. Malahan, ahli akademik tempatan yang mempunyai reputasi hebat seperti KS Jomo, Azly Rahman, Syed Farid Alatas, Wang Gung Wu dan Johan Saravanamuttu telah memilih untuk berkhidmat di luar negara. Justeru, gejala brain drain berlaku bukan sahaja dalam kalangan anak-anak muda kita, tetapi juga para pemikir negara kita.
Pendekatan pendidikan yang holistik
Tuan Yang Dipertua,
Hakikatnya, walaupun peruntukan untuk pendidikan di negara kita adalah besar, hasilnya amat mengecewakan. Prestasi murid sekolah dan kedudukan universiti kita yang makin merosot membuktikan bahawa peningkatan perbelanjaan semata-mata tidak mencukupi jika masalah sistemik tidak ditangani.
Projek-projek besar yang dicadangkan bukanlah penyelesaian kepada kemelut pendidikan negara kita. Apa yang diperlukan adalah perancangan, pengurusan dan pelaksanaan yang cekap dan tepat pada sasarannya. Dalam erti kata lain, penyelesaiannya haruslah holistik dan berupaya untuk menangani punca masalah dan bukan sekadar menjadi alasan untuk menguntungkan pihak-pihak tertentu.
Ambil sebagai contoh obsesi Kementerian untuk menggunakan khidmat perunding seperti McKinsey & Co yang dibayar RM20 juta untuk menyediakan PPPM, seolah-olah kita tidak mempunyai pegawai yang mampu melakukan kerja tersebut. Apakah fungsi Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan (EPRD) dalam Kementerian Pendidikan jika tidak untuk merangka dasar?
Selain McKinsey, Kementerian juga telah membelanjakan RM270 juta untuk melantik tiga syarikat perunding – British Council, Brighton Education Group dan SMR HR Group – untuk menyediakan mentor penutur jati bahasa Inggeris dari luar negara bagi membimbing dan meningkatkan kapasiti guru Bahasa Inggeris di sekolah rendah yang terpilih. Dalam program yang berlangsung sepanjang tiga tahun ini, seramai 360 mentor telah dilantik, iaitu dengan kos RM21,000 sebulan untuk setiap mentor. Apakah hasil yang dicapai daripada program ini dan adakah ia setimpal dengan perbelanjaan yang begitu besar? Adakah program ini akan dilanjutkan setelah tamat tempohnya pada tahun ini?
Pada masa yang sama, ketidakcekapan pengurusan kewangan bukan sahaja terserlah dalam pelaksanaan projek-projek yang tidak wajar, tetapi juga dalam kegagalan untuk melaksanakan program-program yang dirancang.
Sebagai contoh, dalam pembentangan Belanjawan 2013, Perdana Menteri mencadangkan penubuhan projek perintis taska OKU bagi enam kategori kanak-kanak OKU yang merangkumi down syndrome, autisme, penglihatan, pekak dan bisu, fizikal dan masalah pembelajaran. Ini merupakan satu projek yang sangat penting, sekiranya kita mahu memastikan matlamat “tiada anak yang ketinggalan” itu dicapai. Malangnya, projek perintis ini sudah lenyap daripada pengetahuan awam.
Oleh itu, sudah tiba masanya Kerajaan merubah pendekatan pendidikan, khususnya dalam soal perbelanjaan. Kerajaan harus lebih bertanggungjawab dalam tadbir urus kewangan, dan menghentikan obsesi kepada projek besar dan pergantungan kepada khidmat nasihat perunding luar. Sebaliknya, Kerajaan harus menumpukan perhatian kepada perkara pokok dan menangani punca dan bukan sekadar mengubati masalah yang timbul.
Lebih daripada itu, Kerajaan juga harus menghayati bahawa peranan pendidikan itu bukanlah sekadar penjana pekerja dan masyarakat yang patuh, tetapi sebagai satu cara untuk membebaskan dan memperkasakan rakyat.
Bak kata pendidik terulung Paulo Freire dalam bukunya Pedagogy of the Oppressed:
“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”
Sekian, terima kasih.
[1] Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan, http://upu.mohe.gov.my/portal/arkib/fpk.php
NB: This press statement was released on 23 October 2013 in Kuala Lumpur.
On Monday, I revealed that the Ministry of Education (MOE) entered into a three-year contract worth RM270 million to be paid to three consultancy firms, namely the British Council, Brighton Education Group and SMR HR Group, to provide a total of 360 native English-speaking mentors in order to improve the teaching of English in selected schools in Malaysia.
This amounts to RM250,000 a year, or almost RM21,000 a month to hire each foreign English mentor. In addition to the startling costs involved, I would now like to question the efficacy of this programme and the quality of mentors recruited.
Only three years experience required to be an expert?
According to British online recruitment website, JustJobs.co.uk, an advertisement was taken out for such mentors by Nord Anglia Education, a company partnering with Brighton Education Group, one of the consultancy firms hired by MOE for this programme.
The advert accessible at http://www.justjobs.co.uk/job_details.aspx?ad=68342 states that “Nord Anglia Education in association with Brighton Education Group is looking for English Language Teaching Consultants (ELTC) to improve English language and literacy teaching in clusters of Malaysian government primary schools.”
The advert further explains that “the ELTCs will be fluent English speakers and have a minimum of three years teaching experience in primary or kindergarten. Additional ESOL qualification and international experience would be an advantage.”
As for the job’s benefits, it is described as an “excellent ex-pat package including housing/transport/annual flight,” where “successful applicants will enjoy … a generous international package, based upon qualifications and experience….”
The “excellent” and “generous” employment package described above is certainly consistent with the extravagant RM270 million agreement between MOE and the three consultants, but is the government really getting their money’s worth when the so-called English experts only require a minimum of three years teaching experience? For the excessive amount of money being spent, surely only experienced senior English teachers should be recruited instead?
The Japanese comparison
Secondly, the MOE also needs to explain the need to hire expensive consultancy firms when Japan has been able to implement a successful English teaching programme since 1978 without the use of external consultants.
Now the largest programme of its kind in the world, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme attracts English-speaking university graduates from all over the world to work as English teachers in Japanese schools.
Unlike the Malaysian version, the Japanese government does not outsource the programme to consultants, but instead runs it as a collaboration between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, in cooperation with the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations.
Interested applicants are required to apply directly through their local Japanese embassies or consulates worldwide. Meanwhile, all relevant information is publicly available online. For example, the starting salary for English teachers begins at 275,000 Yen or roughly USD2,800 a month, a modest sum considering that Japan is one of the most expensive countries to live in.
What are the results and will the mentoring programme be continued?
Considering the absurd amount of public money spent, the MOE has a responsibility to disclose the results of the programme thus far. Malaysians deserves to know what improvements in the quality of English amongst our schoolteachers have been achieved since the mentoring began in 2011.
This is especially pertinent considering that I have personally received feedback from teachers who have been involved in the programme suggesting that they have not gained much benefit due to the minimal training received. In most cases, they were only “mentored” for three to four hours a month.
Finally, the MOE has to declare whether the Government has any intention of renewing the programme after its completion this year. And if not, are they prepared to accept responsibility for the possibility that RM270 million of public funds has been wasted?
Zairil Khir Johari
Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera
DAP Assistant National Publicity Secretary
NB: This press statement was released on 21 October 2013 in Kuala Lumpur.
Recently, it was revealed that the Ministry of Education (MOE) paid RM20 million to McKinsey & Co for their consultancy services in drafting the National Education Blueprint 2013-2025.
However, it would appear that McKinsey’s RM20 million MOE consultancy job is only the tip of the iceberg. According to a Parliamentary reply I received from the Minister of Education, the ministry has engaged three external consultants, namely the British Council, Brighton Education Group and SMR HR Group, in a three-year programme designed to “increase the capacity” of local English-language teachers.
The three consultancy firms have been contracted from 2011 to 2013 at a total cumulative cost of RM268.5 million, or RM89.5 million a year. As part of the agreement, the firms will provide 360 native English-speaking mentors (120 mentors per firm) throughout the three-year period.
The parliamentary reply further states that a total of 7,500 teachers from 1,800 schools will be trained, with the responsibilities divided geographically. The British Council has been tasked to provide mentors to train teachers in Labuan, Sabah and Sarawak, while Brighton Education Group will train teachers in Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Malacca, Johor and Negeri Sembilan. Meanwhile, SMR HR Group will train teachers in Penang, Perlis, Perak, Kedah and Selangor.
In other words, close to RM270 million is being spent to hire 360 English mentors. This breaks down to RM250,000 a year for each mentor, or an extravagant sum of almost RM21,000 a month.
No matter what explanation MOE gives, there is no way they can justify the absurd amount of money being spent to provide what is essentially a three-years paid working-holiday to 360 native English mentors.
On top of that, based on ground reports and feedback received from teachers undergoing the programme, it would appear that the “mentoring” they receive ranges from only three to four hours a month. This immediately brings into question the efficacy of the mentoring programme, as how is anyone expected to master a language, or any subject for that matter, with only three to four hours’ worth of training a month.
Furthermore, the total expenditure of RM270 million to train 7,500 teachers is equivalent to RM36,000 per teacher over three years. This sum is much more than what it would cost to enrol the same teacher into a properly structured English-language degree programme in a local university. For example, Wawasan Open University offers a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in English Studies at a total cost of about RM24,000, which is two-thirds the cost of the mentoring programme currently provided by the consultancy firms. Meanwhile, a six-month diploma course in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) would cost only RM4,500 at a local private college.
While the objective of improving the quality of English-language teachers is admirable and should be pursued, there is absolutely no justification for MOE’s penchant for hiring overpaid consultants, especially when cheaper and better options are readily available.
Zairil Khir Johari
Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera
DAP Assistant National Publicity Secretary
NB: This press statement was released on 18 October 2013 in Kuala Lumpur.
The recent 2012 Auditor-General’s Report has once again raised a storm over the Federal Government’s track record in financial management and expenditure. According to Serdang MP Dr Ong Kian Ming, up to RM6.5 billion may have been wasted over 64 cases identified by the report.
However, there is one major Government-Linked Company that does not get reviewed by the Auditor-General, and that is our national oil company, Petronas. Formed by an Act of Parliament in 1974, Petronas is the custodian of our nation’s entire oil and gas resources, and remains until today Malaysia’s one and only Fortune 500 company.
Petronas is also the Federal Government’s financial backer, providing 40 per cent of the Federal Budget through dividends, oil royalty and taxes, but excluding gas subsidies, which are additional contributions.
By law, specifically Section 3(2) of the Petroleum Development Act, Petronas is answerable solely to the Prime Minister. Even Members of Parliament have no access to its financial records besides a simple annual report that is published for public consumption.
More than a billion in losses
Besides oil and gas, Petronas has in recent times ventured out of its core business in an attempt to diversify its portfolio. As a result, Petronas is now heavily invested into properties as well as the healthcare sector through Prince Court Medical Centre, a luxury private hospital situated in the heart of KL city.
However, at a cost of RM544 million to build, the investment in Prince Court Medical Centre has not been able to reap any profit. In fact, according to its annual report, the private hospital has been suffering huge losses every year for 10 years in a row, particularly in the last five years since its operations started.
In 2008, Prince Court lost a total of RM111 million. This figure nearly doubled to RM192 million in 2009 before haemorrhaging a further RM450 million in 2010. By year ending 31 December 2011, the accumulated losses stood at an incredible RM1.08 billion, as shown in the table below.
Income Statement for Prince Court Medical Centre (2002-2011)
| Year (31 March) |
2002-2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2011 (31 Dec) |
| Revenue |
– |
3,236,375 |
32,780,002 |
49,290,328 |
74,731,365 |
67,190,166 |
| Gross Profit |
– |
56,029 |
21,955,887 |
40,077,219 |
36,766,570 |
|
| Net Profit |
– |
– |
– |
– |
||
| Loss for the Year |
55,158,456 |
111,221,071 |
192,794,384 |
450,578,215 |
166,455,753 |
138,106,830 |
|
Total losses |
1,114,314,709 |
|||||
|
Total losses after reconciling effects of (1) reversal of fair value upon equity conversion in 2009 and (2) adopting FRS139 for year ended 31 March 2009 |
1,082,949,412 |
|||||
Prince Court’s financial performance is in stark contrast to other private hospitals. For example, according to IHH Healthcare’s 2012 financial report, Parkway Pantai, which owns a chain of hospitals in Malaysia and Singapore, recorded RM4.75 billion in revenue for 2012, out of which RM818 million was declared as profit.
Should the public subsidise a loss-making luxury private hospital?
According to a Parliamentary reply I received from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Senator Dato’ Sri Abdul Wahid Omar, the Government considers Prince Court’s business model to be sound, and that heavy investments are needed due to the superior state-of-the-art technology used.
Wahid further added that the hospital has been able to achieve 23 per cent growth in the first quarter of 2013 and was recently named the “World’s Best Hospital” in a medical tourism ranking by Medical Travel Quality Alliance.
Even if it is indeed the “world’s best hospital,” it still remains a question whether Prince Court is able to eventually turn a profit, and if not, then why is the public effectively subsidising a loss-making luxury private hospital.
The bigger question is: should Petronas even be engaged in non-core activities such as healthcare and property, being as its mandate and expertise is in the field of oil and gas? Other oil companies typically only invest in oil and gas-related industries and do not stray away from their core competency.
The huge losses amounting to RM1.1 billion suffered by Prince Court clearly proves that Petronas should not be involved in non-core businesses. Meanwhile, this episode also signals an urgent need for greater oversight in Petronas’s financial matters, especially considering the importance of the national oil company to our country’s coffers.
Zairil Khir Johari
Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera
DAP Assistant National Publicity Secretary
NB: This press statement was released on 12 October 2013 in Alor Setar.
Saya merujuk laporan-laporan media mutakhir ini yang memetik Menteri Besar Kedah Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir sebagai berkata bahawa kerajaan beliau tidak akan melayan sebarang permintaan daripada sekolah vernakular Cina dan sebaliknya hanya akan menumpukan bantuan dan keutamaan kepada sekolah kebangsaan sahaja.
Mukhriz telah mewajarkan kenyataannya dengan alasan bahawa beliau tidak boleh mengabaikan pengundi yang telah menyokongnya dalam Pilihan Raya Umum yang lepas. Tambahan pula, beliau berkata bahawa majoriti rakyat Kedah terdiri daripada orang Melayu.
Kenyataan sedemikian oleh seorang Menteri Besar, iaitu pemimpin tertinggi negeri, bukan sahaja tidak bertanggungjawab dan bersifat dendam, tetapi seolah-olah tidak belajar dari sejarah.
Pada tahun 1969, bapanya Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad telah membuat kenyataan yang serupa, di mana beliau mengujar bahawa beliau tidak memerlukan sokongan kaum Cina untuk menang dalam pilihan raya. Akhirnya, beliau telah tewas dalam pertandingan untuk kerusi Kota Setar Selatan. Kini, nampaknya Mukhriz ingin mengulangi kesilapan yang sama menjelang Pilihan Raya Kecil Sungai Limau.
Sepatutnya, sebagai seorang Menteri Besar yang bertanggungjawab, beliau harus menjaga kebajikan setiap lapisan masyarakat, tanpa mengira latar belakang politik.
Saya mengesyorkan agar Mukhriz belajar daripada contoh kerajaan-kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor dan Pulau Pinang. Bantuan kebajikan yang diberikan, termasuk kepada Sekolah Agama Rakyat, Sekolah Jenis Cina dan Tamil serta sekolah mubaligh, adalah ikhlas dan tidak berunsur politik. Begitu juga dengan program-program bantuan tahunan kepada warga emas, ibu tunggal, OKU, murid sekolah, para nelayan dan juga pemandu teksi.
Malah, Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang baru mengumumkan bahawa peruntukan sebanyak RM40,000 setahun akan diberikan kepada setiap Adun pembangkang BN bagi projek-projek infrastruktur dalam kawasan mereka. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor pula baru mengumumkan bahawa Ketua Pembangkang Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor akan menerima elaun tambahan sebanyak RM8,620 sebulan termasuk penggunaan kereta rasmi kerajaan.
Langkah Kerajaan Selangor dan Pulau Pinang ini bukan sahaja menghormati demokrasi dan pilihan rakyat, tetapi juga selari dengan hasrat persepaduan nasional. Sebaliknya, tindakan Mukhriz untuk memangsakan golongan tertentu boleh disifatkan sebagai dendam politik.
Saya yakin, sekiranya Mukhriz tidak menarik balik kenyataannya dan menyambung balik peruntukan untuk sekolah-sekolah bukan kebangsaan, BN akan ditimpa nasib yang sama dalam PRK Sungai Limau seperti yang dialami bapanya dalam PRU tahun 1969.
Zairil Khir Johari, Pengerusi Interim DAP Kedah merangkap Penolong Setiausaha Publisiti Kebangsaan DAP dan Ahli Parlimen Bukit Bendera
NB: This press statement was released on 9 October 2013 in Kuala Lumpur.
When Dato’ Sri Najib Razak first became prime minister, he promised national unity in the form of 1Malaysia and a New Economic Model (NEM) that preached needs-based economic intervention in favour of the bottom 40 per cent of household income earners regardless of race. This signalled a departure from the race-based policies from the past, and a clear indication that the way forward must include every Malaysian, especially those who most need help.
Unfortunately, Najib’s promises have all been undone with the recent launch of his new Bumiputera agenda. Dubbed the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Agenda (BEEA), it entails a variety of race-based initiatives including the setting up of a powerful Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Council, the creation of Bumiputera Development Units in every ministry, an assurance that major Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) will increase Bumiputera vendor participation, as well as the launch of 10 billion units of new Skim Amanah Saham Bumiputera 2 (ASB2) shares by Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB).
While the NEM offered market liberalisation and needs-based affirmative action that would focus on narrowing the gap between the rich and poor, the BEEA appears to be a reversion to the old New Economic Policy (NEP) that has been proven to benefit mostly a select class of Umno-linked Malay capitalists at the expense of the poorer, unconnected masses.
This is made obvious by the fact that, despite four decades of supposed Bumiputera-targeted assistance, the bottom 40 per cent of Bumiputera households today earn a measly average income of RM1,686 per month. At the same time, the politically-connected rich are able to purchase RM7 million bungalows at a whim.
As such, the proposed launch of 10 billion ASB2 units is highly questionable. Who is set to benefit from more ASB shares made available? Would the bottom 40 per cent of Bumiputera households be able to invest in these high-yielding shares considering that they hardly earn enough to get by?
According to the PNB’s annual reports, the average investment of Bumiputera investors stands at RM14,097 per person as at end 2012. At a glance, this appears to be a decent amount suggesting that many Malays have attained significant savings.
However, upon closer inspection, this figure is actually misleading. When the numbers are broken down, it turns out that three-quarters of Bumiputera unit-holders actually have an average investment of a mere RM611 per person. It is only the top quartile of Bumiputera unit-holders who are able to invest heavily in the shares.
How then, would the availability of more units benefit the average Bumiputera, when they are unable to take advantage of even the current available ASB shares?
In fact, a study by economist Dr Muhammed Abdul Khalid found that the disparity of wealth is massive, whereby the top 0.1 per cent of Bumiputera investors have an accumulated portfolio that is 1,526 times more than the bottom 80 per cent combined. Hence, the likelihood is that this elite group of Bumiputeras will eventually reap the benefits of the additional 10 billion ASB2 units, rather than the common Malay who is able to invest only RM611 on average.
Thus, the question is – who is the ASB2 really for? Certainly not the average Bumiputera.
Zairil Khir Johari, Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera
NB: This article was originally published in my column on The Malaysian Insider.
“If this law is passed, it will be a black day in Malaysia.”
Standing two rows in front of me, N Surendran, the Member for Padang Serai, held the floor defiantly. I nodded my head solemnly. At that point, a feeling of frustration had overcome me. Not only because such a critical bill was being bulldozed through without proper consultation and engagement, despite its huge ramifications on civil liberties and human rights, but also because, seated on the opposition benches, there was very little we could do to either stop or delay it.
I glanced at the clock behind the speaker. By the end of the day, two previously repealed draconian laws would return to haunt Malaysia. How did we come to this?
From transformation to regression
Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s reign as prime minister began with all the trappings of a grand reformer. In an attempt to unite a divided nation, he proffered the pseudo-national slogan of “1Malaysia,” defined by his official website as “a belief in the importance of national unity irrespective of race or religious belief.”
Najib also articulated a fresh economic agenda, dubbed the New Economic Model (NEM), in which he proposed a clear departure from the racially charged New Economic Policy (NEP) of the last four decades. In this paradigm shift, state monopolistic practices and race-based discrimination was set to be replaced by market liberalisation and needs-based affirmative action in favour of the poor.
Underpinning both the 1Malaysia concept as well as the NEM was an important keyword: “transformation”. This keyword has since manifested into a host of government initiatives such as the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), through which Najib’s transformative reforms were converted into actionable projects and policies.
Najib’s euphoria, unfortunately, was not to last. Barely three years on, transformation has descended into regression. Today, 1Malaysia remains nothing more than a brand for subsidised sundry shops, mobile clinics, affordable housing schemes, budget menus and even textile retailers, while the NEM has given way to a rehashed NEP in the form of the recently announced Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Agenda (BEEA).
What is most tragic, however, is the unabashed about-turn by the Najib Administration over laws allowing for detention without trial.
In 2011, Najib led a hyperbolic charge to dismantle two existing legislations that provided for detention without due judicial process, i.e. the Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance (EO) and the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA). This represented a giant leap forward towards greater civil liberties and respect for human rights in Malaysia, considering the fact that both laws have been much abused over the years as a tool of political intimidation, often against legitimate political opponents.
Announced via live telecast to a nationwide audience and proudly reiterated in the international fora, Najib was adamant in presenting himself as a champion of liberal reforms. In an interview with the BBC, he even promised that having “removed the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinance… detention without trial is history in Malaysia.”
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s notion of history has proven to be rather myopic. In the last week, Malaysians have witnessed the official end of Najib’s reform agenda, as the Government ushered in the return of the EO and the ISA through amendments made to the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA). This law may carry a different name, but every controversial provision has been retained – indefinite detention without trial, presumption of guilt, and prohibition of legal recourse, with the only significant difference being the replacement of the arbitrary powers of the Home Minister with an equally arbitrary three-man “Prevention of Crime Board.”
A campaign of justification
What is most galling about the entire exercise is that the law had been passed without much public resistance. Besides the usual opposition-led protests, some comments by political and social activists, as well as a strongly worded joint statement by the Bar Council, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak, there was no sustained hue and cry following the tabling of the bill (though there now appears to be growing remonstration after the fact).
This was accomplished largely due to a cleverly planned campaign of justification. While, less than a year ago, the Government could not stop singing praises about its own successes in combatting crime through its GTP initiatives, the official tone took a divergent turn following unfavourable results in the 13th General Election, which hawks within the ruling party blamed on the Government’s increasingly liberal stand.
Shortly after the election, the media began to report a flurry of criminal activities, including a worrying spate of organised violence involving firearms. At one point, during the festive season mid-year, gun murders became a daily affair. Although most of the victims were themselves criminally linked, there was no doubt that the public had been persuaded that violent crime had spiralled out of control.
That was when the Home Minister seized upon the opportunity to suggest that the sudden surge in crime was due to the repeal of the EO and the ISA, as it effectively meant that thousands of ex-detainees had been set loose to roam around the country, presumably causing havoc.
This scenario, which soon became the police’s official line, appeared to be believable. In truth, however, there was no empirical evidence to suggest the correlation, a fact admitted to by the Attorney-General himself.
Instead, crime statistics from the Home Ministry revealed that incidences of armed gang robberies and armed robberies declined significantly (by 65 per cent compared to the year before) in 2012, which is the year immediately subsequent to the abolishment of the EO and ISA in December 2011.
Nevertheless, with public sentiment aroused, the Government launched a campaign dubbed “Operation Cantas Khas”, which saw nearly 12,000 criminals arrested and over 400 weapons confiscated over a one-month period.
Thus, having successfully constructed a climate of fear, the PCA amendments were introduced as the next logical step in the war against crime. Never mind that the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act already provided for limited detention without trial with judicial review in cases involving national security, or the fact that there was never any proof linking ex-EO or ISA detainees to the sudden spate of violent crime, or that structural inefficiencies had been singled out by many including the 2005 Royal Commission of Inquiry report for police failures in combatting crime. The PCA, it was suggested, was the tool that would solve the intractable crisis of crime in our country.
As a result, the draconian provisions of the EO and the ISA are now available once again in the guise of the PCA. While the Government has promised that it will not be used against political opponents, history has proven otherwise, as many members of the opposition benches would readily testify.
If 1Malaysia and the NEM provided the basis of Najib’s first term in power, then the BEEA and the PCA should give us a clear indication of what to expect in the years to come.
Thus, Surendran’s proclamation in Parliament was only half-right. The passing of the bill at 1.00am on 3 October 2013 did not merely signal a black day, but in fact the beginning of black times ahead for the nation.
NB: This press statement was released on 5 October 2013 in Alor Setar.
Setelah diberi penghormatan dan tanggungjawab oleh Jawatankuasa Tertinggi Pusat (CEC) ekoran keputusan pada 30 September yang lalu untuk melantik saya sebagai Pengerusi Interim DAP Kedah, saya telah membentuk semula Jawatankuasa Interim Negeri Kedah dengan keanggotaan seperti berikut:
| Pengerusi | Sdr Zairil Khir Johari |
| Timbalan Pengerusi | Sdr Steven Sim Chee Keong |
| Naib Pengerusi | Sdr Syed Araniri |
| Naib Pengerusi | Sdri Lok Saw Mee |
| Naib Pengerusi | Sdr Karuna |
| Setiausaha | Sdr KB Teoh |
| Penolong Setiausaha | Sdr Soon Peng Lim |
| Bendahari | Sdr Por Lee Tee |
| Setiausaha Organisasi | Sdr Teh Seng Teik |
| Penolong Set. Organisasi | Sdr Yong Peng Sin |
| Setiausaha Publisiti | Sdr Dr Lim Sin Keat |
| Penolong Set. Publisiti | Sdr Vincent Chee |
| Pengarah Pendidikan Politik | Sdr Tan Kok Yew |
| Ahli Jawatankausa | Sdr Vincent Wu |
| Ahli Jawatankuasa | Sdr Thomas Su |
| Ahli Jawatankuasa | Sdri Ooi Sow Ching |
Jawatankuasa interim ini terdiri daripada campuran pemimpin veteran dan anak muda, serta pemimpin-pemimpin dari luar negeri Kedah termasuk Ahli Parlimen Bukit Mertajam Steven Sim Chee Keong, Ahli Parlimen Ipoh Timur Thomas Su dan Ahli CEC Vincent Wu.
Dengan pemimpin-pemimpin yang berpengalaman serta dinamik, saya yakin pasukan ini akan lagi memperkukuhkan jentera DAP Kedah, khususnya dalam proses pengembangan parti di negeri ini.
Jawatankuasa Interim DAP Kedah dibentuk mengikut ketetapan perlembagaan parti
Terdapat sesetengah pihak yang mempersoalkan kesahihan lantikan Jawatankuasa Interim oleh CEC. Di sini saya ingin menegaskan bahawa fasal kecil (sub-clause) 11 dan 12 di bawah Fasal XIV perlembagaan parti memperuntukkan kuasa penuh kepada CEC untuk membubarkan mana-mana Jawatankuasa Negeri dan melantik Jawatankuasa Interim bagi tempoh enam bulan.
Justeru, peruntukan perlembagaan parti adalah jelas dan kedudukan saya sebagai Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Interim DAP Kedah adalah sah dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan.
Melangkah ke depan, saya berharap agar semua ahli DAP Kedah akan rapatkan barisan dan bersatu menggembleng tenaga untuk menghadapi cabaran yang terdekat, iaitu Pilihan Raya Kecil Sungai Limau pada 4 November nanti.
Zairil Khir Johari, Pengerusi Interim DAP Kedah merangkap Penolong Setiausaha Publisiti Kebangsaan DAP dan Ahli Parlimen Bukit Bendera
Afterthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.