I remember taking to Ekonomi Asas like duck to water. I was out for 2 months in F4 because of a severe case of chicken-revenge (I didn't realize I had developed chicken pox...at a party, I volunteered to finish off an entire tray of belacan chicken) and so failed my mid-terms yet emerged top in class by the end of the semester. I also did peculiarly well for Commerce and History - both subjects, including Econs, I famously slept throughout the entire 2 years.
By the end of F5, my curiousity had gotten the better of me. How is it possible that I sleep through History, Commerce and Econs, never do my homework nor bought any revision books to do and yet 'get' exactly what the subject/exam questions ask of me (I later went on to score A's in all those subjects in SPM.)Worse, they were in a language I could barely speak : Bahasa. Thankfully, those subjects did not tax me on language style.
So Mrs. Kwan told me, "Because you have an analyctical mind." I wanted to know what lay ahead of me post-SPM and so far, what I had to work on was "analyctical mind". What am I supposed to do with that? Go into Econs, Financing and Law because of my powers of memory and written skill? The thought of wearing black all day in a highly competitive environment hung over my head for a good 5 minutes before I decided - nope, never Econs, Law, Finance. Besides, my father was a banker. I needed to 'establish my own personality' and live away from the expectations of everyone in my family. Advertising had a certain 'rebel' effect that seemed a nice place for a stowaway.
I sometimes half regret not taking up an undergraduate study that would be more academically taxing. But then I realize why I didn't : The study of Econs and Laws in general required people to play by the rules. Little did I know that what MAKES a great economist or lawyer is someone who knows ALL the rules and then tweaks and elaborates on it based on the scenario at hand to present a highly interesting and provocative theory/argument to the audience. Damn if I'd known that!
I met Law and Econs undergrads outside of school - from UIA and other unis around the Klang valley or during my part-time jobs. Boy, were they always the most boring people who could not provoke arguments or extrapolate interesting arguments from current events. They usually just mouth what last week's newspaper printed. They were almost always male which made me question the actual intellectual ability of men in those areas : Were they really smart or did they just take up Econs and Law to SOUND smart? Well, then again, KL and its surrounding areas is no New England.
Perhaps it's a good thing I never went into Economics and Law because I can retain the freshness of my thought. I somehow doubt that the understudy of a thing necessitates the knowing of the thing. Perhaps I have always known instictively that we only pay for experiences we would otherwise not have been able to experience on our own. I was a little too bookish to actually have enjoyed being a little 'extroverted' or 'wild' or 'superficial'.
So now, well into my 30s, I rediscover my love for solving everything on the context of Economics and the framework of Law. I overheard a conversation between the local grocer and another public servant - you know, over the same things, especially the pseudo-apartheid treatment of non-Umno Malays in this country. It's the typical sort of exchange you'd expect all across Malaysia : bigotry, inequality, etc.
What seems to pain the Chinese community the most is that academically bright students don't get what they think they deserve post SPM and post STPM. I'm simplifying things a lot, I know but using Economics to solve the problem - what is the true purpose of seeking free study handouts from the government? Can't people just work and pay for their own CHOICE of study? If you want it that badly, shouldn't you find a way to get it?
I don't take it personally when a Malay who can barely cope with their studies is being offered full scholarship. Lots of Malay teachers get sent overseas to do grad and post-grad degrees in TESOL and come back with little next to nothing. It annoyed me for a bit when I was in my 20s but I eventually asked myself, what is it that I'm bitter about? And why am I feeling that way?
I realized that I felt the country owed it to me to realize my potential and my commitment to serve all levels of community and a postgrad degree would give me a kind of cushion to put me on the academic pelamin of sorts. It was all about ME and what other people needed to ACKNOWLEDGE in me!
Of course, I'm a very different person these days. I make it one of my core arguments in life that people who stay poor are people with a poor mentality - and a poor mentality is a thinking that is all about "me" and what "I" deserve. I'm not talking about abject poverty, I'm talking about the tightness in one's life that one feels, a lack of a sense of liberation, empowerment, choice, autonomy, financial freedom.
Like many people out there, I got a chance at STPM and chose not to go. I had an excellent chance of doing very well in STPM because, unfair as it seems, the way schooling and testing is set up plays to my inherent abilities. I KNEW then (from the early 80s) the declining standard of local universities and I simply CHOSE not to risk dumbing down my intellect in 4-5 years of 'cheap' studies. I already had 11 years of that and I was going to use my "Free from Jail" card.
So I find it really difficult to understand people who blame anything and everything for 'doing well' and 'going nowhere'. It sort of proves to me that these people who 'do well' in school are behaving like they DESERVE to DEMAND things from life. That, in general, is not a good attitude to have and does not reflect well on a person's character.
There's always this argument I hear that the Malays get to go into Matrikulasi and get all the perks. It's like, "My neighbor gets to eat durian because his datuk has a durian orchard." Seriously, does other people's durian runtuh have ANYTHING to do with the fact that we didn't go out and buy our own durian? Right, I perfectly understand it's taxpayers' money but don't we think the 70% of Malays in our country pay taxes too? And if we don't like paying x% of our taxes to the BN-government, why don't we just learn the financial intelligence that will help us make MORE MONEY and PAY LESS TAXES? Why do people sit there and get taxed at amounts they feel sakit about instead of making so much more money and moving that money around legally that whatever gets taxed doesn't hurt so much anymore when compared to the volume you've already made?
The argument that 'governments' are corrupt is the lamest most boring argument I can bear hear anyone make. Who put the government there in the first place? It wasn't me! Whose taxes are paying for schools? Who's forcing their kids to go to school, pay books, fees, uniforms, bas sekolah and endless tuition and workbooks? Who's playing into the whole 'tuition' farce? It's the WORKING CLASS, of course. The working class MALAYS, CHINESE AND INDIANS and DAN LAIN-LAIN. Who is putting all their hopes and dreams on their children's education while not getting educated themselves? Not ME! Who's hoping their children will 'become rich' or 'get married to someone rich' instead of doing that themselves? Not me!
People will then use the same intellectual arguments that landed them in their current reality to dismiss everything I just said : We didn't have it so we're doing it for the future of our children - WRONG! See, YOUR parents and grandparents did exactly what you're doing right now and that is why we inherited this world from you.
Not all parents like to complain and blame. Some parents I know actively campaign and create powerful platforms to mobilize resistance. And then there are those who think they are the cleverest - they leave this 'damn country' because, you know, Malaysia SUCKS and they're too good for Malaysia. But I don't know which is worse : those who leave and then view Malaysia sentimentally, or those who are still here and talking (noun) out of their hinds - flaming and thrashing politicians and reps as if they're pinatas.
People have to consider that the only reason anyone would want to become a politician is because that's the easiest way to make money without integrity. Don't be deluded that politicians get elected to serve YOU - that is simply their warcry. How many of you would vote me in if I were to tell you I'm going to be a self-serving representative? NONE!Exactly my point!
And people also have to know this : If politicians WERE entrepreneurs and knew how to handle our money and make money, why would they want to take the slow and treacherous road of being a politician? Rather than sit and wait my turn, I'd rather spend 20 years on fabulous, innovative ideas and investments that will reap me greater, more satisfying rewards. Would't anyone? Why do you think people like Trump, Mohd. Yunus, Buffet, Kiyosaki, Krugman....don't run for office?
Seriously, if governments did nothing but knew how to save, invest and grow the economy - why would anyone need a government? We'd all be capitalists. And if we knew NOTHING about investing and growing the economy, what makes us think the people we elect to office, who, let's assume, know how to save, invest and grow the economy feel OBLIGED to serve us when we're so stupid ourselves? Because of a $50,000 a month salary? That might sound a lot to working class people but SMART INVESTORS, you know, the sort you expect your governments to be.......CAN MAKE THAT AMOUNT IN THEIR SLEEP!
Politicians serve no one's agendas but their own. Politicians, Left Right or Centre who form a government have an obligation to SPEND money to avoid a surplus. And they are not likely to make WISE SPENDING AND INVESTMENTS because we didn't elect them into office based on their solid economic sense and entrepreneurial spirit - we elected them in because we BOUGHT THE RHETORIC. Beware the entrepreneurs who enter politics - they might have reached a ceiling in their income generation and innovative capacity and thus, gotten lazy. They figure : If I get me and my boys in as the ruling party, we'd sub this and that out and bring this and that in and just sit back and watch the kickbacks fill our coffers.
No matter what anyone says, the nature of a politician is to be in it for him/herself. It's like watching Marley & Me : you either pick a labrador that serves and obeys you, the master, or you get a delightful one like Marley and he runs wild and tears everything up and ruins everything that costs you a fortune. Except, politicians aren't so benign or cute when they do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment