Supporting IEM, the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) questioned the government's competency to regulate and accredit the IT industry. Its senior executive Medecci Lineil firmly believed that this law is not needed because it denies the efficiency of the market and it should therefore be withdrawn."
"The proposed Bill will fail because the limits and scope of the law cannot be defined, for the industry changes by the minute," said Tony Pua, who worked with the IT industry before moving into politics full time.
Labis MP Chua Tee Yong, who heads MCA's Young Professionals Bureau, also made an appearance to express his party's opposition to the Bill.
One industry insider, who spoke anonymously to Malaysiakini, said the Bill, which seeks RM10 million for the board, “is an overkill for the roughly RM1 million needed” to gear up for the Seoul Accord accreditation. "It is a RM10 million solution for a RM1 million problem," the insider said. There you have it……it’s the ringgit again, yah?
Anyway no MOSTI bigwigs were around as Panel Members! Passing the buck to academicians who got crucified at the forum?
Allow me to draw a parallel on how an institution is judged by what it sets out to achieve, aka its Mission Statement. (I picked this up browsing thru and interesting debate between some Victoria Institution Old Boys):
I pick three universities: Havard, Cambridge,National University Singapore and University Kebangsaan Malaysia
‘Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities. To these ends, the college encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions. Harvard seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students' full participation, so that individuals may explore their capabilities and interests and may develop their full intellectual and human potential.'
Note some key governing phrases, namely ‘to respect ideas and their free expression', ‘to rejoice in discovery and critical thought', and ‘to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions'.
‘The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.'
This university's core values are as follows: Freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.
The National University of Singapore aspires to be ‘a bold and dynamic community, with a "no walls" culture and a spirit of enterprise that strives for positive influence and impact through our education, research and service'.
All three universities seem to have virtually the same vision and mission namely to make their students to think openly and even courageously.
These august institutions are aware that the human mind works best when it is free from encumbrances and pre-determined parameters, or the ‘walls' of NUS. They know that only with this complete and total freedom can the mind explore the smallest atoms and the farthest reaches of the universe.
Their approach to learning thereby is to develop and encourage original cutting edge thinking, of daring to explore, of initiative and creativity, of developing an open mind free from conservatism, conformity, prejudice, myth and dogma.Wrong visionI believe our universities are not looking into education in this time-tested way.
For this I'd highlight the vision and mission statement of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM):
Its charter says it seeks to protect the sanctity and supremacy of God, and to put theory into practice.
It also strives to promote the Malay language.
A closer examination of this vision indicates that this university does not teach its students to ‘respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought' as articulated by high achieving universities like Harvard.
Instead, this thinking puts encumbrances and limitations to the pursuit of ‘excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.' They are in fact the symptoms of the closed or ethnocentric mind.
In a nutshell UKM does not go for truth, but instead for what the authorities want the truth to be. It does not go for intellectual honesty.
No analysis is encouraged, but what is encouraged is the passive acceptance of past wisdom and prejudices.
All these do not promote proper thinking, but they propagate value judgments: prejudices, doctrines and dogmas, speculations. They are discriminatory.
APOLOGIZE FOR DUPLICATION OF VIDEO
We must therefore shun away from being a nation of Sheep because Judge Napolitano says: A nation of sheep BREEDS a government of wolves.