Solving the heavy schoolbag issue isn't rocket science
COMMENT | We have a 20-year-old school dilemma treated as if we need rocket scientists to find a solution – the problem of heavy schoolbags, the 'payloads' our future astronauts are carrying.
Children carrying anything above 8kg is not good, as I recall an orthopaedic surgeon once saying in an interview. Even if it is lighter than that, not carrying it properly could result in injury.
My question is, what makes it so difficult to solve this problem? Often, we read about taskforces needing to be created to start thinking about approaching a solution.
Such taskforces will need special grants, and the solutions will still need "feedback from the public" (like black shoes, white socks). Then further research needs to be done, to see if the weight of the bags correspond with the need for children to do more work at home, and how this will contribute to the critical success of this or that programme and so on and so forth.
Then all these will be raised in cabinet meetings, and be again brought back and forth to the various levels of ministerial groups of decision makers, and suggestions passed down to district education heads, who will do more fact-finding, interviews, observations and await parental responses, and then go back to the ministry, which will report to the cabinet again, before it is brought to the next parliamentary debate.
There, opposition and supposition parties will spend hours debating on the acceptable weight of schoolbags, and then there will again be fierce arguments that will also spiral out of control, and the people will get emotional and then there will be walkouts and then the debate will be postponed to the next sitting… and then… and then… time waits for no man, no woman, no child, and then they grow up.
The loss
From 2000 to the 'great mythical visionary year' of 2020, the generation that carried heavy schoolbags will probably grow up in the footsteps of bodybuilders Malik Nor, Solomon Esmanto, and former Mr Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger (who did, of course, go on to have a political career).
Meanwhile, in advanced industrialised countries, we see children growing up to become the Mark Zuckerbergs, Jeff Bezoses and Elon Musks of the world, or top scientists, entrepreneurs, artists and humanists...
My own grandchildren were asked to buy workbooks and the teacher told that to take it home and do it without marking by the teacher. If that is the case I might as well buy it for them instead by the school. These similar buku activity can be found in any book shops.
In California in the 1960s-70s we kept our books in our desks in grammar school, and in lockers in grades beyond that. No backpacks. But somehow that's too much freedom for children, so now little boys and girls look likes beasts of burden carrying all those books back and forth.
Dr Azly, I have read through your article several times so as to be charitable and tried to see merits in it beyond your humanistic and/or "post-humanistic" (whassat?) ideas and reasoning. The very glaring blind-spot in your article is your failure or refusal to address the spiritual aspects of a child's development. The very fact that you are heavily griping about simple issues like heavy bags, the very wrong directions education in Malaysia is heading and the haphazard way challenges are being faced is testament to entire generations of leaders and citizens (especially the rural Malays) who have been brought up, since May 13 1069, without adequate ability to discern good from evil. Much less to act to achieve what is good and gut out what is evil. The current education system is just one victim of this dystopic process since may 13 1969. Furthermore, while your ideas and suggested solutions are rich and plentiful and I have also tried to fill in some of the gaps, Confucius would had asked: "Where is the thread that ties all your ideas and precepts together"? Where and what indeed is this thread? Without identifying this 'thread', how, where and in which direction do you start? But your spiritual blindspot is the most critical weakness in your ideas. You have not presented any concrete ideas to help the geniuses you want to educate, such that they would not use their thus enhanced genius to do evil for their selfish ends. God Almighty is not mentioned. Are you envisioning a Godless education for the kids who are God's creation?