KUALA LUMPUR 23 Julai - Dewan Negara hari ini diberitahu terdapat 236 orang pelajar bidang perubatan yang menerima tajaan Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) tidak pulang untuk menunaikan tanggungjawab kepada negara apabila menamatkan pengajian.Analisis: Sedih memikirkan masalah graduan2 Malaysia di luar negara yang tidak mahu pulang untuk berbakti di negara sendiri. Memang dasar tak sedar dek untung. Tahukah anda bahawa kerajaan terpaksa menghabiskan RM900ribu ke RM1.4juta untuk seorang pelajar perubatan yang menuntut di luar negara. Mereka tidak mahu pulang untuk bekerja di negara sendiri satu hal, turut dilaporkan juga bahawa setiap tahun 10 peratus graduan perubatan tidak berminat bekerja sebagai doktor. Ini sangat membuang masa dan wang rakyat dimana tajaan itu sepatutnya diberikan kepada mereka yang lebih berminat menjadi doktor.
Kita perlu sedar bahawa kerajaan di negara2 membangun telah menghabiskan wang yang banyak demi pendidikan rakyatnya. Lepas tu dengan mudah pula rakyat mereka berkhidmat dengan negara2 maju dan tidak mahu membantu negara sendiri. Sepatutnya kerajaan memperoleh pampasan jika rakyatnya ditawarkan bekerja di negara asing terutama negara maju berdasarkan pemilikan harta intelek. Contohnya seorang pemain bolasepak profesional di Eropah yang mendapat tawaran dari kelab lain, maka sudah tentu kelab tersebut perlu membayar yuran perpindahan atau pampasan kepada kelab asal pemain tersebut.
Kerajaan perlu bertegas dalam hal ini. Pendekatan kerajaan seperti memujuk mereka untuk pulang dengan pelbagai tawaran faedah atau mengenakan token RM150ribu tidak akan memberi kesan. Akta baru perlu digubal untuk mengenakan hukuman berat kepada siswazah yang tidak pulang untuk berbakti kepada negara. Jika tindakan tegas tidak dilakukan, maka negara maju akan berterusan memperolehi manfaat daripada tenaga pakar yang diperolehi dari negara membangun yang langsung tiada semangat patriotik terhadap negara sendiri. Maka sampai bila-bilalah negara membangun akan berterusan mundur. Menghabihkan boreh yor!
Tapi yang aneh nya tiap tahun semua pelajar yang dapat keputusan SPM cemerlang saperti 16A, 115 A,14A,13A semua hendak jadi Doktor perubatan kerana hendak ikut jejak mereka yang tidak mahu pulang.Sampaikan parti politik NGO menjadi jagoh untuk mendapat kan hak istimewa dari JPA.Juga sehingga dasar nasional dan perlembagaan negara menjadi bahan bertelagah untuk nak dapat biasiswa ke luar negeri nak tekan untuk membatal kan hak istimewa kumpulan yang tertentu. Ini akan berulang dan berulang.Kita tidak pernah belajar daripada sejarah.
ReplyDeleteArjuna waspada.
Salam Paneh,
ReplyDeleteBetul Paneh, menghabih boreh ajo.
Bila habis SPM SEMUA nak jadi doktor.
Tak boleh macam ni. Kerajaan mesti TEGAS, sains perjanjian, habis belajar medics kena buat housemanship di Malaysia dan kerja terus.
Sampai bila kita nak rugi macam ni? Lepas tu bila kita tak cukup doktor, ambil pula doktor dari India, Bangla, Indon...kan kerja bodoh namanya tu??
Saya sokong cadangan ambil royalti mcm pemain bola tu... Ni pun satu bisnes gak.
ReplyDeletekedua, doktor2 yg 'lari' dari Malaysia tu kita kenakan penalti (tapi bukan tendangan penalti macam main bola tu).
Dah luar negara bagi baik punye gaji..takkan tak meleleh ayaq liuq..kalau paneh duk tempat diorang?camne agaknye...
ReplyDeletePemerhati dulu,kini dan selamanya
memang la mereka ditawarkan gaji mahal pemerhati bebas. tapi kerajaan juga bagi pelbagai faedah. siap ada yang boleh buat partime di klinik2 swasta utk tambah pendapatan. insentif elaun yg tinggi dan pelbagai lagi la. takkan tak cukup lagi. ini la masanya nak menyumbang semula kepada negara. lagipun wang bukanlah segalanya.
ReplyDeletearitu terbaca kat blog melayu angkat..kecoh pasal salleh abbas and the magic toilet bowl...hehehe..
ReplyDeletecuma nak tanya, ada tak mende yang leh jawab diorang?
saja tengok promuda nye discussion :
How very convenient of you, Dr M. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's RENOVATION WORK. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask? That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post.
pastu pasal surat-surat antara dr.m dan tun salleh abbas :
The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is, of course, not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writing such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY?
If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and becomes an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Lingam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter?
sambungan :
You somewhat deny that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise.
Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post.
On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas.
How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intellect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post.
If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?
Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.
On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it judge the matter after having been fed with all relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.
I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time for me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?
Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King date 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal.
Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.
Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers.
camne nak counter attack diorang?
betul la tu incik podeh.tapi ada gak yang cakap kununnya nak cari pengalamnlah..apalah..tak tau lah kan betul ke tak.entahlah..tak tau nak cakap..kalau aku la..rambang mata beb ditawarkan gaji 5 kali ganda dari Malaysia...hehehe..duit tu mngalir gak masuk malaysia kan?dah pulak persoalan mana yang penting..kayakan negara ke atau sumbangkan khidmat?mana yang penting ek?entahlah...takut karang tak cukup doktor terpaksa lambakkan doktor asing plak..
ReplyDeleterasanya ano 2.48pm ni dgn gangga ada pertalian saudara la. Salah post comment ni. Rasanya ni bukan blog chedet.com..
ReplyDelete(In law, the maker must be present to verify the fact. Then only, the statement can be admissible!).
So, lu komen la kat chedet..tak pun anjur satu forum dan jemput ahli panelnya chedet, salleh dan agong.. Keskeskes!
-abafahim@ampanganboulevard.blogspot.com