I love my meat

Isn't it ironic that after I write about the perils and pleasures of eating irresponsibly, not one, but two, articles appear in my inbox about food?

The first is an article from Salon about why you should eat fat. In an interview with the author of the newly realeased Fat: An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, With Recipes (I especially like the last two words), I found out that recent studies indicate that there may not be a direct link between obesity and heart attacks. It looks like my idea of the quality of your ingredients makes the difference - lamb fat and spinach chappati is fine (recipe here, scroll down almost to the end), vegetable fats are not so healthy after all (see, trans fat).

Exactly the kind of thing I would have loved to include in my article.

The second article was one about how being vegetarian shrinks brains. (It also mentions that being obese has the same negative effect, but they've only seen it demonstrated on women - fingers crossed on that one for guys, then!)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a dinner at Prime tonight...

Labels: contradictheory, food

Contradictheory: Not the wild, wild West

I know these are 'sensitive' times, but it was sheer coincidence that this week's Contradictheory article came out at the same time the arrests rolled in. I couldn't help but notice that the diligent editors at the Star edited my piece by removing the following paragraph:

We shouldn't be shutting down entire websites because of one article on it. Yes, we should charge and arrest somebody because of that article, and make him take it down if he's found guilty, but that one article does not equal the entire server. You don't know what he's going to say in other articles.

I think that it was removed more because the Multimedia and Communications Commission reinstated access to the server, so it was a little out-of-date. In fact, their reasons for doing so are pretty much in line with what I wrote in this piece: in general, you should not be arresting people based on a presumption of what they will do in the future.

It wasn't originally meant to be a piece on the law, more on how you can't depend on technology to uphold civil society. But when I started writing about Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, I started thinking about it more.

I feel that we are still a country finding our way when it comes to interpreting our Federal Constitution with respect to the original framers' intents. The number of amendments since then has just complicated matters.

I believe that the line concerning the Freedom of Speech was originally there to reflect that open debate is important for a democracy. Vox populi, vox dei, as they say. Doesn't matter what they have to say, you should just say it.

Unless, of course, you are libellous or seditious.

Some close to me (well, more than a few) do not like our Sedition Act. I think the issue is with Section 4 that says "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do". This is very close to Minority Report's arrest by precog.

However, I do think we need to be able to react to situations where people in authority demean or denigrate others by virtue of race and religion, especially when the strong abuse the weak. Thus, sedition laws have a place.

I guess that's what I meant when I said, "laws should be about protecting the weak and giving opportunity to the disenfranchised". Whenever law is used to strengthen the position of those in power, we should monitor it very carefully and use whatever checks and balances we have at our disposal. To me, a law (or use of it) that extends the gap between the haves and have-nots is one that is not well construed or applied.

Labels: contradictheory, malaysia

Get the maths right

I need some help from anyone who knows statistics intimately to help me understand a problem. Something in the papers today just doesn't make sense. In fact, it stinks.

I was reading the NST today when I came across the article about the problems of teaching of Maths and Science in English. There is also a PDF download of the entire study.

That article concludes that teaching Maths in English does not work because a study showed that students were having problems answering questions in English.

Problem is, I don't think the data presented in the article supports this conclusion.

(Unfortunately, the actual data in the newspaper and the one in the website differs. I don't know why that is, you just have to rely on what I present here.)

Nine sample questions were quoted in the article. They were presented to Year 5 students (about 11 years old). Two are of interest:
(From NST, 7 September 2008, page 6)

• Q1. Six pencils cost RM2.40. How much does a pencil cost?
• Malay: 39.6% (427 out of the 1077 Malay students answered correctly)
• Chinese and Indian: 54.7% (197 out of 360 students)
• Orang Asli (aboriginal peoples): 6.5% (7 out of 108 students)
• Total: 40.5% (633 of 1564 students)

• Q9. Farah menjual 8 kotak minuman dengan harga RM5.60. Berapakah harga satu kotak?
• Malay: 37.3% (402 correct)
• Chinese and Indian: 51.9% (187 correct)
• Orang Asli: 13.0% (14 students)
• Total: 38.7% (605 students)

Do you see the problem? The two questions are similar, but fewer students got the answer correct for the BM version. The Bahasa Melayu version. The version that's not in English.

How on Earth can anyone conclude that they have problems when learning in English?

(That aside, they also can't add. 1077+360+108 does not equal 1564 students. I'm sure it's a clerical error, or maybe there's one student who's Lain-Lain.)

More worrying:

• About a quarter of 11-year olds sampled could not calculate 6 x 7.
• Around 2 out of 5 couldn't solve 72 divide by 8.
• Nearly three quarters had problems solving 36.45 divided by 5.

To me, the real problem is that the standard of maths and science in the country is low. Horrendously low. I would hope more than 95% should know their multiplication table by heart by the time they are eleven.

Of course, it's all about the sample selection. And about the control. I don't know enough about these things, so that's why I'm asking for help.

I looked at the school sample in the study. They come from all over Peninsula Malaysia from cities as well as the rural areas. I don't know if the sample taken is 'fair', but it does look comprehensive.

The questions, on the other hand, I have problems with. I focused on the Maths because that's what I have a soft spot for.

• In the example printed in the papers, out of eight questions, four were in English, four were language-neutral and only one was in BM. Surely, you need an equal number of the three categories for it to be a fair comparison?
• In the example printed in the PDF download, the one question in BM was a problem that required two subtractions. The closest English equivalent problem was one that needed one addition, one subtraction, another addition and finally a division. Unsurprisingly, the easier question got more correct answers. The obvious thing to me is to have very similar questions in terms of difficulty, regardless of the language.

This whole thing stinks to me of doing a flawed study with flawed conclusions. I can't see how anyone could take it without huge reservations.
Naturally, I look forward to any comments you might have.

Labels: malaysia