Si anak ditinggal di desa bersama kakek neneknya supaya bisa ak tetap sekolah gratis.. Tetapi kalau ikut ke kota lain tempat kerja orang tuanya, dengan masih berlakunya sistim Hui kauw, tidak bisa masuk sekolah di kota dengan gratis. kalau ikut orang tua, yang dua2nya kerja, biasanya masih kuat bayar sekolah "partikelir", yang tidak gratis. Sekolah2 ini bermunculan sesuai dengan adanya kebutuhan. Tidak tahu kapan sistim Huikauw ini bisa dihilangkan. Mestinya dengan majunya informasi teknologi, jatah bayaran sekolah mudah dipindahkan dari satu tempat ke tempat lain. Tidak tahu kalau maksudnya mungkin supaya migrasi dari desa ke kota jangan terlalu cepat, karena yang kota kewalahan bangun perumahan, bangun sekolah ? Mungkin bung Chan bisa jelaskan apa persoalan sebnarnya. KH
On 12 June 2017 at 20:18, Jonathan Goeij jonathango...@yahoo.com [GELORA45] <GELORA45@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > Saya berpendapat pendidikan adalah salah satu jalan (mungkin yg terutama) > utk meningkatkan "kasta" seseorang, cuman utk kasus di Tiongkok dgn sistem > hanya penduduk desa/kota setempat yg bisa mengecam pendidikan dan kesehatan > secara gratis/murah hal ini menimbulkan masalah besar seperti yg pernah > dibawakan oleh TV Aljazeera sedemikian banyaknya anak yg tertinggal didesa > sementara orang tuanya bekerja dikota. Sistem baru yg diutarakan Chan > setelah 5 th akan diberi status penduduk juga tidak akan banyak membantu, > sianak disuruh tidak sekolah dulu selama lima tahun jadinya ya ketinggalan > luar biasa. > > Dus yg jadi korban selalu mereka yg berada pada "kasta" rendah, tidak ada > atau kurangnya equal opportunity dalam bidang pendidikan. > > > On Monday, June 12, 2017 10:57 AM, Tatiana Lukman <jetaimemuc...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > Apakah dengan naiknya Tkk menjadi ekonomi terbesar dan "mengalahkan" AS, > lantas selesai masalah-masalah sosial dan ketimpangan yang dihadapi > rakyatnya??? Semua empires yang pernah "menguasai" dunia akhirnya runtuh > juga...... Itulah bukti bahwa selama sistim ekonominya bertumpu di atas > penghisapan dan penindasan, lambat atau cepat akhirnya akan roboh... > > > On Monday, June 12, 2017 5:12 PM, "Jonathan Goeij jonathango...@yahoo.com > [GELORA45]" <GELORA45@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > > Kelihatannya benar sekali, dalam kategori engineering Tsinghua menempati > posisi pertama disusul MIT kedua dan UC Berkeley ketiga. Bahkan dalam > daftar 10 besar engineering Tiongkok dan Amerika keduanya masing2 > menempatkan 4 university dan Singapore 2 university. > > Dalam sejarah memang banyak penemuan engineering diawali di Tiongkok > terutama pada pembangunan Tembok Besar seperti roda pedati, katrol, dll. > Tentu masuk akal kalau sekarang kemajuan engineering kembali ke Tiongkok, > dan bukan hanya dalam pendidikan saja tetapi juga dalam penemuan2 baru. > Angkat topi! > > Kapan Indonesia menyusul? Yg jelas waktu searching Indonesia hasil yg > didapat "Not Matches Found" dalam semua kategori. > > > ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com, <ehhlin@...> wrote : > > > > > GRAHAM ALLISON > America second? Yes, and China’s lead is only growing > China’s Tsinghua University dethroned MIT (above) as the top engineering > university in the world in 2015, according to US News and World Report’s > annual rankings. > By Graham Allison > May 22, 2017 > In Boston, Commencement season is a time to celebrate our world-leading > universities, including engineering powerhouse MIT. But Bostonians might be > shocked to learn that China’s Tsinghua University dethroned MIT as the top > engineering university in the world in 2015, according to the > closely-watched US News & World Report annual rankings. Tsinghua’s recent > surge is not an isolated example. Everyone knows about China’s rise, but > few have realized its magnitude or its consequences. > Among the top 10 schools of engineering, China and the United States now > each have four. In STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and > mathematics), which provide the core competencies driving advances in the > fastest-growing sectors of modern economies, China annually graduates four > times as many students as the United States (1.3 million vs. 300,000). And > in every year of the Obama administration, Chinese universities awarded > more PhDs in STEM fields than American universities. > For Americans who grew up in a world in which USA meant “number one,” the > idea that China could truly challenge the United States as a global > educational leader seems impossible to imagine. > This is not the only reality Americans willfully ignore. In my national > security course at Harvard, the lecture on China begins with a quiz. > Students get a sheet with 25 indicators of economic performance. Their task > is to estimate when China might overtake the United States as the top > producer or market of automobiles, supercomputers, smartphones, and so on. > Most are stunned to learn that China has already surpassed the United > States on each of these metrics. > I then ask whether they believe that in their lifetime China will overtake > the United States to become the largest economy in the world. In last > year’s class of 60 students, about half bet they would live to see the > United States become number two, while half disagreed. > When I show the class headlines from the 2014 IMF-World Bank meeting > announcing that China had become the largest economy in the world, students > react with a mix of dismay and disbelief. By 2016, China’s GDP was $21 > trillion and America’s was $18.5 trillion, when measured by purchasing > power parity (PPP), which both the CIA and IMF agree is the best yardstick > for comparing national economies. > Students are not the only ones in the dark about China’s rise. Most of the > press has similarly missed the big picture. The favorite story line in the > Western media about the Chinese economy is “slowdown.” The question few > pause to ask is: slowing compared to whom? The American press’s favorite > adjective to describe our economic performance has been “recovering.” But > despite its “slowdown,” China today is growing three times as fast as the > United States. > President Trump’s claims that we have been “losing” to China reflect, in > part, the reality of a shifting see-saw. A bigger, stronger China is > challenging American interests in the South China Sea, taking our jobs, > buying American companies, and replacing us as the primary trading partner > of nations not only in its neighborhood, but also in Europe, where China > recently unseated the United States as Germany’s largest trading partner. > Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” struck a chord with voters. > Number one is who we are. But politically appealing slogans are not a > solution for the dramatic resurgence of a 5,000-year old civilization with > 1.4 billion people, led by a president whose own mission is the “Great > Rejuvenation” of China — in other words, to “Make China Great Again.” To > construct a grand strategy for the China challenge that protects vital US > interests without catastrophic conflict, policy makers must begin by > recognizing these uncomfortable but undeniable realities. > Graham Allison is the director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center > for Science and International Affairs and the author of the forthcoming > book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?” > > > > > >
