Individual comments.
Your students took time, some of them put in a lot of effort, so it is only fair that they get comments of their work for self development. These comments are given in the order the comments appeared, i.e. the latest comment first, and the earliest comment last.
Jeff Crayton
Good attempt. Try reading more in English, doing this should improve your expression of ideas. You have good ideas. Wider reading would also get you acquainted with the finer points of English. For example, you wrote, "…irresponsible person which is called RIVER." A river is never a person, unless you have poetic license to the calibre of a Nobel laureate for literature.
Mohamad Razi bin Abd Rahim
You could benefit from more effort in your work. Your very short comment did suggest that you posted that comment for the sake of posting a comment. This shouldn't happen in academia or in the work place. Comments need not be long; they are best if they are short, sharp, precise, and succinct. Your brevity should include all those.
Jaidi Kamis
Your arguments reflected mature thinking; the second paragraph reflected this particularly.
Kieu Lee Lee
Sometimes grammatical errors do not change the meaning of a sentence. Other times, such errors change the meaning completely. Errors in choice of preposition are one of these occasions. For example, you wrote, "As the demand of energy grows steadily in all sectors, …" Here you mean energy is doing the demanding; it does not make much sense. What you want to say is, "As the demand for energy grows …" Now it is the (industrial, etc.) sectors which are demanding for the energy. See the difference?
Following on from the above, when you speak about demand for energy and its impact on the environment, you should not, and can not, escape from addressing the issue of tremendous rise in energy demands in China.
In Malay, bumi is a common noun as well as a proper noun. In English, Earth is a proper noun for the entire planet, unless you mean to say earth as in soil (tanah). In the latter case, earth is a common noun. You should be saying something like this:, "Finally, I think strengthening legislation and implementing them in Malaysia are essential in salvaging the environment we live in from destruction brought about by human activities." (The sentence has been grammatically and terminologically corrected.) If you mean salvaging the Earth, as in the entire planet, then legislation from Malaysia alone is not going to do much!
I am particularly attracted to your last point, "… patronise the use of public transport, which will lead to a better and healthier environment."
You should address this question as well: "How does the Malaysian National Car Policy, which actively promotes car ownership, as a measure of society's increasing prosperity, as well as a method of boosting our own national car industry, fit in here? On one hand, the government is encouraging more people to own cars, having owned them, surely to use them? On the other hand, you are proposing to encourage the public to use more public transport? I would think that the car would be quite an under-used white elephant sitting at home then? What do you think?
When presenting an argument, always remember pertinent issues that are connected to it. It is like treating lung disease. You could have the best treatment in the world, but if the surgeon forgot or refused to advise the patient to quit smoking, not much good is going to be achieved, don't you think?
Patricia Ne Mee Ling
Excellent writing. Bravo! It was flawless, except for mistakes due to typing. There were no problems in recognising such typos and differentiating them from grammatical or spelling errors. Your arguments were very well presented because your command of language is at first language fluency. A rarity in Malaysia nowadays, I must say. You used this strength very well and combined it with good structuring. You also presented a mature argument, revealing a well-read, informed individual.
I thought you could dwell on these points. I am pointing them out, not as an expert in geography or environmental science. This information is within the fingertips of any well-read individual.
You wrote about problems associated with nuclear energy, highlighting the case of Bardwell in the UK. Having picked this up, perhaps you could follow it up on the current British government's consultation with the British public to get the public's views on the future of energy sources in Britain. (Public meaning anybody, regardless of whether one is British passport holder or otherwise, scientist or lay person; anyone could give his / her views to a committee set up by the government. The public is now asked their views on the future of energy sources in Britain. We are also talking about the cost of developing renewal energy sources like wind farms on the English channel and in waters surrounding the British Isles as opposed to the cost of building a new generation of nuclear reactors which are cleaner and carry less risk of nuclear accidents than the current generation of reactors which are coming to the end of their lives. The cost of the former is far greater than the latter. However the latter has with it the risks and stigma associated with nuclear power.
At the moment, renewal sources of energy contribute only 4 per cent of the UK total energy resources. (Source: BBC). The British government is in favour of the new generation nuclear reactors, but a significant section of society is not. One of the current debate is, "Everybody knows renewal sources are cleaner and cheaper in the long run, but at tax rates already reaching 40 percent for incomes above £28,000 per annum (imagine your lecturers earning RM24,000 to RM36,000 per annum paying 40 % tax! Malaysian workers pay no tax or about up to 20+% if they are in that income bracket) and the fact that nobody wants an unsightly huge turbine fan in the picturesque countryside or off the scenic coasts, how is renewable energy going to take a foothold to begin with?" That's one knotty public awareness issue you will have to deal with!
Most European governments, including the British government do listen to the public in such consultations. Please do not take the anti-war lobby and the recent war in Iraq as an example of governments here not listening to the will of the public. This is an exception, and it involves a different debate, one which involves different political costs. We shall not go into this, because the issue at hand is not about wars, it is about the environment. Going back to the public awareness issue, Sweden held a referendum in the 1970s; the Swedish government asked the public whether they wanted any nuclear energy in their country. An overwhelming majority of the Swedish electorate said no, until today Sweden is nuclear free! That's public awareness in action, and respected by the government.
(Note: the last paragraph is also a presentation skill which you will acquire through practice, on how to avoid being dragged into a prolonged discussion which you do not want to go into, or which does not help your argument in the limited time/space you have. They very often happen in academic writing, in interviews by journalists, in presentation for grant applications, etc.)
Wong Hie Kong
You mentioned Chow (1956). Good, but you could make it better if could help your readers by providing the article's title, journal it appeared in, or the book's title at the end of your writing. This is standard academic and industry practice. Taking specific examples from incidents reported in newspapers; those were excellent.
Lai Chiew Fong
I agreed with your first paragraph. In the second paragraph, you wrote, "There are few reasons why I say improving public awareness would generate a better and healthier environment." You were passionately arguing for public awareness, but you could only come up with a few reasons? This was an error in choice of words; if you were present this argument using the same choice of words, you would have sounded very unconvincing. How could you say "few", and then came up with two pages of examples? You could say, "many".. If you feared that your opponents might say your examples were not that many after all, stick with "several".
That is usually the safer and more convincing choice of words. If you are confident with your argument, there's no harm in saying, "There are many reasons why I say …"
Your data on European countries and Malaysian cases were very good. It would be better if you stated the source of these data.
Azlina Alih
Good effort. Here are several points to remember when writing/speaking/presenting in English. You wrote, "The public awareness and the legislation is the best way to care our environment." The grammatically correct sentence should read, "Public awareness and legislation are both good ways to care for our environment." As mentioned in my evaluation criteria, I did not penalise for grammatical and spelling errors, but I should let you know when such errors completely changed your idea, or made them sound absolutely ridiculous.
How can both be best at the same time? Either one is better than the other, or both are good. Think about this situation: Ali and Ahmad are both very nice to me. I think Ali is sometimes nicer to me than Ahmad is. However Ali and Ahmad cannot both be the best man for me.
You also wrote about emancipation of ammonia in Johor. Emancipation is usually used for human situations to describe freedom from an oppressed situation, eg., emancipation of women in the West occurred when women were given full political rights after the success of the suffragette movement, both to vote and to be elected to office in the West, only in the early 20th century. Another example is emancipation of women after the coming of Islam in Arabia, from being owned as a property, woman is given by divine decree, the right to own property. Gasses do not emancipate. Gasses evaporate.
Gejed Anak Ngaun
Well presented, could have benefited from more specific examples. You wrote, "In schools, clubs such as the Environmental Club play an important role to help students to be aware about our environment." That was a very universal sentence. Could you be more specific?
I do not mean, "Could you give me the names of the schools which have an Environmental Club." I mean, "Can you give instances by way of empirical evidence that such clubs contribute to an increase in public awareness?" Read my comments on the Swedish nuclear power referendum; that was an example of a specific example.
Cheristinna Dalus
Good effort. Be careful with terminologies, if wrongly used, they change the meaning of your sentences completely. For example, you wrote, "… DBKK made taxation with back out the shopkeeper licence and permit which encroach the existence law." I could not guess what you mean by "DBKK made taxation with back out"? I am trying my best to guess the second part, "encroach the existence law". "Encroach" does not mean to get on the wrong side of the law. You can encroach on someone else's property, usually without permission. You do not say "existence law" here. You mean "existing law". "Existence law" means the law which allow your existence. For example, there need to be oxygen in the air for human beings and all living creatures to survive. This is existence law. In your case, it is existing laws, i.e., laws that are currently in place.
Helly Helly Sauki
You need to brush up your presentation skills. In your fourth paragraph, you wrote, "According to the question, I think strengthening and implementing legislation are more effective. Although I choose this, it does not mean that public awareness is not important to lead to a better and healthier environment. When I read Bernadette's opinion, I agreed with her in saying that both public awareness and strengthening legislations will lead to a better environment, …"
I know what you mean; but try to read some arguments from your other course-mates who chose to support both measures; they managed to say what I thought you wanted to say, without contradicting themselves.
Your first sentence contradicted with the other subsequent two sentences. In the second sentence; it was alright to recognise the importance of other factors, but what was THE important factor you wished to argue? One is better than the other, or both are equally important? In the third sentence, you shifted your stand to the latter when you agreed with Bernadette. See the entanglement you have weaved yourself into?
Robianah Amin
You wrote, "I think it is difficult to write in English, but I'll try my best…"
I have highlighted in bold your good attitude. Bravo! Think about the following situation? You can run now. You might not like running because in UMS, with all the trees still young and not providing enough shade, it is too hot to be running around. You don't like to sweat and smell funny in class with the air conditioning sometimes going on strike. But you can definitely run to save yourself from the jaws of a crocodile! (The ability to identify a crocodile is a different matter though!) About twenty years ago, it was difficult for you to walk as a baby. How many times did you try to walk before you could run? If you cannot remember, ask some senior family members to tell you. They will say countless attempts. It is the same with the approach one should adopt with writing in English.
Md. Haszami Zaini
When presenting an argument, do not change cause half way, without justifying for that change. In your first paragraph, you wrote, " … my choice is that strengthening the legislation is the most effective way…" In your final sentence, which should always be the most persuasive and the one that leaves a lasting impression in the minds of your audience, you wrote, "However, in my point of view, the factor of human behaviour plays the most important role in this issue. No matter how good the law is or how effective the campaigns are, if people do not change individually their perspectives towards the environment, both of this ways do not mean anything."
I could only guess what you mean here. But that was not a very good way to present your I thought you wanted to say. You left your audience / readers thinking that you have just killed your own case by contradicting yourself.
Keep it up your writing, practice makes perfect.
You perhaps might say something along these lines:
"Having made my case for strengthening and implementing those strengthened legislations, we need to bear in mind human behaviour. Human activities play the most important role in this issue; it is human beings which have the potential to damage the environment, it is also human beings which have the capacity not to damage it, to preserve it, and to repair it if had already been damaged by other human beings or earlier damaging activities.. However I believe such damaging activities can only be curtailed by adequate legislation and the reciprocal preservation activities be supported by legislation. Campaigns to increase public awareness might very well educate the public, increase awareness, etc., but only legislation can back up and give the public the power to demand action when the government is deemed not to have done enough. They are also cases where governments could not do anything against activities harmful to the environment because governments do not have the legislation necessary to prosecute!"
I thought you could give plenty of evidence for the former, so I shall not provide any to illustrate my point. For the latter, perhaps this evidence might be new to you.
In the South Atlantic, many species of albatrosses (albatrosses are types of sea birds) are being drowned in the sea because of line fishing practised by fishermen who come from many countries. Their line fishing with baits strung across nearly 100 miles in the sea attracts these birds who swoop down thinking that the food on the baits are their normal food, not food to lure fish. Their beaks get hooked to the line, they drown. Every year, tens of thousands of these already endangered birds are killed this way. There is a rather strong public awareness campaign to educate fishermen on ways of fishing that do not affect the fishermen economically and do not kill or injure the birds. The most optimistic campaigners say that such campaigns are working, but at the current speed of change, it would take at least 60 years for the birds' numbers to recover! This is where proponents of tougher legislation should take their case. (Go look for the source yourself! Remember this is my knowledge as a lay person, you are training to be an expert in environmental science / geography; you look for the source of this information, you should be better informed than me at the end of the day).
The rest of the students need not fear that I have been prejudicial for / against a particular group or argument. I have my own views which are not important to be put down here because I am not being evaluated; I am not taking the course you are taking! However, the above suggested paragraph for Md. Haszami was written as an example for him and those who share his line of argument. Please refer to his original comments.
Md. Haszami also wrote, "Public awareness generally cannot handle the power of these "big parties". There was no definition of "big parties". Do you mean a big party to celebrate a wedding? Or a big party where everyone is too drunk to go home? I know these two situations are not what you have in mind. My point is, in academic writing there should be no room for speculative writing such as this. In academic writing, you can theorise, you can postulate based on your theories, you can even speculate the outcome of theories which is usually employed in statistical modelling, theoretical physics and astronomy. But you do not speculate or leave any terminologies to be guessed by the reader. If you are writing a piece of propaganda, you may do that. Not in academic writing though.
More@ Mohd. Faizal Saha
Good effort on specific examples, quoting the relevant by laws for one local authority, in your case DBKK would be even better. Have you considered non-monetary penalties for people found guilty of littering? Hint: Singapore.
Kamisah Ariffin
I think you could do better than this. You could put more effort into participating in the debate. There were at least 33 comments before you wrote yours. You did not state that you agreed with any of your course-mates, neither did you find any disagreement or criticism of their arguments? If you were answering an exam on comprehension skills at the UPSR level, your answer would be an A. I am afraid you must try harder than this for a degree, which after all is only taken after at least 6 – 7 years of additional mental development after the UPSR exam.
Nagendran Thangavelo
Excellent; very smooth flow of ideas. One comment for consideration: do be careful with use of terminologies. You wrote, "Just after we lost our properties and our loved ones in a natural disaster, we begin to regret our previous mistakes." You went on to give examples of the landslide in Genting and Pos Dipang. You said such tragedies happened because of uncontrolled land developments. You have hit the bull's eye. These two instances are not natural disaster. Malaysian journalists might report them as such, including in the Malay newspapers, as bencana alam. They are not natural disasters. Tanah runtuh disebabkan penerokaan tanah yang tidak terancang dan tidak mengambil kira aspek keselamatan dan kelestarian penerokaan tersebut terhadap alam sekitar, BUKAN BENCANA ALAM. Semua itu adalah BENCANA BUATAN MANUSIA.
I very rarely break into Malay to explain something when I have made it a point to do so in English from the beginning. I made an exception to this rule because I think your choice of terminology in this particular case was influenced by that Malay term and the way it has been misused.
Some people might want to argue that the earth crushing down the hillside and killing people and destroying homes is still a natural disaster because the hills and the soil on its side are all part of nature. It is different from a crane or a lorry killing someone; cranes and lorries are not part of nature. This is an erroneous line of argument when you consider these examples. A tsunami is a natural disaster. A landslide caused by ice rushing down mountains because of their combined weight is a natural disaster. (It is not a natural disaster if you consider it as a glazier though). An earthquake is a natural disaster. A volcanic eruption is a natural disaster. Even if 1 million people splash into the sea at the same time, it is not going to cause a tidal wave. If you strike a match at the top of the mountain, or cause the vegetation on a mountain to go up in flames, you do not cause a volcanic eruption. I think I have made my point. Natural disasters are not caused by human beings or human activities at all.
There is also decorum in academic practice which students and professionals must adhere to. You wrote, "I intensely disagree with some of our friends' opinions (deliberately don't want to identify them." This is an open academic discussion, not an accusation of corrupt allegations to the Anti Corruption Agency of its Malay acronym, BPR. Say, "I disagree with John on his points, 1, 2, 3, because of a, b, c. I agree with Cynthia on her points 1 and 2, but not 3, because of a and b." Your audience / readers / examiners are not expected to be private investigators and try to identify which and whose points you agreed or disagreed with.
Fadilah Sarbi
You argued for public awareness. Your one and only specific example was Singapore and how that country has been acknowledged as one of the cleanest in this region. You said such success was through public awareness?
I think you will need to present further evidence for that second statement. Through out the world, people think that Singapore is clean, and Singaporeans are clean only in Singapore because of their tough legislation and heavy penalties.
I am afraid Singapore would bring your argument down, rather than support it. Japan is a better example to support your argument. The Japanese are obsessed with cleanliness. They have national holidays to clean their houses, and people who do not clean their houses will be frowned upon! The police however do not arrest people who do not clean their houses on that day because it is not in the legislation that it is a crime. Source: I don't have any, because I know these through my reading as a lay person, your specific knowledge as a student training to be a professional in this field should equip you to know much more than me.
Wong Ang Na
Excellent writing; good flow of ideas. Way to go! Good stats, evidence; it would be better if you provided the source of those information. You gave many examples from the USA. Having done that, your argument is academically incomplete without addressing the current Bush administrations' refusal to rectify Kyoto. If you agree with the administration's views that combating climate change cannot and should not be done by inter-governmental commitments as required by Kyoto, and that the current science of global warning is flawed; you should put in a line arguing that private initiatives is the best way to cut down emissions of green house gases. Therefore, you will be supporting that legislation in the forms of inter-governmental rectification of Kyoto is unhelpful at best and useless at worst.
Unless you are writing a novel, I also think you should stick to English as spoken by the English. Don't try to translate word for word from Chinese proverbs, e.g. "Cry of no tear". People not familiar with Chinese proverbs would think that the individual concerned has some facial muscular or secretive glands disorder, such that when they cry, no tears are produced. Such people would also have severe eye impairment, because the eyes would dry out without being constantly bathed by fluids. In academic writing, do try as much as possible to avoid introducing culturally based expression that might hamper the understanding of people who do not share the same cultural background. Of course in creative writing, no problem, use as many as you like.
When you said, e.g., "… legislation must be strict enough…" in such circumstance, you should always define enough. Otherwise, say, "… legislation as it is, is adequate if implemented stringently…" or "legislation as it is, should be made tougher…" Then your audience / readers know what you are talking about, merely saying "strict enough" without giving any yardstick to compare what is considered to be enough, is not enough!
You also wrote, ".. the tsunami is seemed to be caused by nuclear exploration underneath the sea by developed countries, …" You stated that as an example to highlight the fact that people will think first before they rush greedily into development if only they were made aware of the bad impacts.
I thought this example was not suitable. I live in one of those developed countries, and there has never been any talk, including amongst conscientious objectors and anti-war activists, even by conspiracy theorists, that the tsunami (the most recent Boxing Day tsunami of 2004) was caused by a nuclear exploration under the sea. If you think that it is still true, and this being a very controversial subject, you should provide solid proof by way of such a statement being published in reputable journals, not activists' propaganda. I also think the term "testing" is more appropriate than "exploration" in your context, although I could not agree to that example you gave.
Tang En Tze
Overall, you gave a good argument. Your third paragraph was a good angle of debate, i.e. criticism of earlier arguments which lack critical analyses. You might want to read more original publications in English, rather than translations from Chinese, or translations from English into Malay. I noticed you have a sublime tendency to translate from Chinese and Malay syntax in your writing. How do I know? They sounded perfect to me in Malay and Chinese if I were to translate your writing word for word into either Malay or Chinese. I am not ridiculing the Malay or Chinese languages, what I hope you do is to write English that does not stick out like a sore thumb because it sounded odd.
You wrote, “Actually, EIA should be established as an exclamation to increase public awareness.”
I did not know what you mean. Here, I don’t think I want to take an educated guess on what you mean. Exclamation means a shout, a howl, a shriek.
I appreciated your taking into account your course-mates’ views, that was what this exercise was all about, debating the issue.
Fadillah bin Dewa
Posted at 04:03 pm by geografiums
Permalink
