News

Refugees in Thai Border Camps Want Myanmar Government to Recognizer Their Education

schools in Mae La providing the children who live in the camp with primary and secondary education.

MAE LA – An old cartoon is circulating on social media. It depicts a tree, a schoolmaster and assorted creatures lined up including a goldfish, an elephant and a seal.

The schoolmaster says, “For a fair selection, everybody has to take the same exam – please climb that tree.” Beneath the cartoon is a quote from Albert Einstein: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it’s stupid.”

Houng Hsar, a refugee from Karenni camp 1 in far northern Thailand, is metaphorically the goldfish who tried to climb a tree. A polite, self-assured 17-year-old, Houng Hsar faced a problem last year: If he completed high-school education in camp his graduation certificate would not be recognized in his home country, Myanmar, or his host country, Thailand.

As a consequence, he returned to Myanmar to try to enter the government education system and get a recognized high-school graduate’s certificate.”I went back to Myanmar last summer and tried to get into Standard 10 there,” he said. “The principal said I needed to take the tests in all subjects of Standard 9. But in almost every subject the curriculum was very different.

Therefore, I did not take the tests. I choose to come back [to the camp].”Curriculum is not the only challenge presented to returning refugee students. The majority of refugees are ethnic Karen who are not taught in Myanmar language, nor do they speak it in domestic or social environments. School-level entrance tests in Myanmar, however, are only in Myanmar language.

These requisites – having to sit entrance exams in an unfamiliar language based on unfamiliar curriculum – will, for many returning refugee students, be an insurmountable barrier to accessing government education systems. Those undertaking the process face being placed in age inappropriate classes, impacting a child’s learning, social and psychological development. Other refugee children will invariably forgo education altogether. This leads to child protection issues: Keeping children in school is acknowledged as a very good way to protect them from abuse.

A recently released study titled “Beyond Access” conducted by Save The Children Thailand confirms that returning refugee students are struggling not only to gain access to the government education system but also that they have no support even if they succeed. These challenges are compounded by issues related to teaching methods.

While refugee students are likely to have had some exposure to student-centered, participatory learning, education in Myanmar is predominantly by rote, even at tertiary levels. Thein Lwin, director of the National Network for Education Reform (NNER), said: “The system of government testing is reciting the exact same words from the textbooks in the government schools. The grading system depends on how much children can memorize.”

More fundamental issues regarding Myanmar’s education system are made clear in the Unicef 2013 Myanmar annual report. At 1.7 per cent, the ratio of government spending on education is one of the lowest in the world. The end result is that just over half of Myanmar’s children |complete primary education. The figure is even lower among ethnic groups.

Comparisons between refugee camp and Myanmar government education lead to a disconcerting hypocrisy. While the government is reluctant to recognize refugee education, observations from The Border Consortium (TBC), in its report ‘What Refugees Say’, note “The comparative low-cost access to and quality of |education opportunities in the refugee camps is a highly sought alternative to the expensive and low-quality opportunities in rural areas of southeast Burma.”

Sai Thip, a student from Shan State, said: “…we don’t have basic levels, like government school. As I cannot continue in Burma, it is better if I move to the refugee camp. If I improve or graduate here, maybe I can go back and help my community.”

This desire to become educated, return to Myanmar and help struggling, local communities is shared by many refugees. Naw Mu, a petite 11-year-old, said: “I would like to become a nurse, to heal patients. Children will be able to learn |better if they are healthy.” Other students want to be teachers because villages don’t have teachers, or engineers because building standards in Myanmar are poor.

K’ Paw Shee, headmaster of a camp-based high school, asserts that older and graduated refugee students can positively contribute to development in Myanmar.

Currently, however, camp-based high-school graduation certificates are not formally recognised in Myanmar when applying for tertiary education or jobs requiring high school completion. This affects their access to livelihoods.

These conditions for returning refugee students have ramifications in the broader context of refugee repatriation from the Thai-Myanmar border. The governing international humanitarian principle is that refugees return voluntarily and with dignity. Non-recognition of refugee |education, however, represents a serious impediment to any meaningful definition of a voluntary return.

The corollary of these factors begs the question, why does the Myanmar government not take a more reconciliatory approach to the issue of refugee camp-based education? Part of the answer lies in the historically interwoven, often acrimonious, relationship between Myanmar’s |government and education.

For almost 50 years (1962-2010), under successive totalitarian military regimes, education suffered in Myanmar. Bans on teaching in the mother tongue as a means of cultural and political oppression of |ethnic groups, the closure for more than a decade of tertiary institutions nationwide following the 1988 student-led demonstrations, the grotesquely inadequate military expenditure on education – these are examples of what led the once enviable Myanmar education system to become one of the worst in Asia.

This repression saw an increasing reliance upon parallel education systems. Ethnic governments established de facto education departments – the Karen, the Karenni, Kachin, Mon, Shan. These taught a non-military curriculum in the mother tongue. Monastic, Christian and Islamic faith-based schools provided further education as did after-school schools supplementing the inadequate Myanmar education system.Today, after four years of fledgling democracy, these parallel education systems, like refugee-camp education, are not recognized by the government. Instead the government, often in partnership with Myanmar-based international aid organizations, pursues its own education agenda.In September 2014 the National Education Law was adopted by Parliament. Thein Lwin of the NNER said: “The National Education Law is controlled by the National Education Commission. The government formed this National Education Commission. Government |ministers sit on the commission. In this law, democratic rights are deprived, |human rights are deprived, and freedom of education is also deprived.”Students, local non-government organizations, and civil society opposed the bill. Concern focused on curriculum review and decentralization, opportunities for native language instruction, restrictions on |student assembly, and the powers of the National Education Commission, which was widely perceived as a proxy for state control.Returning to Karenni Camp 1, Houng Hsar maintained his ambitions. “If I have enough education, I want to accomplish one of my dreams.”

His plan now is to travel 600km to a border town in Thailand. “I will try to get in to a school in Mae Sot or other schools,” he said. “After studying, I plan to work in an organization. After that, step by step, I plan to do politics.” This is his dream.

The ultimate question is who is going to help Houng Hsar and 30,000 other refugee students fulfill their dreams for a recognized education? Will it be UNHCR that lobbies for tangible substance to the notion of voluntary repatriation with |dignity? Will it be the Myanmar government acknowledging that time has come for transparent and inclusive reform of national education? Will the leadership of ethnic groups play their part placing education on the table at ceasefire discussions? It is incumbent upon each of these stakeholders to play its role. Currently, this is not happening. If it were, Houng Hsar would not be the goldfish who tried but failed to climb a tree. Instead he would be a student about to begin his final year of schooling in Myanmar, and with a very real prospect of a university education in Yangon ahead of him.

Timothy Syrota is an author, photographer and film director. He recently directed an advocacy film on behalf of Save the Children Thailand supporting the rights of refugees to have their education recognized. (timothysyrota@gmail.com)

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP