Monday, 16 July 2018


CGPA is Cumulative Grade Point Average whereas
iCGPA can be interpreted as Integrated Cumulative Grade Point Average.

CGPA results are shown as grades per subject such as Physics, Biology, Chemistry etc that make up the programme. There are so many subjects that make up a course, more than 30 subjects for a Bachelor course.

iCGPA results are shown as grades per programme outcomes such as knowledge, problem solving, team work, ethics, communication skills, lifelong learning. There are not many of these outcomes. Under MQA, Malaysia Qualifying Agency, it requires a minimum of 8 Programme Outcomes to be shown to have been achieved.

In fact MQA requires educational institutions to achieve learning outcomes such as documented by the iCGPA objectives, instead of just by subjects as required by CGPA.

You may argue that CPGA implements only the Knowledge outcome of the iCGPA but actually many components such as the writing of Thesis also measures communication and critical thinking skills, but they are averaged in the marking scheme in order to come up with the CPGA points.

iCGPA breaks down the marking schemes into learning outcomes. These learning outcomes should support programme outcomes. You may argue also that iCGPA is just a different marking scheme.

Since there are only a few programme outcomes, the iCGPA results can be presented as a spider web concept map. No, Spider Web diagram is not invented in Malaysia for the iCGPA.

Refer to this publication.

I had attended a forum and question and answer sessions on whether iCGPA is to be implemented.
There was a vote, and most do not want iCGPA to be implemented. It means that they do not want to have MQA certification.

Thursday, 12 July 2018

Najib gets a taste of his own medicine

He is lucky. Many more even have their children gifts of rm10 confiscated.

This is the power given to MACC by Najib.

Najib of course has the right to claim back all those but it will take years. Many did not get any news for years. They are supposed to have engaged a lawyer to claim back the money but even then MACC can just ignore them without any consequences.

We are supposed to be protected by judges who should not approve extensions but if there judges can believe that someone who is on the verge of getting married and another on the verge of going for hajj suddenly commit suicide, you know what your chances are.

Worse, we have Federal Counsel who believe that even rm10 should be confiscated and kept in zero interest is their right, as well as all unclaimed or recovered money in their possession, to be fought all the way to the Federal Court, despite winning the argument in lower courts.

So how long can you recover your money? Never, or after you are dead. Do not believe me? I just heard a case from my colleague. His lawyer is trying to work out behind the scenes. This is common practice. I had a few court cases that had been worked out behind the scenes even without my knowledge.

Acceptance of this DAYUS practise is the main culprit. DAYUS means pathetic, and is the 2nd most severe sin in Islam but widely practised. So severe that you are guaranteed hell no matter what other good deeds you had done.

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Weak graduates are not caused by weak teaching!

Despite huge amounts of money spend on education, Malaysians perceive that our graduates are of decreasing quality.

Based on the iCGPA system that is based on OBE, outcome based education, is blamed for putting more burden on lecturers which resulted in poor quality students because less time is spent on teaching.

But teaching is never the reason why graduates are of low quality in the view of employers or the public. No matter how much time is spent on teaching, if low quality students who do not know fundamentals, no interest in learning to the point of submitting assignments and if willing to submit, only know how to plagiarise unchecked, are allowed to graduate, the quality of the graduates will still be low.

The quality of the graduates DEPEND ON THE EVALUATORS, not TEACHERS. The most important function of a teacher is actually not just to teach but to determine who are of sufficient standard to graduate. This had been the case since the Silat and Kung Fu teachers. They just demonstrate how to perform some functions, but most of the time, they just observe how the students perform in order to give feedback on their performance. Students must take the effort to learn the skills by themselves by practising.

Many Malaysians will say that it does not happen in Malaysia but it is very common indeed. Many cases where the entire class got first class honours, with CGPA above 3.5. Why not? If all questions are known, and students are even allowed to bring laptops to the examination hall and the teacher openly help students answer examination questions, right in front of other students.

Just look at the quality of our High School leavers? Who allow them to graduate despite not having basic fundamentals? The examining bodies of course. Despite getting high scores, their standards are still low as determined by international observers.  The number of students that are determined to have passed our public examinations keep on increasing year by year. It appears as though the standard of teaching increases every year. And yet, Universities, Employers and International observers, determine that the standard of education in Malaysia has not increased that much.

And yet, the percentage of students who pass the minimum competency levels keep on increasing. Refer to page 100 of this UNESCO report. For PMR, it used to be only 50%, in 2000, to over 60% in 2013.

In Jadual 1, page 107 of the above report, the average grade for SPM keep on increasing from 5.04 to 5.11. It shows that our education system is supposed to have improved. Or does it?

Can we increase the average grade to 7 in 2019? Why not? Just lower the marking marks for these grades. These are just grades. If you really want to be honest, reveal all the marks lah.

You say it is not necessary because grades are subjective because questions vary in difficulties. Let the employers decide for themselves. Raw data is more honest than any messaged grades. I got 88% for my primary 6 examinations in 1969. If they can do it in 1969 for primary schools, why not do it for all examinations today?

The grading system is designed to sort out the qualifications of students. They are not designed to determine the standard of education. They can be messaged in order to satisfy a criterion. If you want the average grade to be 7, then adjust the grading systems to reflect this requirement.

If you want to lower the standard of our students, then lower the lowers for the grades so that almost everybody will get an average of grade 7. If you want to increase the standard of education, then increase the grading mark such that the average is just 3, so that many students fail to graduate.

Then those who graduate are of much higher standard. Those who do not graduate, will be required to repeat, until they achieve the desirable standard. This was what happened during the colonial days. This is what needs to be done if we honestly want to have HIGH QUALITY GRADUATES.

The motivation to learn is far more important to the quality of teaching. Good teachers are good as guidance only. Good teachers are experts in their fields so that they can determine the correct answers for the problems, not that they can explain their subjects well.

If we have public examinations, as for our SPM and STPM, we do not need good teachers at all. Let students take the examinations. Many excellent students managed to score 17 A by studying themselves. I myself, managed to get 4As in GCE A level, in one year, of a two year course, by studying by myself. I was not alone. Another Malaysian also managed to pass the GCE A level examinations by studying by herself as well.

This is not a strange practise because many competency tests are already carried out without requiring any teacher to teach them, such as GRE examination, SAT, TOEFL, driving license, Cisco competency tests and Linux competency tests. Students are allowed to take these tests by studying themselves, or self-learning. So lecturers and teachers should be tasked as testers, not spoon feeders who are required to pass students. This is the current mentality of our education administrators.

That is why, for effective teachers and lecturers, time spent on the iCGPA system is far more useful in increasing the quality of teaching because we are supposed to allow students who achieve a rounded competency, to graduate, instead of just specialised graduates.

Even here, it is up to the employers to decide who should graduate, given the iCGPA data. For the Board of Engineers of Malaysia, it requires graduates to have sufficient knowledge of ethics (PO8)."Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice".

Read the requirement carefully. Does it mention about being ethical? Do we need to measure how ethical the graduate is? Not at all. Just apply ethical principles and commit or want to be ethical. That is all.

Do high ranking universities also have this PO? They do, if they want to comply with the Washington Accord agreement which USA, UK, Singapore, Australia and many others agree to. (Is the iCGPA really ill-conceived?) (Is the iCGPA really ill-conceived? A rebuttal) That is why comments such as the above are just silly. They just do not know what iCGPA is all about. Worse, they implement the iCGPA wrongly, making their work so much harder. For example, when measuring the PO for ethics, which is PO8, we can use one subject, called Ethics and Law in order to measure whether students manage to achieve the standard required by the Washington Accord, in PO8. If you want to simplify your work, just use the whole marks for this subject as the mark for PO8. It is not accurate, but sufficient. What if the student fail in this subject? Should we fail the student in PO8 as well? If you have one subject, you have no choice. That is why, we should have other subjects or circumstances in order to measure.

Our method is to break it into two CO, course outcomes, for the subject Ethics and Law for Engineers. One outcome is measured using exams, the other using Case Studies, i.e. assignment based, backed by Turnitin anti-plagiarism software. We also attempted two more circumstances, such as attendances in selected subjects and marks for proper citation in Final Year Projects. These are weak indicator of commitment to Ethics but it gives a measure of backup or support.

That is why, for each PO, it is better, but not compulsory to have at least 3 CO to backup measurements of this PO. What if a student pass in one CO, but fail in two other COs? We can still allow the student to pass, based on certain circumstances, to be determined by our criteria. If the student fail in all COs, it will be bad.

We can safely say that the student had failed to comply with PO8 based on our passing criteria. This is the contention. What is the passing mark? In order to increase our standard of graduates, we should increase it to over 80% but it will mean most students will fail, and it is also meaningless.

So, the argument that iCGPA is useless in increasing the standard of our graduates is nonsense. It allows us to measure the achievement of our graduates more precisely, instead of just relying on examination results.

Since the quality of graduates is mostly determined by the standard of testing, just like marking of examination questions, more time in marking questions and analysing the results will be most useful in guaranteeing the quality of our graduates.

iCGPA is just a quick way to observe the quality of our graduates, whether they are balanced or not. It is not that unbalanced graduates may not be successful.  For example, students who have high CGPA in fundamentals but weak in ethics. The spider diagram shown by iCGPA will not show a round figure but more oval because some POs have low marks.

iCGPA will just show the diagram. It is up to the employers to accept the graduate or not. If an employer wants to gamble with a student who are strong in fundamentals but weak in ethical knowledge, it is up to them. The employer may be able to provide additional training on ethics later on.

Again, let me emphasise that the quality of graduates depends on the quality of testing. Less time spent in teaching is acceptable. What is the point of teaching, if you do not know your objective? Blindly and aimlessly teaching without knowing the outcome is very bad.

The argument that with less testing, more time can be spent on teaching, is not encouraged because it will lead to spoon feeding. Spoon feeding is so discouraged by the Washington Accord that an entire PO12 is given towards self-learning. (xii) Life Long Learning - Recognise the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change."

The importance given to PO12 is similar to PO1, "(i) Engineering Knowledge - Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialisation as specified in WK1 to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex engineering problems."

Faculty of Engineering, UMS, has developed an iCGPA online computer program, that uses the BEM PO as the main objective. This fact is included because there were some comments that OBE is different from iCGPA, which is entirely false.  BEM PO, as required by Washington Accord is the OBE developed by ABET. iCGPA is just a renaming of OBE to be applied to MQA standards that is to be applied to other courses in Malaysian universities.

The argument that iCGPA is not used by world leading universities is also false because NTU and NUS engineering courses are required to comply with the Washington Accord. Of course, each university and country will apply different implementations of the Washington Accord, but BEM has chosen to apply word for word the entire Graduates Attributes that are required by the Washington Accord. MQA is different but follow the same spirit.  In fact, MQA requires only 8 PO. page 27.

In the example iCGPA, ethics is closest to HPP-4. page 2, should be 1.

As to iCGPA being not measurable, it is up to the programme to determine outcomes that are measurable only. If you ask yourself to measure something that is unmeasurable, such as how ethical a person is, of course you cannot do it. In fact, impossible. There is nothing wrong with iCGPA. It is the programme that has failed to apply iCGPA properly.

The Minister of Education has made a statement that iCGPA implementation is no longer compulsoray. For Engineering Faculties, implementing the ideas of iCGPA is compulsory because BEM mandated it. For other faculties, it is recommended that they make the extra effort to measure the attributes of their graduates more accurately using the iCGPA guidelines.

Faculties who do not implement iCGPA guidelines will not be able to take the opportunity to produce balanced graduates which is required by Malaysia in order to be progressive. If properly implemented, employers will appreciate it more. Just show the results of the iCGPA, instead of just CPGA, and let employers decide for themselves.

As to the deteriorating in the standard of our graduates despite these advanced measurements, we should not blame the system. It has nothing to do with teaching at all. It is the lowering in the standard of passing for students.

Lecturers are pressured to pass students. In the end, unqualified students are still allowed to pass. It is much easier to pass students than to fail them. If you fail students, you need to justify why students fail.

In the iCGPA, as in all quality systems, CQI (continuous quality improvement) is important. When we identify that many students fail to satisfy our standard, we must find ways to investigate the reasons for the failure.

The easiest way to solve the problem is to lower our standard, then all students will pass. You cannot blame the iCGPA system for this. We must blame our honesty in this regard. The very best system in the world will fail if we are not honest.

Should we therefore abandon iCGPA because we cannot be honest? Just go back to the basic evaluation system which is well established and much better understood. However, if we are not honest, the same lowering of standard of graduates will occur. Making it worse, you do not even know in the areas that the graduates are weak in. The extra teaching hour will never produce better graduates because we allow sub-standard graduates to pass.

Because employers and the public are not stupid. They know that the standard of passing has dropped so they just ignore the grades. In fact, in many companies, especially multi-nationals, the minimum passing mark is CGPA 3.0. If we lower this standard even more, sooner or later, the minimum standard will be CGPA 3.5 and later on, even CGPA 4.0 will be useless, as had happened to certain qualifications in Malaysia and even whole nations.

The solution to this problem of the lowering of standard is just to reverse the practise. If we are really honest in getting high quality graduates, we just ignore all failures, but all passes need to be justified, and even had to go through another independent but simplified test. Exit tests for graduates is vital towards achieving this higher standard. If any students who are deemed to pass, and yet fail in their exit tests, the lecturers had to explain why.

The CQI for iCGPA creates another pressure to pass students because the criteria of quality here is the passing rate. If we use the passing of the iCGPA of students as a performance indicator for lecturers, the best options for the lecturers will be just to pass as many students as possible, thus lowering the quality of graduates.

For me, I use the results to determine new methods and duration of teaching that need to be spent on the subject matter. If the poor results are due to the poor quality of students, this should be investigated. Lecturers should never be investigated for failing students but must be investigated why students pass when their fundamentals are weak.

It will look as though, we may encourage lecturers to point fingers to other lecturers but this is inevitable if we want high quality graduates. Lecturers who just pass students need to be investigated, instead of lecturers who fail students.

Lecturers who fail students are the real heroes of our education system. They have managed to maintain the quality of our graduates all these while. They are a dying breed, I am afraid. So, I appeal to everybody, lecturers, students and the parents, to consider carefully why we must uplift the standard of our graduates.

Why should we care whether the standard of our graduates is still high? How about those who fail? Shouldn't the cost of education so high if we keep on failing students, although we allow them to repeat their subjects?

The answer to the questions above is simply to question our honesty. If we are honest in increasing the quality of our graduates, we need to take drastic measures. Costs are secondary. If we can afford it, we can allow students to repeat. If we cannot, we should just let them fail or take up other courses that are more suitable for them.

If we are really concerned about costs, we should allow brilliant student to graduate early. My estimate is that about 10% of them will be able to graduate a few years early by letting them study by themselves. In fact, courses should be crammed and limited to as few years as possible.

Even for Engineering degrees, 3 years should be the duration of courses. Arguments that it cannot be done for Malaysia is nonsense. Malaysia had implemented 3-year courses it and many students graduated on time. In UK, graduates, including myself, routinely graduate within 3 years. In USA, many students graduate within 2 years, although the entrance requirement is just SPM. In USA, they allow short term courses during the vacation period so that some students can graduate within 2 years.  Why are we kidding ourselves? Some students can study by themselves exceptionally well. Even during colonial days, some students were allowed to upgrade classes in primary schools. Once independent, we downgrade ourselves by pretending that our citizens are not able to do it. There was a scheme that allow students to upgrade by class starting from primary 3, by taking special classes, but it was abandoned. Students as well as nations, save money by graduating early, and yet, we discriminate against ourselves, by pretending that students can get better results by taking more time to graduate. The better examination results by taking longer to study is meaningless in determining the quality of our graduates as shown by UK 3-year graduates vs Malaysian's 4-year graduates.,  and others show that the younger the scientist start working, the more productive they become. Similarly, for inventors,

As to the larger number of failures for 3-year courses, but allowing weaker students to repeat, will allow the same number of graduates within 4 years also. There was no study of Malaysian students who took the 3-year Engineering degrees in Malaysia and how many of them managed to graduate within 4 years. I bet, that the number of students who graduate should be the same as those who took the 4-year courses. It means that, a significant number of students manage to still graduate within 3 years, that would otherwise waste time studying slowly with the rest of the weaker students. The nation saves tremendous amount of money, that Malaysia need to develop our nation quickly.

The problem is that the Washington Accord only allow 4-year guided courses. No self-learning allowed. Not even 1 year spent on Industrial training, which is surprising to me. To skip this requirement, UK universities still graduate within 3 years but add another year to get an Master, in order to qualify for Chartered Engineering status.

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Respect the Constitution by reading it yourself

I have just the newspaper today and was shocked to read that a retired federal judge can show such disrespect for the contitution. Gopal Sri Ram was wrong on all counts and his statement is not based on both the written constitution of Sabah as well as the judgement of the case in Perak, both of which should have similar constitutions.

There is no requirement for a vote of confidence in the constitution. The UK constitution is also similar to our constitutions but the Sabah and Perak constitutions do not have the vote of confidence part.

In UK, it is automatic, following a General Election but when the Parliament is in sessions, a vote of confidence is required.

Gopal Sri Ram and other lawyers who are trained in UK may have used the UK constitution as a reference but even in UK, there is no need for a vote of confidence just after the election.
We can also argue that just after the election and before the first Parliamentary session, a vote of confidence is not necessary, even after the appoint of a new Prime Minister. Otherwise, it will be a mockery to the requirement of a Prime Minister that has the confidence of the majority of the elected members.

There is no such clause for a vote of confidence our constitutions. It does not mean that during a session, a vote of confidence cannot be requested, but in Sabah and Perak constitutions, anytime the TYT or Sultan deemed that the CM no longer has the confidence of the state assembly, the CM loses his position automatically and he is obliged to appoint a new one.

So beware of the statements made by lawyers and even retired judges.
6. State Cabinet.
(1) There shall be a State Cabinet to advise the Yang di-Pertua Negeri in the exercise of his functions.
(2) The Cabinet shall consist of a Chief Minister, and not more than ten nor less than four other members, (to be styled "Ministers") appointed in accordance with clause (3).
(3) The Yang di-Pertua Negeri shall appoint as Chief Minister a member of the Legislative assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly and shall appoint the other members mentioned in clause (2) in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister from among the members of the Assembly:
Provided that if an appointment is made while the Legislative Assembly is dissolved a person who was a member of the last Assembly may be appointed but shall not continue to hold office after the first sitting of the next Legislative Assembly unless he is a member thereof.

7. Tenure of office of members of Cabinet.
(1) If the Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertua Negeri dissolves the Assembly, the Chief Minister shall tender the resignation of the members of the Cabinet.
(2) A member of the Cabinet may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, and a member of the Cabinet other than the Chief Minister shall also vacate his office if his appointment thereto is revoked by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri acting in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister.
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), a member of the Cabinet other than the Chief Minister shall hold office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
Lesson from Perak
In the case of Datuk (Datu) Amir Kahar Tun Datu Haji Mustapha v. Tun Mohd Said Keruak & 8 Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 184, the High Court held that “the evidence that a chief minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of members of the assembly for the purpose of Article 7(1) of the Sabah constitution, may be found from other extraneous sources than to be confined to the votes taken in the legislative assembly provided that, that extraneous sources are properly established”.

In that case, such sources were by petitions by the 30 members to the Yang di-Pertua Negeri and by Pairin Kitingan’s own admission that he had lost the confidence of the majority.
A similar scenario also played out in the Perak constitutional crisis. Nizar Jamaluddin of Pakatan Rakyat had been appointed the chief minister. Three Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons then defected to Perak BN. Instead of resigning, Nizar Jamaluddin requested the Perak sultan to dissolve the Perak state legislative assembly to pave way for fresh elections.
Sultan Azlan Shah (above) refused to do so and appointed Zambry Kadir from Perak BN as chief minister instead. Nizar Jamaluddin filed an action in court and argued that an expression of loss of confidence can only be determined by a vote in the state legislative assembly, not on the sultan’s own judgment and discretion.
The Federal Court in Dato' Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin v Dato' Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir; Attorney General (Intervener) [2010] 2 CLJ 925 interpreted Article XVI(6) of the Perak state constitution (similar to Article 7(1) of the Sabah State Constitution) and held as such: “…evidence of loss of confidence in the MB may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided, as stated in Akintola, they are properly established. Such sources, we think, should include the admission by the MB himself and/or representations made by members of the assembly that the MB no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the assembly.”
Thus, to answer Question 1, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri is capable of determining himself that Musa Aman had lost the confidence of the majority – it need not be expressed by a vote in the Sabah state legislative assembly.
As for Question 2, the Federal Court in Nizar Jamaluddin held: “Similarly here, on the literal interpretation of Art. XVI(6), we are of the view that the word 'shall' should be given a mandatory effect. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellant in the circumstances of this case to tender the resignation of the executive council. The term Executive Council by definition includes the MB. (See art. XVI(2)).
“We, therefore, agree with the respondent that the refusal on the part of the appellant to resign after having been directed to do so by HRH clearly went against the express provisions of Art. XVI(6). It cannot be the intention of the framers of the state constitution that in the circumstances, it is open to the appellant whether to resign or to stay on as MB.
“The word 'shall', in our opinion, ought to be given a mandatory effect, otherwise, it would lead to political uncertainty in the state. The appellant cannot continue to govern after having lost the support of the majority. To allow him to do so would be going against the basic principle of democracy.”
In short, once the Yang di-Pertua Negeri accepts in his own judgment that Musa Aman has lost the confidence of the majority, and has further asked him to resign, Musa Aman and his cabinet are legally deemed to have resigned with immediate effect.
As such, there was no chief minister and cabinet before Shafie Apdal’s appointment on May 12.
As night follows day, Shafie Apdal is therefore constitutionally and legitimately appointed as Sabah chief minister.

LIM WEI JIET is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and deputy chair of the Bar Council's constitutional law committee.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
The Prime Minister is the Head of the United Kingdom Government.
The Head of State appoints as Prime Minister the member of the House of Commons who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister remains in office until either:
Following a General Election, the Prime Minister is no longer
able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, or
The Government loses a vote of no confidence in the House
of Commons and a replacement government cannot be found
within 14 days, or The Prime Minister resigns.
Possible alternative:

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Lolai Liangkit vs Tiyula Itum

I got some information from this website.
It is a document from the Philippines government.

he liangkit are long solo pieces accompanied by the gabbang and biyula. Unlike the sindil, they are not performed extemporaneously. The subject of the liangkit is wide—love, war, nature, and others. The Tausug lelling, adopted from the Sama, are part of the liangkit tradition, but are sung to the music provided by a guitar. They relate and comment on current events. One good example is the lelling narrating the entry of the Moro National Liberation Front forces into Jolo town in February
Lolai Liangkit is fast, just like the original Daling daling.
Tiyula Itum is slow, just like the origal dance of the Suluk people, pangalai.

Tuesday, 12 December 2017

Sure way to solve road traffic jams

Traffic in the US is going to get worse — but things are changing

21 Strategies to Solve Congestion
David Schrank
Associate Research Scientist
Tim Lomax
Research Engineer 
These studies do not solve the road traffic problems. In fact, they make them even worse. A congestion occurs when cars do not move at all. The problem is certainly due to mismatch of incoming traffic to outgoing traffic. If the traffic is equal, there is no chance of any congestion at all. The cars may move slowly, but there is no congestion.
This simple reality seem to escape a lot of these authors and researchers. Another important fact is that, the traffic handling of a road is not dependent on the speed of the cars. The number of cars moving through a road at a fixed time internal is the same no matter how fast the cars move through the road.

The major cause of congestion are the road junctions. In a 4-way junction, controlled by traffic lights, in the worst case, 4 inflows want to get out though 1 outflow. This problem is similar to network hubs. The solution is to deploy switches.
For road junctions, you do not build flyovers for all vehicles and at normal speeds. Design underpasses for cars only at slow speed. You will solve a lot of congestion problems with the minimum costs and area required.
There is no need for any exotic technology. Just deploy underground car parks at the junctions. We can start by deploying underpasses only, i.e. 2 layers of roads.
Of course, the layers of roads proposed by Elon Musk is the final solution but many cities cannot afford to wait for the technology to mature.
You can refer to my full paper uploaded at researchgate.