Educationists and parents want UPSR, PMR to stay
UPDATED @ 03:21:48 PM 27-07-2010By Boo Su-Lyn July 27, 2010
PUTRAJAYA, July 27 — Political parties and educationists want the UPSR and PMR public examinations retained, an Education Ministry dialogue was told today.
Representatives from political parties like DAP and MIC and non-governmental organisations such as the Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE) and the United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) said that today’s meeting of about 40 representatives saw a chorus of reservation against abolishing the two public examinations.
“Majority do not agree to abolish both,” said Dong Zong representative Dr Lai Hoi Chaw today.
“Majority also thought this exam system has to be modified,” he added, saying that creative content should be increased in the examination system.
Lai, the deputy director of the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary School Unified Examination Committee under Dong Zong, said that Dong Zong rejected the UPSR move until the government proposed a detailed alternative student assessment system.
“We do not agree to abolish UPSR immediately until we know more about the alternative formula,” Lai said, adding that the group would also decide on the matter of PMR when an alternative assessment system was proposed.
Lai also demanded for the school-based assessment proposal by Malaysia Examination Board director Datuk Dr Salbiah Ismail at the discussion today to be made public.
Salbiah’s proposal included creating an internal school assessment system and a guided methodology on how to conduct assessments up to the Form 5 SPM level, as well as implementing “psychometric tests” on students’ emotions and character, said DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua.
Pua said Salbiah’s proposal showed that the Education Ministry seemed to have decided to scrap the two public examinations even before talks were completed.
Education Director-General Tan Sri Alimuddin Mohd Dom said last week that a report on the roundtable discussions would be submitted to the Education Minister by the end of August.
The ministry’s first official roundtable discussion took place on July 19, and was attended by over 120 educators, district education officers and teachers’ unions representatives.
The National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP), the Sarawak Teachers’ Union, the West Malaysia Malay Teachers’ Union, and education academics reportedly favoured replacing the two public examinations with school-based assessments.
However, PAGE chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim said that her organisation favoured retaining the two public examinations because a school-based assessment system was open to abuse.
“If we were to rely on school-based assessment, it is subject to manipulation, leaks, favouritism. A national assessment is independent,” said Azimah.
“Most (in the discussion) were in favour of keeping both (examinations), but with the adjustments of making it better,” added Azimah, pointing out that the focus of the current examination system on rote should be replaced with more open-ended questions.
Academic Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Abdul Rahman Arshad also called for the rigid examination system to be revised instead of abolishing UPSR and PMR.
“We must change the nature of the exam. You don’t demolish everything,” said the University-College Sedaya International chancellor.
“A good number are for adjustments to be made,” added Abdul Rahman.
MIC representative Tan Sri Professor T. Marimuthu said that his party was against scrapping the UPSR and PMR examinations, citing concerns of a school-based assessment system that is open to abuse.
“We are concerned about teacher load and teacher bias in a school-based assessment,” said the MIC education committee chairman.
Marimuthu added that the MIC wanted UPSR especially to be retained and for the government to address the pressure faced by UPSR students.
“Any change must be based on informed research. I am not sure what research has been done on this,” said Marimuthu, adding that majority in the discussion wanted to retain the two public examinations.
The DAP is also against scrapping the UPSR and PMR examinations and claimed yesterday that students performed better when subjected to public examinations as shown by international research.
“If the government is insistent in proceeding, as it appears to be, to scrap the exams, do a pilot project first,” said Pua, adding that the government should compare those who took public examinations and those who did not after several years.
“The consequence of scrapping exams for the whole country at one go is a highly risky move. We call for the (Education) Ministry not to repeat the mistake of PPSMI,” said Pua, pointing out that Putrajaya had proceeded with implementing the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English despite public reservation but was forced to abolish it a few years later.
Showing posts with label Ministry of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ministry of Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Academic Studies Support Retaining Examinations
The call by Ministry of Education to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations must not be based on proper quantitative and qualitative studies and not based on unsubstantiated fads or whims of the day
The Ministry of Education is currently studying seriously on the proposal to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations in order to improve the standards of education and to create more “thinking” students rather than those relying purely on 'regurgitation' to pass examinations.
The response from the public and interested parties to date has been generally in favour of such abolition, with some expressing reservation.
I'll like to call upon the Ministry of Education to conduct a more scientific or quantitative study determine the effects of examinations on a student and his or her achievements before taking the hasty and drastic measure of abolishing examinations only to suffer irreversible damage to the quality of our education subsequently.
There are a lot of studies conducted by academics at top universities around the world on the impact of “central exams” and their effects on the educational achievements of the students. Most of these studies however almost always concludes that central examinations have substantial positive impact on the students. The following findings by eminent academics are as follow:
1. “How Central Exams Affect Educational Achievement: International Evidence from TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat” by Ludger Woessmann (2002) of John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The data used in the paper are sourced from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; 1994-1995) and the TIMSS-Repeat (1998-1999) covering 40 nations. They include performance data in both math and science for about 450,000 students, as well as background data on families, school resources and institutional setting for individual students, teachers and schools.
This study showed that “students in countries with central exit-exam systems perform 35 to 47 percent of an international standard deviation in test scores better in their middle-school years in both mathematics and science than students in countries without central exams.”
2. “The Effect Of Central Exit Examinations On Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence From TIMSS Germany” by Hendrik Jürges & Kerstin Schneider & Felix Büchel, 2003.
This paper makes use of the regional variation in schooling legislation within the German secondary education system to estimate the effect of central exit examinations on student performance. The study concluded that “students in federal states with central exit examinations clearly outperform students in other federal states” although they did qualify that part of the difference could be attributable to other factors.
3. “Are National Exit Examinations Important for Educational Efficiency?” by John H. Bishop (1999), Cornell University
Students in countries with national exit exams exams tend to outperform students in other countries in science, math, reading, and geography, when national economic development levels are accounted for.
A study of the elimination of the Swedish exit examination system in the 1970s, in combination with changes in the way university applicants were selected, also “appears to have led to a decline in the number of upper secondary school students taking rigorous courses in mathematics and science.”
This study covered extensively data sourced from (i) TIMSS, (ii) the reading literacy of 14 year olds in the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement's (IEA) Reading Study, Science, (iii) math and geography scores of 13 year olds on the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) for 16 nations and (iv) Science and math scores of 13 year olds in nine Canadian provinces.
4. “The Effect of National Standard and Curriculum-Based Exams on Achievement” by John H. Bishop (1997)
In this study, Bishop concluded that “our review of the evidence suggests that the claims of the advocates of standards and examination based reform of American secondary education my be right. The countries and Canadian provinces with such system outperform other countries at comparable levels of development.
This study also looked at the (i) TIMSS data, (ii) the International Assessment of Educational Progress 1991 covering 15 nations including England, Switzerland, Taiwan and Korea and (iii) the Canada IAEP 1990-91 with data from more than 1,400 schools.
Studies which provides contrary conclusions are few and far in between and often focuses on the negative impact of excessive stress on a student while accepting that a moderate amount of stress for the students is beneficial in terms of student achievement.
Given the above studies, I'll like to reiterate my earlier assertion that it is the nature of examinations and teaching methods which will determine the quality of student achievements and not the fact as to whether examinations are abolished.
Even if the UPSR and PMR is abolished, but the nature of the Form 5 SPM examination as well as the teaching methods and quality remains unchanged, then the student output from our education system will remain little changed from what it is today. In fact, the removal of examinations may disincentivise students, particularly from the lower income groups as well as from families with lower educational qualifications to fare worse than before due to the lack of uniform achievement standards.
The Ministry of Education is currently studying seriously on the proposal to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations in order to improve the standards of education and to create more “thinking” students rather than those relying purely on 'regurgitation' to pass examinations.
The response from the public and interested parties to date has been generally in favour of such abolition, with some expressing reservation.
I'll like to call upon the Ministry of Education to conduct a more scientific or quantitative study determine the effects of examinations on a student and his or her achievements before taking the hasty and drastic measure of abolishing examinations only to suffer irreversible damage to the quality of our education subsequently.
There are a lot of studies conducted by academics at top universities around the world on the impact of “central exams” and their effects on the educational achievements of the students. Most of these studies however almost always concludes that central examinations have substantial positive impact on the students. The following findings by eminent academics are as follow:
1. “How Central Exams Affect Educational Achievement: International Evidence from TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat” by Ludger Woessmann (2002) of John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The data used in the paper are sourced from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; 1994-1995) and the TIMSS-Repeat (1998-1999) covering 40 nations. They include performance data in both math and science for about 450,000 students, as well as background data on families, school resources and institutional setting for individual students, teachers and schools.
This study showed that “students in countries with central exit-exam systems perform 35 to 47 percent of an international standard deviation in test scores better in their middle-school years in both mathematics and science than students in countries without central exams.”
2. “The Effect Of Central Exit Examinations On Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence From TIMSS Germany” by Hendrik Jürges & Kerstin Schneider & Felix Büchel, 2003.
This paper makes use of the regional variation in schooling legislation within the German secondary education system to estimate the effect of central exit examinations on student performance. The study concluded that “students in federal states with central exit examinations clearly outperform students in other federal states” although they did qualify that part of the difference could be attributable to other factors.
3. “Are National Exit Examinations Important for Educational Efficiency?” by John H. Bishop (1999), Cornell University
Students in countries with national exit exams exams tend to outperform students in other countries in science, math, reading, and geography, when national economic development levels are accounted for.
A study of the elimination of the Swedish exit examination system in the 1970s, in combination with changes in the way university applicants were selected, also “appears to have led to a decline in the number of upper secondary school students taking rigorous courses in mathematics and science.”
This study covered extensively data sourced from (i) TIMSS, (ii) the reading literacy of 14 year olds in the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement's (IEA) Reading Study, Science, (iii) math and geography scores of 13 year olds on the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) for 16 nations and (iv) Science and math scores of 13 year olds in nine Canadian provinces.
4. “The Effect of National Standard and Curriculum-Based Exams on Achievement” by John H. Bishop (1997)
In this study, Bishop concluded that “our review of the evidence suggests that the claims of the advocates of standards and examination based reform of American secondary education my be right. The countries and Canadian provinces with such system outperform other countries at comparable levels of development.
This study also looked at the (i) TIMSS data, (ii) the International Assessment of Educational Progress 1991 covering 15 nations including England, Switzerland, Taiwan and Korea and (iii) the Canada IAEP 1990-91 with data from more than 1,400 schools.
Studies which provides contrary conclusions are few and far in between and often focuses on the negative impact of excessive stress on a student while accepting that a moderate amount of stress for the students is beneficial in terms of student achievement.
Given the above studies, I'll like to reiterate my earlier assertion that it is the nature of examinations and teaching methods which will determine the quality of student achievements and not the fact as to whether examinations are abolished.
Even if the UPSR and PMR is abolished, but the nature of the Form 5 SPM examination as well as the teaching methods and quality remains unchanged, then the student output from our education system will remain little changed from what it is today. In fact, the removal of examinations may disincentivise students, particularly from the lower income groups as well as from families with lower educational qualifications to fare worse than before due to the lack of uniform achievement standards.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Scrapping UPSR & PMR A Good Move?
The Ministry of Education must not be hasty in scrapping all examinations which will create far reaching consequences for our human capital development
Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had announced that the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examinations may be abolished as “part of government efforts to restructure the learning system that as seen as too examination oriented and failed to provide a holistic education.”
I would like to express our thanks to the DPM for also stating that “the ministry would not act in haste and wanted the public to give feedback to help improve the public examination system.”
I would like to urge extreme caution from the Education Ministry on the potential move to scrap examination despite the noble objectives to “avoid producing machines” as explained by the Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong.
I are in complete agreement that we should reform our education system to prevent it from “producing robots”. However, we need to first understand the cause of failure in our education system which isn't a result of having examinations per se.
Firstly, without first changing our teaching systems to encourage creativity, critical thinking and innovation, removing examinations will make little or no difference to the quality of education for our students. For example, if the quality and ability of the teachers remain unchanged, then quality of output will make little difference. Instead, because of the lack of a standardised assessment system, the outcome might actually deteriorate due to the lack of objective measures.
Secondly, the problem of studying for examinations and producing students who focus on memorising and regurgitating answers is in the nature of questions itself. Very simply, if the examination questions today are orientated towards memorised answers, then understandably, the students will be focused on memorising answers. However, if the questions are oriented towards challenging a students thinking skills, then certainly, the students will have little choice but to be more analytical.
For example, a question on history at PMR level may ask “What year did the Portugese conquer Melaka?”. In this case, the student has no choice but to memorise the year “1511”.
Alternatively, the question could ask “Why did Melaka lose to the Portugese?”. In this case, there's a greater element of subjectivity, but the students may still be able to a certain degree, memorise part of the answers.
However, if the question were to ask “Was it inevitable that Melaka would lose to the Portugese in 1511?”, then a student would have no choice but to evaluate the facts which he has in hand and provide measured answers as to whether the defeat was “inevitable”. Such questions would certainly encourage greater critical thinking for what we want isn't memorised facts but weighted opinions, for and against.
In addition, such subjective questions which demands critical thinking and analysis by the students will require equally trained teachers who understands the value of such analysis, with emphasis not just on whether the student got the facts right, but whether the student demonstrated their ability to think.
Therefore, we would like to emphasize to the Education Minister that the critical success factor to producing “thinking” students, as opposed to “regurgitating machines” likes with the teachers, the teaching system as well as the nature of examinations.
The proposal to scrap examinations is not the miracle cure to producing analytical students, and may actually produce negative and unintended outcomes on the average quality of Malaysian students.
Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had announced that the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examinations may be abolished as “part of government efforts to restructure the learning system that as seen as too examination oriented and failed to provide a holistic education.”
I would like to express our thanks to the DPM for also stating that “the ministry would not act in haste and wanted the public to give feedback to help improve the public examination system.”
I would like to urge extreme caution from the Education Ministry on the potential move to scrap examination despite the noble objectives to “avoid producing machines” as explained by the Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong.
I are in complete agreement that we should reform our education system to prevent it from “producing robots”. However, we need to first understand the cause of failure in our education system which isn't a result of having examinations per se.
Firstly, without first changing our teaching systems to encourage creativity, critical thinking and innovation, removing examinations will make little or no difference to the quality of education for our students. For example, if the quality and ability of the teachers remain unchanged, then quality of output will make little difference. Instead, because of the lack of a standardised assessment system, the outcome might actually deteriorate due to the lack of objective measures.
Secondly, the problem of studying for examinations and producing students who focus on memorising and regurgitating answers is in the nature of questions itself. Very simply, if the examination questions today are orientated towards memorised answers, then understandably, the students will be focused on memorising answers. However, if the questions are oriented towards challenging a students thinking skills, then certainly, the students will have little choice but to be more analytical.
For example, a question on history at PMR level may ask “What year did the Portugese conquer Melaka?”. In this case, the student has no choice but to memorise the year “1511”.
Alternatively, the question could ask “Why did Melaka lose to the Portugese?”. In this case, there's a greater element of subjectivity, but the students may still be able to a certain degree, memorise part of the answers.
However, if the question were to ask “Was it inevitable that Melaka would lose to the Portugese in 1511?”, then a student would have no choice but to evaluate the facts which he has in hand and provide measured answers as to whether the defeat was “inevitable”. Such questions would certainly encourage greater critical thinking for what we want isn't memorised facts but weighted opinions, for and against.
In addition, such subjective questions which demands critical thinking and analysis by the students will require equally trained teachers who understands the value of such analysis, with emphasis not just on whether the student got the facts right, but whether the student demonstrated their ability to think.
Therefore, we would like to emphasize to the Education Minister that the critical success factor to producing “thinking” students, as opposed to “regurgitating machines” likes with the teachers, the teaching system as well as the nature of examinations.
The proposal to scrap examinations is not the miracle cure to producing analytical students, and may actually produce negative and unintended outcomes on the average quality of Malaysian students.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Budget Cuts Eats In
In my "political life", one of my key themes is the fact that the Government is out of cash, and is desperately trying to raise funds via various forms of taxes, as well as sales of assets. However, the clearest indication of the shortfall of funds has to be the ridiculous nature of some of the budget tightening process at our Ministries.
It raises the question as to whether the Government knows what it is doing and whether it is just being penny wise and pound foolish. Officials appear to be concentrating on minor cost cuts eating into essential expenditure, instead of the big ticket items which are often wasteful, and are the real culprits to wasteful expenditure.
The opinion by former chief news editor of NTV7 and 8TV with regards to the cuts in our local boarding schools highlights the ridiculousness of the situation. Excerpts of his article are as follows.
Of schools, hostels and tight budget
...After the few early callers, a lady who was put on air. But instead of commenting on the topic she went on to say that her children who were studying in a boarding school have been told to go home every weekend. Reason being, the school (which she did not name) could no longer provide meals for the students during weekends.
Apparently, the days of giving hostel students meals seven days a week are gone. Why? Well the lady claimed she was told that the school’s annual budget had been slashed. Meaning the school is running on less money.
[...]
It raises the question as to whether the Government knows what it is doing and whether it is just being penny wise and pound foolish. Officials appear to be concentrating on minor cost cuts eating into essential expenditure, instead of the big ticket items which are often wasteful, and are the real culprits to wasteful expenditure.
The opinion by former chief news editor of NTV7 and 8TV with regards to the cuts in our local boarding schools highlights the ridiculousness of the situation. Excerpts of his article are as follows.
Of schools, hostels and tight budget
...After the few early callers, a lady who was put on air. But instead of commenting on the topic she went on to say that her children who were studying in a boarding school have been told to go home every weekend. Reason being, the school (which she did not name) could no longer provide meals for the students during weekends.
Apparently, the days of giving hostel students meals seven days a week are gone. Why? Well the lady claimed she was told that the school’s annual budget had been slashed. Meaning the school is running on less money.
[...]
But it did not stop there. Several calls later, another listener called in to say that at the hostel his son was staying, students now had to do group study sessions in the canteen. They used to study in classrooms but not anymore. The lights in the classrooms are now switched off. Reason? Apparently to save on electricity bills, i.e., cut costs, i.e., austerity drive.
[...]
[...]
Over the weekend I bumped into an acquaintance who happened to be a hostel warden. He is a school teacher but, as warden, he is additionally tasked with looking after the well-being and security of students staying in his school’s hostel.
I asked him if it was true that students are now required to go home on weekends.
“Yes,” he said. Initially, all students were instructed to leave for home on weekends, he added, but the ministry then decided the go-home move could not be made mandatory. So students are “advised’ to go home on weekends. Most students do so, he said. Wonder why?
“Why this ‘nasihat’?” I asked. Why has it come to this?
“No money” was his reply. Well, not exactly “no money” but, rather, limited funds. Put simply schools are operating on tight budget.
[...]
I asked him if it was true that students are now required to go home on weekends.
“Yes,” he said. Initially, all students were instructed to leave for home on weekends, he added, but the ministry then decided the go-home move could not be made mandatory. So students are “advised’ to go home on weekends. Most students do so, he said. Wonder why?
“Why this ‘nasihat’?” I asked. Why has it come to this?
“No money” was his reply. Well, not exactly “no money” but, rather, limited funds. Put simply schools are operating on tight budget.
[...]
Parents, coaches, teachers, students – many people are angry. Rightly so. The consequences of the budget cut are dire and many. We all know it, all too well. There’s no need to repeat ourselves. Suffice for me to ask again: “How come?” Why no money?
Then, there’s the 2008 Auditor General’s report highlighted by The Malay Mail recently. The AG report said the Education Ministry paid RM250 for each of six peacock flowers for a school. The market price for the plant is RM30.
The report went on to reveal the ministry had spent RM57,493 for the supply, sowing, gardening and maintenance of flowers and trees for the same school – 880 per cent higher than the most expensive quote available from local nurseries.
And it was reported also that the ministry had replaced doors in two schools at prices 56 per cent to 64 per cent higher than figures quoted by the Works Ministry.
Then there was the RM480 paid for a door when the Works Ministry quoted RM272.70.
There are more examples, of course. But enough said, lest our hearts ache further.
But I ask – why the big spending? How come there’s money to spend?
[...]
Then, there’s the 2008 Auditor General’s report highlighted by The Malay Mail recently. The AG report said the Education Ministry paid RM250 for each of six peacock flowers for a school. The market price for the plant is RM30.
The report went on to reveal the ministry had spent RM57,493 for the supply, sowing, gardening and maintenance of flowers and trees for the same school – 880 per cent higher than the most expensive quote available from local nurseries.
And it was reported also that the ministry had replaced doors in two schools at prices 56 per cent to 64 per cent higher than figures quoted by the Works Ministry.
Then there was the RM480 paid for a door when the Works Ministry quoted RM272.70.
There are more examples, of course. But enough said, lest our hearts ache further.
But I ask – why the big spending? How come there’s money to spend?
[...]
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A Student's Perspective on Semesters for Form 6
One of my friends, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a response to the lower six student's letter which Tony recently posted. Rajan, himself an alumnus of form six, said most of what I want to say about the issue, and I recommend reading it—this is perhaps the most incisive part of the piece:
As Rajan says himself, a lot of the people criticising the writer for their ostensible lousy time management probably didn't do STPM. I didn't do it either, but everything I know about it suggests that it is absolutely not a walk in the park.
In the first place, how does the school environment the writer describes train you to manage your time better? The writer is in school from 7.30am to 4pm, which is longer than the typical 9-to-5 workday. Even assuming most Malaysians work longer hours than that, it is unusual for people to bring work home with them and work at home.
Because our schools are so inferior, a lot of Malaysians now attend tuition classes outside school. Most lower six students will have even less time to attend tuition now. And even assuming there isn't tuition, most students will be studying in their spare time, especially for an exam like the STPM.
If you work it out, students operating under this new scheme will have basically little to no free time. What time is there to manage then, if you have to devote all of it to your studies?
A lot of the issues the writer mentions don't exist for pre-university students in other streams, because you tend to get a choice of what (if any) extracurricular activities to participate in, and have more spare time during the day. That's where time management is actually relevant.
Now, the writer obviously is rolling out a laundry list of problems with the school that to other people probably seem a bit ludicrous. Complaints about skin cancer and mamak food are relatively trivial compared to the other points the writer raises. But as Tony said, he or she is a 17-year-old, and in my experience, these complaints are almost ubiquitous amongst students of this age in school. Let's not focus on the trivialities of the writer's complaint: the real issue is that the Education Ministry is rolling out a poorly-thought-out plan, using the entire nation as its guinea pig — and on the face of it, the idea is ridiculous, because it means students are in school for longer than many adult workers.
If the Ministry of Education really wanted to move to a semester-based, coursework-heavy system, the better policy is to increase enrolment of non-Bumiputras in matriculation programs (though matriculation and Form Six are under different ministries). The cynic in me points out that would defeat the purpose of the dual-track system in Malaysia: as a tool of stealthish discrimination.I want to tackle something else instead: the issue of time management.
As Rajan says himself, a lot of the people criticising the writer for their ostensible lousy time management probably didn't do STPM. I didn't do it either, but everything I know about it suggests that it is absolutely not a walk in the park.
In the first place, how does the school environment the writer describes train you to manage your time better? The writer is in school from 7.30am to 4pm, which is longer than the typical 9-to-5 workday. Even assuming most Malaysians work longer hours than that, it is unusual for people to bring work home with them and work at home.
Because our schools are so inferior, a lot of Malaysians now attend tuition classes outside school. Most lower six students will have even less time to attend tuition now. And even assuming there isn't tuition, most students will be studying in their spare time, especially for an exam like the STPM.
If you work it out, students operating under this new scheme will have basically little to no free time. What time is there to manage then, if you have to devote all of it to your studies?
A lot of the issues the writer mentions don't exist for pre-university students in other streams, because you tend to get a choice of what (if any) extracurricular activities to participate in, and have more spare time during the day. That's where time management is actually relevant.
Now, the writer obviously is rolling out a laundry list of problems with the school that to other people probably seem a bit ludicrous. Complaints about skin cancer and mamak food are relatively trivial compared to the other points the writer raises. But as Tony said, he or she is a 17-year-old, and in my experience, these complaints are almost ubiquitous amongst students of this age in school. Let's not focus on the trivialities of the writer's complaint: the real issue is that the Education Ministry is rolling out a poorly-thought-out plan, using the entire nation as its guinea pig — and on the face of it, the idea is ridiculous, because it means students are in school for longer than many adult workers.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
New "Semester" Scheme For Form 6?
I've received the following complaint from a Form 6 student. I don't agree with the bits which said some of the activities are a "waste of time", but the concern over long school hours is very valid. When commenting, please remember that the writer is a 17-year-old.
I am a lower 6 student. A new system has recently been implemented in all schools with Form Six classes throughout the country. All Lower Six classes from 2009 will have to stay back until 4pm. This new system started in my school in early July.
I found out from the teachers that this batch (2009/2010) was used to try out the suitability of the semester-based system to be implemented in schools in the future. Unfortunately for us, our exams are still not semester-based.
Staying back till 4pm means we, Lower Six students will not have a chance to participate in the extra-curricular activities as all the club and uniformed body meetings are held after 1pm. What about our co-curriculum marks? We were told that 10% of the overall criteria to enter local universities is from our involvement in co-curricular activities.
Before this new system was implemented, we all could go for our co-curricular activities. With the new system in place, we are forced to stay back and could not involve ourself in such activities as the timing will clash with us as most activities are held after school. While co-curricular activities make up 10% of our total STPM grades, I strongly believe there must be other alternatives. I don’t think a person who has four distinctions, but without any co-curricular achievements will be selected to enter a local university.
So, why should we stay until 4 o’clock seen that such things we are doing now are no contribute any marks to our STPM?
The new system is a complete waste of time. The new system requires students to stay back after school until 4pm for activities. But the activities organised by the school to keep students until 4pm is not a good idea. The extra time that we are required to put in in school is used for nonsensical activities such as making posters, doing sketches, preparing for presentations and proposals and doing research and development (R&D).
Besides this , some activities are really of no use to us. For example, during cocuriculum , we even told to prepare food, play on the field under the hot sun from 2.40pm - 4pm and planning how to decorate this school. I do not see the teaching and learning value here as these activities are a waste of time! In addition, some students hate it so much that they decided to skip school altogether.
I understand that this system is a part of the Education Ministry’s initiative in boosting the level of confidence and enhancing communicative ability among school students while doing presentation. But please be rational and reasonable. Ministry need to take cognizance that we are humans too. All of us need more time to study and staying back till 4pm is just too much on our plates. The moment we reach home, most of us will be dead tired. By the time we get home, we will be exhausted because we have been in school since 7.30am. Many of us would be too tired after coming back from school and just hop on to the bed into dreamland even if they wish to study.
Furthermore, not to forget the amount of assignments given by our teachers and we have to complete everything on time. By then we would be too tired to study. Preparing for presentations and projects requires a lot of our attention and time, so we will struggle to cope with our studies. Our main priority is still our studies! Without time to revise, how are we supposed to live our dreams of attaining a 4.0 score?
But forcing us to stay back after school will deprive us of the chance to revise our lessons. An ample amount of time is needed for us to carry out constant revision. However with the time constraints, there is certainly no time for us to study at home! Even if we do have the time, we would suffer from fatigue. The ministry fails to see the light that whatever there doing is in fact making our lives even more miserable, stressful and very depressing. Will this result in good achievement in the STPM exams? Definitely NO!!!
Many parents decided to send their children to Form Six as it is the cheapest route to universities. But now not any more. We have to fork out our own money for our lunch expenses. By right, if the Education Ministry wants to carry this out, they should at least think about giving lunch allowances to us. Now, parents will need to fork out additional expenses for their child’s lunch. Not everyone is well-to-do. In these times where money does not come easy, forking out extra money will be a burden to them as the overall house expenditure would have increased as well.
Another woe is that we are only given an hour for our lunch break before we begin our presentation; it is impossible for students to head home to have a home-cooked meal, take a bath and have a short break and then rush back to school before 2 o’clock. Most of us will not be able to eat at home as we are not living nearby. Therefore, students are left with no other alternatives but to patronise nearby mamak stalls for their lunch. Needless to say, food sold at mamak stalls can be unhealthy and unhygienic. And since the mamak stalls usually serves oily and non-nutritious food, the students are not benefiting at all as it make us feel lethargic. With the lack of nutritious food, how are we to maintain a healthy body to study hard and achieve good result in STPM?
On the other hand, transportation is a major problem for most of us. Our parents are not free to send us home. Left with no other immediate solutions in sight, we have to rely on public transport like buses. Taking the school bus at odd hours costs extra as it is inconvenient for the drivers. Some of us are not living nearby and thus, walking back home will be out of the question and too dangerous for us students considering the disturbingly high number of snatch theft cases across the country.
Besides that, prolonged exposure to the afternoon sun could lead to skin cancer. Do we want to wait till years later to find out that many of our future generation who took Form Six were to suffer from skin cancer because of this new system? It is undeniable that life in the sixth form can be pretty daunting and challenging.
Not only are the students disatisfied with this new system, the teachers are unhappy. They could not express their feeling as they could risk losing their jobs. Almost every teacher I have spoken to, too, did not agree with this new system.They feel that the time spent in school is way too long! Forget about the students, even the teachers are grumbling! Teachers and students alike are exhausted by the end of the day.So, how do we expect teachers to perform their best when they are tired? Needless to say, students too have a hard time concentrating in the hot and stuffy afternoon classes.It is not fair for the teachers who teach the Form Six classes for they have to stay back for longer hours compared to their other colleagues. Wake up! The new system brings nothing but stress and red tape.
I acknowledged that some authorities would advice us to quit form six if we despise or hate the system. However, as far as I concerned, we are totally not being informed about this 4pm-stay-back system until a few week after we enrolled. We are the victims and we got no other better options than form six but as a student, we have the right to protect our right and express our feeling. The system will continue to be part of our lives for next years. So, we need to change. There is no point “testing” as the Malaysian education system is not a playground or lab where future leaders were “tested” with new policies. We as the students are not “guinea pigs”. If we were to continue to “test” policies on our children, our education system will be seen as a joke in the international arena.
Last but not least, I only hope next year we can revert back to the old system where everyone can go home like normal or 1pm. I sincerely hope you will help us. Thank you.
I am a lower 6 student. A new system has recently been implemented in all schools with Form Six classes throughout the country. All Lower Six classes from 2009 will have to stay back until 4pm. This new system started in my school in early July.
I found out from the teachers that this batch (2009/2010) was used to try out the suitability of the semester-based system to be implemented in schools in the future. Unfortunately for us, our exams are still not semester-based.
Staying back till 4pm means we, Lower Six students will not have a chance to participate in the extra-curricular activities as all the club and uniformed body meetings are held after 1pm. What about our co-curriculum marks? We were told that 10% of the overall criteria to enter local universities is from our involvement in co-curricular activities.
Before this new system was implemented, we all could go for our co-curricular activities. With the new system in place, we are forced to stay back and could not involve ourself in such activities as the timing will clash with us as most activities are held after school. While co-curricular activities make up 10% of our total STPM grades, I strongly believe there must be other alternatives. I don’t think a person who has four distinctions, but without any co-curricular achievements will be selected to enter a local university.
So, why should we stay until 4 o’clock seen that such things we are doing now are no contribute any marks to our STPM?
The new system is a complete waste of time. The new system requires students to stay back after school until 4pm for activities. But the activities organised by the school to keep students until 4pm is not a good idea. The extra time that we are required to put in in school is used for nonsensical activities such as making posters, doing sketches, preparing for presentations and proposals and doing research and development (R&D).
Besides this , some activities are really of no use to us. For example, during cocuriculum , we even told to prepare food, play on the field under the hot sun from 2.40pm - 4pm and planning how to decorate this school. I do not see the teaching and learning value here as these activities are a waste of time! In addition, some students hate it so much that they decided to skip school altogether.
I understand that this system is a part of the Education Ministry’s initiative in boosting the level of confidence and enhancing communicative ability among school students while doing presentation. But please be rational and reasonable. Ministry need to take cognizance that we are humans too. All of us need more time to study and staying back till 4pm is just too much on our plates. The moment we reach home, most of us will be dead tired. By the time we get home, we will be exhausted because we have been in school since 7.30am. Many of us would be too tired after coming back from school and just hop on to the bed into dreamland even if they wish to study.
Furthermore, not to forget the amount of assignments given by our teachers and we have to complete everything on time. By then we would be too tired to study. Preparing for presentations and projects requires a lot of our attention and time, so we will struggle to cope with our studies. Our main priority is still our studies! Without time to revise, how are we supposed to live our dreams of attaining a 4.0 score?
But forcing us to stay back after school will deprive us of the chance to revise our lessons. An ample amount of time is needed for us to carry out constant revision. However with the time constraints, there is certainly no time for us to study at home! Even if we do have the time, we would suffer from fatigue. The ministry fails to see the light that whatever there doing is in fact making our lives even more miserable, stressful and very depressing. Will this result in good achievement in the STPM exams? Definitely NO!!!
Many parents decided to send their children to Form Six as it is the cheapest route to universities. But now not any more. We have to fork out our own money for our lunch expenses. By right, if the Education Ministry wants to carry this out, they should at least think about giving lunch allowances to us. Now, parents will need to fork out additional expenses for their child’s lunch. Not everyone is well-to-do. In these times where money does not come easy, forking out extra money will be a burden to them as the overall house expenditure would have increased as well.
Another woe is that we are only given an hour for our lunch break before we begin our presentation; it is impossible for students to head home to have a home-cooked meal, take a bath and have a short break and then rush back to school before 2 o’clock. Most of us will not be able to eat at home as we are not living nearby. Therefore, students are left with no other alternatives but to patronise nearby mamak stalls for their lunch. Needless to say, food sold at mamak stalls can be unhealthy and unhygienic. And since the mamak stalls usually serves oily and non-nutritious food, the students are not benefiting at all as it make us feel lethargic. With the lack of nutritious food, how are we to maintain a healthy body to study hard and achieve good result in STPM?
On the other hand, transportation is a major problem for most of us. Our parents are not free to send us home. Left with no other immediate solutions in sight, we have to rely on public transport like buses. Taking the school bus at odd hours costs extra as it is inconvenient for the drivers. Some of us are not living nearby and thus, walking back home will be out of the question and too dangerous for us students considering the disturbingly high number of snatch theft cases across the country.
Besides that, prolonged exposure to the afternoon sun could lead to skin cancer. Do we want to wait till years later to find out that many of our future generation who took Form Six were to suffer from skin cancer because of this new system? It is undeniable that life in the sixth form can be pretty daunting and challenging.
Not only are the students disatisfied with this new system, the teachers are unhappy. They could not express their feeling as they could risk losing their jobs. Almost every teacher I have spoken to, too, did not agree with this new system.They feel that the time spent in school is way too long! Forget about the students, even the teachers are grumbling! Teachers and students alike are exhausted by the end of the day.So, how do we expect teachers to perform their best when they are tired? Needless to say, students too have a hard time concentrating in the hot and stuffy afternoon classes.It is not fair for the teachers who teach the Form Six classes for they have to stay back for longer hours compared to their other colleagues. Wake up! The new system brings nothing but stress and red tape.
I acknowledged that some authorities would advice us to quit form six if we despise or hate the system. However, as far as I concerned, we are totally not being informed about this 4pm-stay-back system until a few week after we enrolled. We are the victims and we got no other better options than form six but as a student, we have the right to protect our right and express our feeling. The system will continue to be part of our lives for next years. So, we need to change. There is no point “testing” as the Malaysian education system is not a playground or lab where future leaders were “tested” with new policies. We as the students are not “guinea pigs”. If we were to continue to “test” policies on our children, our education system will be seen as a joke in the international arena.
Last but not least, I only hope next year we can revert back to the old system where everyone can go home like normal or 1pm. I sincerely hope you will help us. Thank you.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Pakatan's Education and Higher Education Cabinet Committee
Hot off the press. The following opposition MPs have been put on the cabinet committee for the Education portfolio: Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR), Che Uda Che Nik (PAS), Chong Eng (DAP) and for the Higher Education portfolio: Zulkifli Nordin (PKR), Salahuddin Ayub (PAS), Tony Pua (DAP).
I think it's high time that the Pakatan coalition formed its own version of a shadow 'cabinet'. Hopefully this will mean a more structured focus on the part of these MPs, especially those which have been allocated the Education and Higher Education portfolios.
These six MPs are an interesting and mixed bunch. Yusmadi Yusoff is a young, idealistic PKR MP for Balik Pulau in Penang and I've had the opportunity to interact with him a few times. He was a Hubert Humphrey fellow for a year here in the US and is a lawyer by vocation. I'm sure he'll bring fresh ideas and perspectives to his portfolio. Chong Eng, an experienced MP from Bukit Mertajam, is a fiery and passionate DAP MP. She's been very outspoken on women's issues as an MP. I hope that she will do more than just highlight the plight of Chinese and Indian schools but look at how the Education Ministry can do a better job, perhaps in examining how some of their policies may effect girls and boys differently. The gender gap is becoming more significant at the university level (in favor of women) and I think there must be some steps which can be taken at the pre-university level which can arrest this trend. I don't know much about Che Uda Che Nik from PAS except to say that he's the PAS MP for Sik, Kedah.
We're all familiar with Tony's work as the MP for PJ Utara and on this blog. Hopefully, being allocated this portfolio will free up some time for Tony to put forth some of his ideas on Higher Education in Malaysia. I'm sure he'll have an interesting time working with Zulkifli Nordin of PKR, MP for Kulim, who is more well known for his tirades against Sisters in Islam and for protesting the Bar Council forum on religious conversions, than for his view on Higher Education in Malaysia. Salahuddin Ayub, PAS MP for Kubang Kerian, was the former PAS Youth chief and is a seasoned politician. It will be interesting to hear his views on the state of Higher Education in Malaysia since I've not heard him speak on this before.
Hopefully, having these cabinet committees will increase the quality and level of debate in parliament especially when it comes to the Education and Higher Education portfolios. Congrats and all the best to Tony!
I think it's high time that the Pakatan coalition formed its own version of a shadow 'cabinet'. Hopefully this will mean a more structured focus on the part of these MPs, especially those which have been allocated the Education and Higher Education portfolios.
These six MPs are an interesting and mixed bunch. Yusmadi Yusoff is a young, idealistic PKR MP for Balik Pulau in Penang and I've had the opportunity to interact with him a few times. He was a Hubert Humphrey fellow for a year here in the US and is a lawyer by vocation. I'm sure he'll bring fresh ideas and perspectives to his portfolio. Chong Eng, an experienced MP from Bukit Mertajam, is a fiery and passionate DAP MP. She's been very outspoken on women's issues as an MP. I hope that she will do more than just highlight the plight of Chinese and Indian schools but look at how the Education Ministry can do a better job, perhaps in examining how some of their policies may effect girls and boys differently. The gender gap is becoming more significant at the university level (in favor of women) and I think there must be some steps which can be taken at the pre-university level which can arrest this trend. I don't know much about Che Uda Che Nik from PAS except to say that he's the PAS MP for Sik, Kedah.
We're all familiar with Tony's work as the MP for PJ Utara and on this blog. Hopefully, being allocated this portfolio will free up some time for Tony to put forth some of his ideas on Higher Education in Malaysia. I'm sure he'll have an interesting time working with Zulkifli Nordin of PKR, MP for Kulim, who is more well known for his tirades against Sisters in Islam and for protesting the Bar Council forum on religious conversions, than for his view on Higher Education in Malaysia. Salahuddin Ayub, PAS MP for Kubang Kerian, was the former PAS Youth chief and is a seasoned politician. It will be interesting to hear his views on the state of Higher Education in Malaysia since I've not heard him speak on this before.
Hopefully, having these cabinet committees will increase the quality and level of debate in parliament especially when it comes to the Education and Higher Education portfolios. Congrats and all the best to Tony!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thoughts on the university admissions process
A friend of mine, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a good blog post critiquing the Malaysian university admissions process. While I don't know enough about local universities to comment on many things he raises, there are a couple of points which I think are worth emphasising: the difference between policy in theory and policy in reality, and the importance of decentralising some decisions.
There are many illustrations of the difference between something in theory and something in practice, but Rajan's example of coursework is as good as any. In principle, adding coursework to the evaluation process for university admissions would be a good thing.
After all, a major problem with our education system is that it focuses a lot on examinations which only assess students at one point in time, and often encourage rote memorisation instead of actual learning. If you fall sick during exam period, it can dramatically change your life's course, because you might not get into the university you otherwise could, or not pursue the degree you otherwise would attain. And because the format and style of exams is so predictable, all you need to do is practice with enough exam papers from previous years to be prepared -- you don't necessarily need to understand anything on the exam (I have found that understanding too much can actually be detrimental to your marks in some Malaysian exams).
If we emphasised coursework more, then one-off incidents which might negatively impact your exam performance would matter less: you have a substantial amount of time to do your coursework. Because the key element of your coursework is usually a report on something you have researched, you actually learn something useful: you learn how to write academically, and you learn some basic research or factfinding skills.
That's the theory; the practical reality is something else altogether. When I was in school, nobody took coursework seriously. Or rather, they took it the same way they took an exam: they figured out the best way to game the system, and they did it. Everyone would Google their topic, and instead of writing up a report about it, they would plagarise the most relevant websites. If they were too lazy to do this, they would plagiarise from one another very openly -- there was no stigma to copying or cheating off someone else's work.
It's not that they were lazy; it's that they knew this was the most efficient way to get things done. Teachers don't really care if the material is obviously plagiarised -- to them the coursework system is often a burdensome imposition on them because they have to read through dozens, if not hundreds of reports. Students know this, so they intentionally put a lot of work into making their reports more burdensome on teachers. One teacher's son told me that he intentionally put lots of irrelevant diagrams and photos in his coursework because this would discourage the teacher from looking too hard at his work -- she would see he had obviously worked hard on the report, and give him high marks.
The problem with coursework is that it is an arbitrary, artificial system of evaluation imposed by the central government with little thought as to what the schools and teachers can do, and little thought for what universities want to see. As Rajan notes, our university admissions process is extremely centralised -- everything is boiled down to a couple of numbers, which are then fed into the government's system. The government then tells you what university you will attend, and what degree you will pursue.
Likewise, with coursework, the government tells schools how to grade students' work, and it tells universities how these grades must translate into admissions decisions. There is no room for a teacher to assess students in his or her own way, to try something different. Neither is there room for a university to assess students in a different way, such as through tailored interviews or personal statements.
Obviously, there are pitfalls to granting educators more autonomy. But I don't think there is any question that at the moment we err far too heavily on the side of ridiculous centralisation. The government has attempted to standardise the education system to an extreme, and the result is something easily gamed by the pretence of ability, instead of actual demonstrable results. The government needs to grant universities more leeway in making their admissions decisions, and at the same time experiment with giving schools more freedom in coming up with alternative methods of assessment.
There are many illustrations of the difference between something in theory and something in practice, but Rajan's example of coursework is as good as any. In principle, adding coursework to the evaluation process for university admissions would be a good thing.
After all, a major problem with our education system is that it focuses a lot on examinations which only assess students at one point in time, and often encourage rote memorisation instead of actual learning. If you fall sick during exam period, it can dramatically change your life's course, because you might not get into the university you otherwise could, or not pursue the degree you otherwise would attain. And because the format and style of exams is so predictable, all you need to do is practice with enough exam papers from previous years to be prepared -- you don't necessarily need to understand anything on the exam (I have found that understanding too much can actually be detrimental to your marks in some Malaysian exams).
If we emphasised coursework more, then one-off incidents which might negatively impact your exam performance would matter less: you have a substantial amount of time to do your coursework. Because the key element of your coursework is usually a report on something you have researched, you actually learn something useful: you learn how to write academically, and you learn some basic research or factfinding skills.
That's the theory; the practical reality is something else altogether. When I was in school, nobody took coursework seriously. Or rather, they took it the same way they took an exam: they figured out the best way to game the system, and they did it. Everyone would Google their topic, and instead of writing up a report about it, they would plagarise the most relevant websites. If they were too lazy to do this, they would plagiarise from one another very openly -- there was no stigma to copying or cheating off someone else's work.
It's not that they were lazy; it's that they knew this was the most efficient way to get things done. Teachers don't really care if the material is obviously plagiarised -- to them the coursework system is often a burdensome imposition on them because they have to read through dozens, if not hundreds of reports. Students know this, so they intentionally put a lot of work into making their reports more burdensome on teachers. One teacher's son told me that he intentionally put lots of irrelevant diagrams and photos in his coursework because this would discourage the teacher from looking too hard at his work -- she would see he had obviously worked hard on the report, and give him high marks.
The problem with coursework is that it is an arbitrary, artificial system of evaluation imposed by the central government with little thought as to what the schools and teachers can do, and little thought for what universities want to see. As Rajan notes, our university admissions process is extremely centralised -- everything is boiled down to a couple of numbers, which are then fed into the government's system. The government then tells you what university you will attend, and what degree you will pursue.
Likewise, with coursework, the government tells schools how to grade students' work, and it tells universities how these grades must translate into admissions decisions. There is no room for a teacher to assess students in his or her own way, to try something different. Neither is there room for a university to assess students in a different way, such as through tailored interviews or personal statements.
Obviously, there are pitfalls to granting educators more autonomy. But I don't think there is any question that at the moment we err far too heavily on the side of ridiculous centralisation. The government has attempted to standardise the education system to an extreme, and the result is something easily gamed by the pretence of ability, instead of actual demonstrable results. The government needs to grant universities more leeway in making their admissions decisions, and at the same time experiment with giving schools more freedom in coming up with alternative methods of assessment.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Compulsory Pass for English in SPM?
This is an open letter written by Mr Philip Yong on whether a pass in English language must be made compulsory at SPM level. I'm publishing it in full.
Open Letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Y.A.B. TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN MOHD. YASSIN
Dear Tan Sri,
I am writing this letter in regard to your question thrown to the public to discuss. The question on whether a pass in the English language should be made mandatory to pass the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).
Before I pursued my higher education at a private institution, for the whole of my schooling life I was enrolled in a local public school. Therefore with my eleven (11) years of experience in public institutions I think I am qualified to give my point of view of this what I would call as a highly significant issue.
Tan Sri,
Whenever I had an English language examination in school, I would score the subject with flying colours and I was indeed very proud of myself. But that was not until I pursued my higher education at a private institution. When I was told that I am required to take the subject in college, I was very reluctant to thinking that my proficiency of the language is above standard. I was furious but had to comply in the end. During my very first lesson, I finally understood why the institution insisted on us taking the subject. In simple words, the standard of English in public schools is definitely not on par with those in private institutions. Therefore, the first thing your Ministry should do is to review the standard of the language taught in public institutions.
In my opinion, I do not think that the English language is hard to master. If we go by the Malay proverb, ‘Melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya’ I believe it is achievable. In this state of reality, we should never teach our children to avoid the problem but should instead teach them tackle the problem. If their proficiency of the language is not up to par then their parents or even the government should do something to help improve it and not just lower the standard of language in the public institutions.
I would say that I am fortunate to be born into an English speaking family. If not I seriously think that my proficiency of the language would be much worse than how it is today. Although I agree that this is the role of the parents but the government is also accountable for this issue. Until this very moment, I do not agree that a pass in English should be made mandatory to pass SPM for a matter of fact that the level of English of many Malaysians are still not up to standard even for the very easy SPM. The government should first tackle the root of the problem which again is the proficiency of the English language of the citizens of Malaysia.
My point of view may seem very common but I believe it is what many ordinary Malaysians share. Until today, many of the issues mentioned above have been raised but still no actions were taken. Even if there were actions taken, I do not think those actions were of much help. Let me raise a point that we are a developing country. If as a developing country, our citizen’s proficiency of the English language is not up to par with the developed countries then how will we actually be able to achieve Tun Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020?
Tan Sri,
Last but not least, I sincerely hope that your ministry will look into these matters seriously. I thank you for your patience in reading this letter. My sincere apology if I had made any mistakes in my above writings. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Yong Kee Chung
www.philipyong.net
Open Letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Y.A.B. TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN MOHD. YASSIN
Dear Tan Sri,
I am writing this letter in regard to your question thrown to the public to discuss. The question on whether a pass in the English language should be made mandatory to pass the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).
Before I pursued my higher education at a private institution, for the whole of my schooling life I was enrolled in a local public school. Therefore with my eleven (11) years of experience in public institutions I think I am qualified to give my point of view of this what I would call as a highly significant issue.
Tan Sri,
Whenever I had an English language examination in school, I would score the subject with flying colours and I was indeed very proud of myself. But that was not until I pursued my higher education at a private institution. When I was told that I am required to take the subject in college, I was very reluctant to thinking that my proficiency of the language is above standard. I was furious but had to comply in the end. During my very first lesson, I finally understood why the institution insisted on us taking the subject. In simple words, the standard of English in public schools is definitely not on par with those in private institutions. Therefore, the first thing your Ministry should do is to review the standard of the language taught in public institutions.
In my opinion, I do not think that the English language is hard to master. If we go by the Malay proverb, ‘Melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya’ I believe it is achievable. In this state of reality, we should never teach our children to avoid the problem but should instead teach them tackle the problem. If their proficiency of the language is not up to par then their parents or even the government should do something to help improve it and not just lower the standard of language in the public institutions.
I would say that I am fortunate to be born into an English speaking family. If not I seriously think that my proficiency of the language would be much worse than how it is today. Although I agree that this is the role of the parents but the government is also accountable for this issue. Until this very moment, I do not agree that a pass in English should be made mandatory to pass SPM for a matter of fact that the level of English of many Malaysians are still not up to standard even for the very easy SPM. The government should first tackle the root of the problem which again is the proficiency of the English language of the citizens of Malaysia.
My point of view may seem very common but I believe it is what many ordinary Malaysians share. Until today, many of the issues mentioned above have been raised but still no actions were taken. Even if there were actions taken, I do not think those actions were of much help. Let me raise a point that we are a developing country. If as a developing country, our citizen’s proficiency of the English language is not up to par with the developed countries then how will we actually be able to achieve Tun Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020?
Tan Sri,
Last but not least, I sincerely hope that your ministry will look into these matters seriously. I thank you for your patience in reading this letter. My sincere apology if I had made any mistakes in my above writings. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Yong Kee Chung
www.philipyong.net
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A New Education Minister: More of the Same?
So our Prime Minister has reshuffled his Cabinet, and our new Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is now also our new Education Minister. Unfortunately, my sense of things is that this probably will not mark a significant change in direction for Malaysian education.
Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein didn't really turn things around, if you ask me; Kian Ming is impressed by his administrative competency and I would agree that he probably kept things from getting worse. But I think it is very hard to say that things improved under Hisham. The government took some very tentative steps towards tinkering with the school system, but nearly every complaint that held water five years ago is still valid today.
I am not optimistic about Muhyiddin because the Education Ministry seems to have become a political football; you often become Education Minister because you're expected to eventually become Prime Minister, and this certainly seems to be true in this case. There is still little sign that the government recognises what's wrong with our school system, let alone how to fix these problems.
The number one issue which Muhyiddin must address is that of teachers: they are overworked, underpaid, poorly trained, and mostly powerless. There is no incentive for bright people to enter the teaching profession, and even those who are selfless enough to serve barely earn enough to cope, especially in urban areas. Teachers are often expected to not only teach, but handle paperwork and take on administrative duties. Yet, they barely get much training, and they are so shackled by the system that they are assigned to posts that make no sense; it is unusually common for a science teacher to wind up teaching history, for example. Fortunately, this is beside the point, because teachers have no power to determine the curriculum; what they teach has already been decided by a handful of bureaucrats and Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka textbook authors, and they are just responsible for vomiting up whatever these people want them to say, so their pupils can dutifully do the same on their exams.
There are a lot of other wrong things with our education system, but all my experiences in the school system point to teaching as the main problem: we aren't treating our teachers right. And when we don't properly treat these mature adults who we actually pay to be in school, is it really surprising that we often treat our students and youth even worse? We have good teachers, but we don't trust them to teach. We have good students, but we don't trust them to learn. Is it then surprising that so few people in our schools want to teach or learn?
When you empower the good teachers, you also empower the good students. I just finished watching this fantastic lecture on molecular biology which illustrates this perfectly; the speaker is a Princeton University biologist who not only loves her field, but lectures clearly and explains obscure concepts in a simple way. And if you watch the whole way through, she gives credit to all the students who work in her lab, because everything she presented was first discovered by one of them: "when you learn things like about how the natural world works ... it was done by a child. Science is done by that demographic."
It is hard to imagine a Malaysian academic saying something like that, and that says a lot about the way we think about education. We have trouble with giving academics freedom, and we have trouble with giving students freedom. This is unquestionably true in primary and secondary school, where the curriculum is completely dictated by the state and federal governments, but almost as true in our universities, where faculty and students are less free to speak their minds than any ordinary member of the public.
When you get to the heart of it, the problem with Malaysian education is that we are afraid of setting our people free, to explore our world. The attitude of our modern education system and our modern education policymakers is that minds are something to be controlled, not freed. And for all the talk of reform on the part of our new Prime Minister — and even his two predecessors, both of whom promised scores of reforms in their own times — none have dared address this problem which cuts to the core of the rotten apple that is our education system. Certainly, the new Education Minister is no exception to this rule. Until someone in government recognises this, I will have a very tough time believing there will be any kind of meaningful change in our school system.
Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein didn't really turn things around, if you ask me; Kian Ming is impressed by his administrative competency and I would agree that he probably kept things from getting worse. But I think it is very hard to say that things improved under Hisham. The government took some very tentative steps towards tinkering with the school system, but nearly every complaint that held water five years ago is still valid today.
I am not optimistic about Muhyiddin because the Education Ministry seems to have become a political football; you often become Education Minister because you're expected to eventually become Prime Minister, and this certainly seems to be true in this case. There is still little sign that the government recognises what's wrong with our school system, let alone how to fix these problems.
The number one issue which Muhyiddin must address is that of teachers: they are overworked, underpaid, poorly trained, and mostly powerless. There is no incentive for bright people to enter the teaching profession, and even those who are selfless enough to serve barely earn enough to cope, especially in urban areas. Teachers are often expected to not only teach, but handle paperwork and take on administrative duties. Yet, they barely get much training, and they are so shackled by the system that they are assigned to posts that make no sense; it is unusually common for a science teacher to wind up teaching history, for example. Fortunately, this is beside the point, because teachers have no power to determine the curriculum; what they teach has already been decided by a handful of bureaucrats and Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka textbook authors, and they are just responsible for vomiting up whatever these people want them to say, so their pupils can dutifully do the same on their exams.
There are a lot of other wrong things with our education system, but all my experiences in the school system point to teaching as the main problem: we aren't treating our teachers right. And when we don't properly treat these mature adults who we actually pay to be in school, is it really surprising that we often treat our students and youth even worse? We have good teachers, but we don't trust them to teach. We have good students, but we don't trust them to learn. Is it then surprising that so few people in our schools want to teach or learn?
When you empower the good teachers, you also empower the good students. I just finished watching this fantastic lecture on molecular biology which illustrates this perfectly; the speaker is a Princeton University biologist who not only loves her field, but lectures clearly and explains obscure concepts in a simple way. And if you watch the whole way through, she gives credit to all the students who work in her lab, because everything she presented was first discovered by one of them: "when you learn things like about how the natural world works ... it was done by a child. Science is done by that demographic."
It is hard to imagine a Malaysian academic saying something like that, and that says a lot about the way we think about education. We have trouble with giving academics freedom, and we have trouble with giving students freedom. This is unquestionably true in primary and secondary school, where the curriculum is completely dictated by the state and federal governments, but almost as true in our universities, where faculty and students are less free to speak their minds than any ordinary member of the public.
When you get to the heart of it, the problem with Malaysian education is that we are afraid of setting our people free, to explore our world. The attitude of our modern education system and our modern education policymakers is that minds are something to be controlled, not freed. And for all the talk of reform on the part of our new Prime Minister — and even his two predecessors, both of whom promised scores of reforms in their own times — none have dared address this problem which cuts to the core of the rotten apple that is our education system. Certainly, the new Education Minister is no exception to this rule. Until someone in government recognises this, I will have a very tough time believing there will be any kind of meaningful change in our school system.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What's in a name?
I wasn't even aware that Victoria Institution or VI had changed its name to Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Victoria until I read this article in the Star which reported that VI has gotten back its old name - VI.
It reminded me of the time when I heard that some idiots in the MOE wanted to change the name of my alma mater, La Salle PJ, to Sekolah Menangah Jalan Chantek. This was some time back. This suggestion was greeted with howls of protests from the old boys and I'm very glad that it was never carried out. I'm guessing that some idiotic civil servants in MOE thought that they could get away with this name change by retaining the name Victoria in the 'new' name. I'm guessing that the VI old boys network and the VI PTA had something to do with getting the old name back.
Is it important to retain the names of schools such as VI or La Salle or St Edwards or Penang Free or St Xavier's? Aren't they reminders of a colonial past which we should abandon as we move forward as a free and independent country that should shake ourselves from our colonial shackles? I think this is a bit of overkill. I think that it's part of the overall strategy within the Malaysian government that seeks to 'erase' the past so that the 'victors' can rewrite history and refashion the country in a form more befitting to what they think the country should look like - bland and monolithic. Before you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, remember that things don't happen by accident in Malaysia, even if many of us think that many parts of the Malaysian civil service are incompetent. Most, if not all, policy decisions are taken deliberately, usually with some agenda of 'nation building' behind it. Anyone remember what the former name of Jalan Maharaja Lela was?
Similarly, trying to change the name of La Salle into Sekolah Menengah Jalan Chantek was an attempt by the MOE to get rid of any sign or vestige of the 'Christian' heritage that is associated with many of the top secondary schools in Malaysia. Some may say - so what? Will changing the name of a school result in the decrease in the teaching or academic standards of a school? Most of my friends would say that the academic standards in many of these former 'brother' and 'sister' schools have decreased since the Jesuit brothers and the nuns were 'eased' out of the administration and leadership positions in these schools. I would agree with them.
But being a La Sallian still means something, at least to the old boys. It represents a certain school spirit and standing up for certain values. If you take away that name, you take away what little association these schools still have with those values - values such as academic excellence coupled with social responsibility and camaraderie.
I'm not saying that only former 'brother' and 'sister' schools can have this kind of spirit and camaraderie. I know of many friends from Sultan Abdul Samad or Samadians, Bukit Bintang Boys School and SM Damansara Jaya (DJians) who are equally passionate about their old schools and being part of the old boys and old girls network. But if you change the names of these schools to something random (like a street name), I'm sure that many of the alumni from these schools would protest as well.
But being a La Sallian has value beyond these shores. You share certain traditions and norms with other people who have gone through a similar education experience in other Jesuit schools around the world. For example, I was surprised to find out through the TV that the Notre Dame 'Fight Song' is the same song as La Salle's school rally - Cheer Cheer and Courage Display, All you La Sallians join in the fray.
And of course, there's a brand name attached to a school as well. In Malaysia, La Salle, VI, St Joseph's, Bukit Bintang, Assunta, Convent Bukit Nanas, Penang Free, St. Xavier (in Penang and in Seremban), King Edward and St. George's (in Taiping), SMDJ and Sultan Abdul Samad (in PJ), Chung Ling (in Penang), VI and the venerable Malay College (MCKK) all have a certain 'shine' attached to them at least in the context of Malaysia. Change the name and you lose the 'shine' associated with the school that has been built up over many years. Wonder if any of the MOE bureaucrats would dare suggest that MCKK's name be changed to Sekolah Residential Kuala Kangsar or something like that?
Finally, changing a school's name will definitely have a monetary cost. Old boys and girls will not be so willing to contribute financially to a school. I for one would not feel compelled to make donations to a school called Sekolah Menangah Jalan Chantek as opposed to Sekolah Menangah La Salle PJ. I'm sure many old boys will feel the same way. If the bureaucrats want to take control of the school, they can have it. Just don't expect me to give anything come canteen day. (Wah, a bit emotional here) Also, one may lose some of the 'network' effects if the school name is changed. There are active La Sallian gatherings and networks all over Malaysia. I'm sure that one would feel less connected to future graduates if the names of all the La Salle schools in Malaysia were changed to whichever street they happen to be located on.
On an unrelated note, I was glad to read about how the PIBG in SMK Subang Utama (SMKSU) stood firm and invited old girl and former head prefect and now Subang Jaya state assemblywoman, Hannah Yeoh, back to her school for a gotong royong project. Her 'ban' from attending functions in schools in her constituency came apparently came from a directive from the MOE.
Okay, enough of my rants. Time for you guys to chip in with your comments.
It reminded me of the time when I heard that some idiots in the MOE wanted to change the name of my alma mater, La Salle PJ, to Sekolah Menangah Jalan Chantek. This was some time back. This suggestion was greeted with howls of protests from the old boys and I'm very glad that it was never carried out. I'm guessing that some idiotic civil servants in MOE thought that they could get away with this name change by retaining the name Victoria in the 'new' name. I'm guessing that the VI old boys network and the VI PTA had something to do with getting the old name back.
Is it important to retain the names of schools such as VI or La Salle or St Edwards or Penang Free or St Xavier's? Aren't they reminders of a colonial past which we should abandon as we move forward as a free and independent country that should shake ourselves from our colonial shackles? I think this is a bit of overkill. I think that it's part of the overall strategy within the Malaysian government that seeks to 'erase' the past so that the 'victors' can rewrite history and refashion the country in a form more befitting to what they think the country should look like - bland and monolithic. Before you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, remember that things don't happen by accident in Malaysia, even if many of us think that many parts of the Malaysian civil service are incompetent. Most, if not all, policy decisions are taken deliberately, usually with some agenda of 'nation building' behind it. Anyone remember what the former name of Jalan Maharaja Lela was?
Similarly, trying to change the name of La Salle into Sekolah Menengah Jalan Chantek was an attempt by the MOE to get rid of any sign or vestige of the 'Christian' heritage that is associated with many of the top secondary schools in Malaysia. Some may say - so what? Will changing the name of a school result in the decrease in the teaching or academic standards of a school? Most of my friends would say that the academic standards in many of these former 'brother' and 'sister' schools have decreased since the Jesuit brothers and the nuns were 'eased' out of the administration and leadership positions in these schools. I would agree with them.
But being a La Sallian still means something, at least to the old boys. It represents a certain school spirit and standing up for certain values. If you take away that name, you take away what little association these schools still have with those values - values such as academic excellence coupled with social responsibility and camaraderie.
I'm not saying that only former 'brother' and 'sister' schools can have this kind of spirit and camaraderie. I know of many friends from Sultan Abdul Samad or Samadians, Bukit Bintang Boys School and SM Damansara Jaya (DJians) who are equally passionate about their old schools and being part of the old boys and old girls network. But if you change the names of these schools to something random (like a street name), I'm sure that many of the alumni from these schools would protest as well.
But being a La Sallian has value beyond these shores. You share certain traditions and norms with other people who have gone through a similar education experience in other Jesuit schools around the world. For example, I was surprised to find out through the TV that the Notre Dame 'Fight Song' is the same song as La Salle's school rally - Cheer Cheer and Courage Display, All you La Sallians join in the fray.
And of course, there's a brand name attached to a school as well. In Malaysia, La Salle, VI, St Joseph's, Bukit Bintang, Assunta, Convent Bukit Nanas, Penang Free, St. Xavier (in Penang and in Seremban), King Edward and St. George's (in Taiping), SMDJ and Sultan Abdul Samad (in PJ), Chung Ling (in Penang), VI and the venerable Malay College (MCKK) all have a certain 'shine' attached to them at least in the context of Malaysia. Change the name and you lose the 'shine' associated with the school that has been built up over many years. Wonder if any of the MOE bureaucrats would dare suggest that MCKK's name be changed to Sekolah Residential Kuala Kangsar or something like that?
Finally, changing a school's name will definitely have a monetary cost. Old boys and girls will not be so willing to contribute financially to a school. I for one would not feel compelled to make donations to a school called Sekolah Menangah Jalan Chantek as opposed to Sekolah Menangah La Salle PJ. I'm sure many old boys will feel the same way. If the bureaucrats want to take control of the school, they can have it. Just don't expect me to give anything come canteen day. (Wah, a bit emotional here) Also, one may lose some of the 'network' effects if the school name is changed. There are active La Sallian gatherings and networks all over Malaysia. I'm sure that one would feel less connected to future graduates if the names of all the La Salle schools in Malaysia were changed to whichever street they happen to be located on.
On an unrelated note, I was glad to read about how the PIBG in SMK Subang Utama (SMKSU) stood firm and invited old girl and former head prefect and now Subang Jaya state assemblywoman, Hannah Yeoh, back to her school for a gotong royong project. Her 'ban' from attending functions in schools in her constituency came apparently came from a directive from the MOE.
Okay, enough of my rants. Time for you guys to chip in with your comments.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Teachers' Pay
I put up a short post on the Ministry of Education's reply to my question with regards to raising teachers pay and pay-scale here (in my PPE blog).
So for those interested in the reply, you can visit the other site. ;-)
So for those interested in the reply, you can visit the other site. ;-)
Monday, March 24, 2008
PMR dates changed again
Looks like the PMR dates are set to change again, this time to the end of October and early November instead of the middle of October and early November as reported earlier. I'm glad that they are announcing this now instead of a month before the actual PMR exams since this will give the Ministry ample time to prepare for the timely marking of papers. Hopefully, the dates won't be changed again!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
De-Cristianising Mission Schools? (II)
Here are some follow up reports on the blog post with regards to calls by Members of Parliament to remove all traces of non-Muslim symbolises and influence our national schools.
Parliamentary Opposition leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang has received reports of such actions in the following schools, and is awaiting reports of more. He has also called for the Minister of Education, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to respond as to whether such actions are encouraged by the Ministry, tacitly or otherwise.
Parliamentary Opposition leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang has received reports of such actions in the following schools, and is awaiting reports of more. He has also called for the Minister of Education, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to respond as to whether such actions are encouraged by the Ministry, tacitly or otherwise.
- St. David High School, Bukit Baru, Melaka, the cross had been replaced by a crown.
- Convent Girls School in Muar, Cross was replaced with a cresent moon on badge.
- Methodist Boys Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur
Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: …Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin menyentuh satu perkara tentang Kementerian Pelajaran iaitu sekolah-sekolah mubaligh seperti Convent, La Salle, Methodist dan sebagainya. Saya difahamkan Lembaga Pengarah di sekolah-sekolah iniAs some readers have suggested in the comments, the MPs should possibly call for the Government to stop sending scholars to foreign schools, particular those like Oxford and Cambridge as practically all of their colleges have a chapel within its compounds.
sebahagiannya ditadbir dari gereja-gereja di luar negara seperti di Vatican City. Saya juga difahamkan permohonan untuk membina surau di sebahagian sekolah-sekolah ini terpaksa mendapat kebenaran daripada Lembaga Pengarah yang mana Lembaga Pengarah ini sebahagiannya ditadbir oleh gereja.
Jadi amat memalukanlah, bagi diri saya, tentang pentadbiran sekolah-sekolah ini yang masih lagi dikawal oleh pihak gereja. Begitu juga saya difahamkan tentang iklim sekolah-sekolah tersebut, banyak ibu bapa Islam menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sana, mereka kompelin sebab ada kalanya sekolah dimulakan dengan lagu-lagu gereja. Ini saya tidak tahu benar atau tidak, tetapi ia apa yang saya dapat daripada ibu bapa sendiri tetapi yang jelas di sekolah-sekolah ini terpampang simbol-simbol agama. Saya rasa kecewa di dalam negara Islam, Malaysia ini, kalau saya pergi ke sekolah convent, ada terpampang patung St. Mary di depandepan sekolah convent...
Datuk Haji Mohamad bin Haji Aziz [Sri Gading]: [Bangun]
Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: Silakan Yang Berhormat bagi Sri Gading.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]: Ya, Yang Berhormat bagi Sri Gading.
Datuk Haji Mohamad bin Haji Aziz [Sri Gading]: Bagi saya sudah tidak terkejut, Yang Berhormat bagi Parit Sulong, cerita ini... [Disampuk] Bukan soal biasa. Soalnya kenapa boleh berlaku seperti ini? Satu. Hari Raya yang lepas, saya diberitahu oleh seorang bapa, waktu Aidilfitri disambut, sekolah jenis-jenis ini tidak ditutup. Terima kasih.
Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: Bukan sahaja patung, tetapi Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat pergilah, tengoklah salib Kristian diletakkan di depan-depan sekolah. Saya tidak faham Kementerian Pelajaran, adakah pegawai-pegawai tidak nampak atau memang dasar kita
membenarkan perkara ini. Walau bagaimanapun, saya sebagai orang yang bertanggungjawab kepada diri saya, agama, bangsa dan tanah air ini, saya menyatakan pendirian saya bahawa patung-patung ini hendaklah dirobohkan, salib-salib ini hendaklah dimusnahkan dan pengaruhpengaruh gereja di sekolah-sekolah ini hendaklah dihentikan. Begitu juga dana yang dikumpulkan di sekolah-sekolah ini. Adakah kita mendapat laporan? Kalau boleh kementerian mendedahkan dana sekolah-sekolah ini. Saya
difahamkan ada sekolah-sekolah ini juga ditaja oleh pihak-pihak gereja. Dana-dananya datang daripada gereja-gereja dan adakah pihak kementerian pantau sumber-sumbernya? Adakah audit-audit dilaksanakan?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Bad Apples
Datuk Noh Omar achieved international notoriety and placed Malaysia on the world map for public ridicule in November 2005 when he lambasted unhappy foreigners who were unhappy with the treatment they received in Malaysia triggered by the nude-squat incident. “If the foreigners think we are cruel, ask them to go back to their own country...” he said. He was then the Deputy Internal Security Minister.
After being chided by the Prime Minister, he argued that his remark was misinterpreted by the media and provided instead a qualified apology, “I openly apologise if the meaning of my comments was received negatively.” This was despite the fact that his remark was clearly recorded and shown on television.
However, instead of getting dropped as a deputy minister in the February 2006 cabinet reshuffle, he was rotated to be a Deputy Minister of Education. Very quickly, in September that year, he was at the centre of controversy once again, when he admitted in Parliament that there was no allocation at all for building new Chinese or Tamil schools in the 9th Malaysia Plan, despite the Ministry being accorded a record RM33.4 billion budget.
On Thursday last week, Noh Omar once again displayed his true colours in full view of the media and the public. When Selangor DAP chairman, Ean Yong Hian Wah submitted a fairly innocuous memorandum to the Deputy Minister with regards to violent conduct by a teacher in a secondary school on behalf of the abused student's parents, Noh Omar appeared to lose control of his faculties.
He verbally abused Ean Yong, crumpled the official memorandum and threw it away, before it was picked up by his officer. He accused Ean Yong and the DAP of interfering in a school disciplinary matter. Noh Omar even exclaimed at one stage that he will not handle any case referred via the party.
However, isn't it the responsibility of any political party, not just the opposition, to highlight the plight of the people, in this case a school which refused to take action against an abusive teacher to the relevant government officials? By refusing to accept the memorandum, Noh Omar has demonstrated his arrogance by prioritising politics over the concerns of the people.
Political parties and non-governmental organisations have regularly submitted memorandums of various issues to even the Prime Minister. These submissions are always met with decorum and respect even when opinions differ on the matters at hand.
Noh Omar's conduct is hence clearly unbecoming of a government official, much less that of a deputy minister. He was rude, crass and acted like a hooligan. The greatest irony is not lost on the people must be that he was given the responsibility to curb bullying and gangsterism in our schools!
It is high time for Pak Lah to clamp down on such un-ministerial behaviour not only be demoting Noh Omar come the next general elections, but to drop him as a candidate for UMNO altogether. Only then will Pak Lah demonstrate that the Government doesn't condone such actions and is serious about building a competent government with integrity and in touch with the people.
After being chided by the Prime Minister, he argued that his remark was misinterpreted by the media and provided instead a qualified apology, “I openly apologise if the meaning of my comments was received negatively.” This was despite the fact that his remark was clearly recorded and shown on television.
However, instead of getting dropped as a deputy minister in the February 2006 cabinet reshuffle, he was rotated to be a Deputy Minister of Education. Very quickly, in September that year, he was at the centre of controversy once again, when he admitted in Parliament that there was no allocation at all for building new Chinese or Tamil schools in the 9th Malaysia Plan, despite the Ministry being accorded a record RM33.4 billion budget.
On Thursday last week, Noh Omar once again displayed his true colours in full view of the media and the public. When Selangor DAP chairman, Ean Yong Hian Wah submitted a fairly innocuous memorandum to the Deputy Minister with regards to violent conduct by a teacher in a secondary school on behalf of the abused student's parents, Noh Omar appeared to lose control of his faculties.
He verbally abused Ean Yong, crumpled the official memorandum and threw it away, before it was picked up by his officer. He accused Ean Yong and the DAP of interfering in a school disciplinary matter. Noh Omar even exclaimed at one stage that he will not handle any case referred via the party.
However, isn't it the responsibility of any political party, not just the opposition, to highlight the plight of the people, in this case a school which refused to take action against an abusive teacher to the relevant government officials? By refusing to accept the memorandum, Noh Omar has demonstrated his arrogance by prioritising politics over the concerns of the people.
Political parties and non-governmental organisations have regularly submitted memorandums of various issues to even the Prime Minister. These submissions are always met with decorum and respect even when opinions differ on the matters at hand.
Noh Omar's conduct is hence clearly unbecoming of a government official, much less that of a deputy minister. He was rude, crass and acted like a hooligan. The greatest irony is not lost on the people must be that he was given the responsibility to curb bullying and gangsterism in our schools!
It is high time for Pak Lah to clamp down on such un-ministerial behaviour not only be demoting Noh Omar come the next general elections, but to drop him as a candidate for UMNO altogether. Only then will Pak Lah demonstrate that the Government doesn't condone such actions and is serious about building a competent government with integrity and in touch with the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)