The Malaysian government appears to be finally lookiing to recognising qualifications from the top 2 universities in China - Peking and Tsinghua University. It was reported in various local dailies last week that the Cabinet has agreed "in principle" to recognise the academic qualifications of the two renowned universities.
Based on the global universities ranking by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), both universities are in the top 50 in the world. Peking University is ranked 14th while Tsinghua University is 28th. A separate ranking system by the Shanghai Jiaotung University, placed them in the 150th-300th bracket but still within the top 40 in the Asia-Pacific region. Note that the latter system had no Malaysian universities present in the Top 500.
Hence it has always been an anomaly that degrees from established Chinese universities are not recognised by the Malaysian government. This is despite the fact that Malaysia is fairly liberal in giving recognition to much lesser universities from developing countries. For example in the medical profession, degrees from Uganda, Burma, Pakistan and Iraq are given recognition.
Anyway, it's always better late than never, and we wait to see when the "in-principle" approval gets actually "approved". ;)
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
'Pool of Doom'?
Ah, finally our Minister of Education recognises the fact that blueprints, however pretty, will be nothing more than just a blueprint, if it isn't implemented accordingly via our delivery system. After comments by various parties, including for director-generals of the Ministry of Education, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein released a warning to education officers and teachers that they will be left in a "pool of doom", if the new National Education Blueprint isn't implemented well.
There are two "critical success factors" for such a policy. Firstly, the punishment must be a sufficient deterrent to other potential wrong-doers from committing the same offences. Secondly, there must be clear guidelines on what constitute such offences against national unity and national education interests.
So is placing officers and teachers in a "pool of doom", as damning as it is made out to be?
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin stated that "[i]n our system, it is hard to fire someone. If I can’t sack them, they can stay in the pool until they retire." Now, will such a statement send fears down those who are prone to deviate from the objectives of our national education system?
First of all, it's an outright admission that there is practically nothing the Government can do to "remove" him from service.
Next he assured them that they can stay gainfully and economically employed, even if they are found guilty of breaching the interest of the nation. From this angle, the pool can hardly be labelled one of "gloom", isn't it? These guys will be able to live out the rest of their careers without the necessary responsibilities, and yet continue to collect their paychecks. I'm not even sure if that isn't actually an incentive for these officers and teachers to ensure that the blueprint doesn't get implemented!
This issue is clearly compounded and perpetuated by the fact that the teaching and civil service have become the dumping ground for the less employable graduates being churned out by our education system.
The second critical success factor is to have a clear and distinct guideline for these teachers and officers as to what is "can do", and what is "out of bounds". I've taken some time to read through the National Education Blueprint, particularly the key chapter on "Strengthening National Schools". Kian Ming has written recently on "national schools and national unity", and I plan to write one on "strengthening national schools".
But suffice it for me to say for now, that there are major gaps in the plan to strengthen national schools, despite national unity being one of the key thrusts of the blueprint. There was no mention of the critical issue of principals converting national into religious school wannabes. There was no mention of the need to strictly enforce a no-quota policy in national schools - after all, the top bumiputera students would have been sent to MRSM boarding schools.
Without such clear guidelines for the education officers and teachers, it can hardly be expected that they will necessarily implement policies in the interest of national unity and education system?
It is great that the Minister of Education recognises the need to whip his department officers and the teaching profession into shape. However, the "whipping" mechanism certainly still needs plenty of work to be truly effective.
“There is no place in our delivery system for those who don’t perform. If there is a need for us to create a pool to place teachers and officers who don’t perform, we will do so,” he said.I've written earlier on how there has to be penalties for officers to be "punished" for taking actions detrimental to national interests. The main reason for that is really to deter other wayward officers from doing the same. Hence it is a good that that the Minister has come up with this statement. The question then is, is it sufficient to work?
There are two "critical success factors" for such a policy. Firstly, the punishment must be a sufficient deterrent to other potential wrong-doers from committing the same offences. Secondly, there must be clear guidelines on what constitute such offences against national unity and national education interests.
So is placing officers and teachers in a "pool of doom", as damning as it is made out to be?
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin stated that "[i]n our system, it is hard to fire someone. If I can’t sack them, they can stay in the pool until they retire." Now, will such a statement send fears down those who are prone to deviate from the objectives of our national education system?
First of all, it's an outright admission that there is practically nothing the Government can do to "remove" him from service.
Next he assured them that they can stay gainfully and economically employed, even if they are found guilty of breaching the interest of the nation. From this angle, the pool can hardly be labelled one of "gloom", isn't it? These guys will be able to live out the rest of their careers without the necessary responsibilities, and yet continue to collect their paychecks. I'm not even sure if that isn't actually an incentive for these officers and teachers to ensure that the blueprint doesn't get implemented!
This issue is clearly compounded and perpetuated by the fact that the teaching and civil service have become the dumping ground for the less employable graduates being churned out by our education system.
The second critical success factor is to have a clear and distinct guideline for these teachers and officers as to what is "can do", and what is "out of bounds". I've taken some time to read through the National Education Blueprint, particularly the key chapter on "Strengthening National Schools". Kian Ming has written recently on "national schools and national unity", and I plan to write one on "strengthening national schools".
But suffice it for me to say for now, that there are major gaps in the plan to strengthen national schools, despite national unity being one of the key thrusts of the blueprint. There was no mention of the critical issue of principals converting national into religious school wannabes. There was no mention of the need to strictly enforce a no-quota policy in national schools - after all, the top bumiputera students would have been sent to MRSM boarding schools.
Without such clear guidelines for the education officers and teachers, it can hardly be expected that they will necessarily implement policies in the interest of national unity and education system?
It is great that the Minister of Education recognises the need to whip his department officers and the teaching profession into shape. However, the "whipping" mechanism certainly still needs plenty of work to be truly effective.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
50 most influential blogs in Malaysia
Sabahan.com came up with a list of the 50 most influential blogs in Malaysia based on statistics from technorati.com. This blog is listed at no.43! Thanks guys for all your support (especially those of you who have links to our blog). Sometimes, Tony and I get swamped with work or don't have the material or energy or the inspiration to blog. It's the fact that we have readers out there who value our posts (whether or not they agree with us) and give us feedback that keeps us blogging. Thanks again!
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Good writeup on the JPA application process
Thanks to Chen Chow who wrote this comprehensive guide to applying for the JPA scholarship. You can read in on tinkosong.
National schools and National unity
This post is in response to some of the comments from my previous post on primary schools in Malaysia. I specifically want to address the notion that vernacular schools such as the SRJK(C) and SRJK(T) necessarily leads to less national unity (or more national disunity). This is probably going to be a longish post and slightly controversial. But I want to address this question by sharing some of my own experiences in a national school setting and how those experiences didn't exactly enhance my 'desire' for greater national unity. So please be patient and reserve your judgement until you've finished reading the entire post.
I attended La Salle PJ primary and secondary in the late eighties and I was there for 6 years of primary school and 3 years of secondary school before leaving to go to Singapore on an Asean scholarship (after Form 3). There was a good mixture of races at both the primary and secondary levels as is commonly the case in most national schools in PJ (Assunta, Sri Aman, Sultan Abdul Samad, Bukit Bintang, just to name a few).
At the primary school level, I mixed around with all the kids, regardless of race. I was probably closer to a few Chinese and Indian kids since many of them lived in the same area in PJ and our parents got to know each other. My brother was pretty close to our neighbors' kids, 3 Malay boys who went to La Salle, one of whom he's still in touch with fairly regularly. (We used to play sepak takraw and badminton together but I was usually left out because I lacked 'sporting prowess', to put it euphemistically). Issues of race didn't feature prominently at that age although we were always aware that there were differences between the races. The differences, by and large, just weren't salient enough at that age.
These differences were to become much more salient at the secondary level.
What I distinctly remember about the transition from the primary to the secondary level is that while the racial profile of the students didn't change sigificantly, the profile of the Malay students certainly did.
Many of the smart Malay kids at the primary level left the system at the secondary level for a variety of reasons. Some went to on to study at the prestigious MCKK (which is open only to Malay students, as far as I know) or other boarding schools which were open mostly to Malays only or they went overseas, usually to boarding schools in the UK (either on government scholarships or father/mother sponsorship or a mixture of both) and elsewhere.
Most of my Chinese and Indian friends who went to primary school with me also went on to secondary school with me. So any ties that I might have had with my Malay friends who had the opportunity to study elsewhere at the secondary level was severed and I was left mostly with the friends I was familiar with i.e. the Chinese and the Indians.
(My neighbor, who went on to become a director and chairman of a few listed companies, soon moved away to a bigger house and his sons left La Salle PJ at different stages at the secondary level)
My interaction with the Malay students at the secondary level can be largely divided into three typologies.
Firstly, the few remaining Malay students who were mostly middle class, spoke a substantial amount of English at home, and for some reason or other, chose not to leave the secondary school system in PJ for greener pastures elsewhere. I got along fairly well with this group given the similarities in background and interests and I had respect for them for their diligence and hardworking attitude. They performed well academically but were never in the top 10 or top 20 in the cohort rankings (out of about 350 or so in a cohort). The top 10 or 20 students were almost invariably Chinese or Indian students. (And I can say with some level of confidence that this was also commonly the case in many schools in PJ)
Secondly, the substantial group of Malay kids who were from the poorer parts of PJ (close to Taman Medan), clearly didn't speak much English at home (or elsewhere, for that matter) and performed so dismally in class that they often bore the brunt of our jokes when the exam marks were read out. (To illustrate this point, I still clearly remember the names of two consistently unperforming students, Hishamuddin and Nazri, who were happy if they obtained a mark above 40 for any exam. Their average was somewhere between 20 and 30 marks out of 100)
Thirdly, a significant minority of Malay kids who were from the asrama schools. They were mostly not from Selangor or from urban areas but were brought in from 'outstation'. They stayed in asramas (or hostels) which were 100% Malay, were very religious and were probably the most racist group of Malays out of the three groups I've classified. Some of my experiences with this group was so disturbing that I still remember the name and face of one of them - Syamsul - who used to spout hatred and stinging indictments on the non-Malays especially the Chinese. He would openly address the Chinese students with perjoratives (Cina makan babi and such) and would often instigate other Malay students not to join the non-Malays in any activities. He would often use religious language and justifications to slander the non-Malays. My suspicion is that a lot of this hate was probably encouraged, if not taught, by some of the residential advisors or 'ustazs' in these asramas.
So, where did that leave me?
In an environment where 'national unity' is supposed to be strengthened, I was faced with a situation where:
(1) The few good Malays (group 1) were consistently and significant outperformed by the non-Malays
(2) A large majority of Malays (group 2) couldn't speak decent English and had trouble passing exams on a consistent basis
(3) A significant minority of Malays (group 3) were being taught in their asramas or were in an environment where it was encouraged to denigrate non-Malays for religious and other reasons
Is this the national unity that some of our political leaders are talking about when they mention how vernacular schools are creating national disunity and how enrolment in national schools will lead to more national unity?
But still, I wouldn't necessarily call myself an ethnic extremist. I didn't and still wouldn't go around spouting ethnic extremisms and resort to public name calling and denigration. Till now, I always make an effort to get to know more Malay friends and to try to understand their culture, religion, background and struggles.
My experience up to the secondary level was such that I associated, to put it honestly, Malays with religious extremism and academic underperformance.
Things didn't get any better in Singapore given the smaller % and number of Malays in the country and an even smaller % and number in the schools which I went to. In a class of 40+ students in Raffles Institution, there were no Malay (or Indian) students. In a class of about 20 in Raffles Junior College, there was only 1 Indian student.
There was only 1 Malay Asean scholar in my batch (She's probably one of the smartest people I know and she later went to Oxford to read law and is currently a lawyer in one of the biggest practices in the world). The other interactions I had with Malays was on the sports field and in Malay class.
It was only at the university level when I re-encoutered Malay friends who were bright, articulate and diligent. There was (and still is) a large Malaysian contingent at the London School of Economics (LSE) and there were a number of outstanding Malays there (who shall remain nameless since they are or will be in positions of prominence and probably wouldn't want to be associated with me) whom I got to know.
I also visited Cambridge and Oxford on a regular basis and it was there that I got to know more Malay students including arguably one of the most articulate and smartest Malaysians whom I personally know - Adlan Benan Omar. I mention him in name only because he's relatively well known, especially among the Malay elite in Malaysia. I was told that he had memorized the Malaysian constitution by the time he was 13. He studied History in Cambridge and if you had an opportunity to engage him on an intellectual level, I'm sure you'd be blown away. (And he's pretty funny too!)
For all the criticism directed him (fairly and unfairly), Khairy Jamaluddin, that famous or infamous graduate of Oxford (Tony's alma mater) is tremendously sharp in his thinking, creative in his methods and as articulate as they come.
The number of smart and intelligent Malays whom I got to know (or know about) in Englad are just too numerous to mention so I won't. My time in the UK reversed some of the negative memories of my secondary school days.
When I returned to Malaysia from the UK, the workplace and the public space also afforded my many opportunity to interact with many Maly professionals whom I have utmost respect for. All of my Malay colleages in the Boston Consulting Group, KL, were top notch people, graduates of great universities and tremendously creative, bright and inspiring. Many of my Malay friends in PROMUDA, an association with young professionals are among the smartest and brightest in Malaysia.
My point is this - the fact that I went to a national school didn't really help me personally to get along with, not to mention, respect other races, primarily the Malays. I would probably only have gotten the desired interaction if people Adlan Benan Omar or Khairy Jamaluddin went to and stayed in the national school system.
Where did Adlan Benan Omar go to school at the secondary level? MCKK.
Where did Khairy Jamaluddin go to school at the secondary level? UWC in Singapore (only one of his stops since his father was a Malaysian diplomat).
Let me give you another example of an up and coming young man in the Malaysian political scene. His name is Nik Nazmi, an articulate and bright young man who graduated with a law degree from King's College in London and is currently active in opposition politics. You can read about his at this blog. He is an alumnus of La Salle PJ, like myself (except a few years younger) and was obviously an exceptional student. Where did he go after that? You guessed it - MCKK.
Let me state another point for further food for thought.
In all humility, I would probably say that most Chinese (or non-Malay) students who went to the national school system at the secondary level (and this would be almost all Chinese with the exception of those who attend the Chinese independent schools) would probably not have had the opportunity to interact with as many outstanding Malays as I've had, during my university and post university days.
How do you think they would feel about their secondary school and post secondary school experience in regards to 'national unity'?
Furthermore, consider this: I wasn't personally 'hurt' by many of the affirmative action policies in Malaysia. I managed to obtain a scholarship to study in some of the top schools in Singapore. I was lucky enough that my parents had saved enough to afford my an education in two great schools in the UK. I was lucky enough to obtain a couple of scholarships to pursue my PhD here in the US.
What about other middle class Chinese and Indian students who didn't have these opportunities? What would they have said when their Malay friends in secondary school went on to obtain government scholarships and places in desired subjects in public universities even as they were left by the wayside or forced to take less desired subjects at the public universities or go to the private colleges where again there is little interaction with other Malay students?
I distinctly remember the experience of bumping into a former La Sallian when I was back from my summer holidays while studying at the LSE. I was with two of my ASEAN scholar friends from La Salle at Stephen's corner, a mamak place in OUG just off Old Klang Road. (One friend was one year my senior at LSE, the other was studying medicine in Australia)
I can't remember the name of the former La Sallian but I still remember his face and what he said to us. In secondary school, he was slightly chubby, had a clean cut face and was very well behaved and quiet in class and was a diligent student. He was a good student but not a brilliant one. He would consistently rank in the top half of our class (between 10 to 20 in a class of 40) and would periodically crack the top 10. When we saw him sitting at a nearby table (this was 5 or 6 years after we had left La Salle in Form 3), we could hardly recognize him. His face was gaunt and thin and he looked as if he'd smoked too many cigarettes and had too many late nights. He looked at us with some level of recognition and we said hi and exchanged pleasantries. We asked him what he was doing and he told us that he was working in sales. (Keep in mind that the three of us were still in university at this time) I was slightly shocked since I assumed that he would be either a public university or a private college at this stage of his life (we all remembered him as a good student).
Then he said something to us that I remember to this day. He said, "Not everyone is lucky enough to go to university, like you guys".
I wonder to this day whether he was more bitter towards people like me and my two Asean scholar friends whose parents could afford to send us to universities overseas or towards the government for giving other people the chance to attend university despite them not doing as well as he did in school.
(In case it wasn't clear, the former La Sallian is a Chinese)
To end this post, I'd just like to use my own personal story to show that the notion that we can 'restore' national unity by abolishing Chinese and Tamil type primary schools is a myth that deserves to be debunked. I'm all for strengthening the national school system - improving the quality of teachers, making them less Islamic, better teaching of Pupil's Own Language (POL) and so forth. But unless many of the other entrenched institutions in this country (such as elite all Malay or almost all Malay secondary schools and boarding schools, inequalities in the allocation of scholarships and university places, and so on) are addressed concurrently with the issue of Chinese and Indian primary schools, we are being unfair in placing all or most of the blame on Chinese and Indian primary schools as the main cause for national disunity.
I'm sure many of our readers have their own personal anecdotes to share as well, perhaps from other cities or states (Kota Bahru, Batu Pahat, Penang), some negative, some positive.
I'm especially interested to know the views of our Malay readers who have either gone to all Malay schools boarding schools such as MCKK or to national secondary schools with a significant number of non-Malay students (mostly in urban areas) or even to the asramas (is hatred towards non-Malays something that is inculcated) since these are views which people such as myself (and many of our readers) are unfamiliar with. Let the comments begin!
I attended La Salle PJ primary and secondary in the late eighties and I was there for 6 years of primary school and 3 years of secondary school before leaving to go to Singapore on an Asean scholarship (after Form 3). There was a good mixture of races at both the primary and secondary levels as is commonly the case in most national schools in PJ (Assunta, Sri Aman, Sultan Abdul Samad, Bukit Bintang, just to name a few).
At the primary school level, I mixed around with all the kids, regardless of race. I was probably closer to a few Chinese and Indian kids since many of them lived in the same area in PJ and our parents got to know each other. My brother was pretty close to our neighbors' kids, 3 Malay boys who went to La Salle, one of whom he's still in touch with fairly regularly. (We used to play sepak takraw and badminton together but I was usually left out because I lacked 'sporting prowess', to put it euphemistically). Issues of race didn't feature prominently at that age although we were always aware that there were differences between the races. The differences, by and large, just weren't salient enough at that age.
These differences were to become much more salient at the secondary level.
What I distinctly remember about the transition from the primary to the secondary level is that while the racial profile of the students didn't change sigificantly, the profile of the Malay students certainly did.
Many of the smart Malay kids at the primary level left the system at the secondary level for a variety of reasons. Some went to on to study at the prestigious MCKK (which is open only to Malay students, as far as I know) or other boarding schools which were open mostly to Malays only or they went overseas, usually to boarding schools in the UK (either on government scholarships or father/mother sponsorship or a mixture of both) and elsewhere.
Most of my Chinese and Indian friends who went to primary school with me also went on to secondary school with me. So any ties that I might have had with my Malay friends who had the opportunity to study elsewhere at the secondary level was severed and I was left mostly with the friends I was familiar with i.e. the Chinese and the Indians.
(My neighbor, who went on to become a director and chairman of a few listed companies, soon moved away to a bigger house and his sons left La Salle PJ at different stages at the secondary level)
My interaction with the Malay students at the secondary level can be largely divided into three typologies.
Firstly, the few remaining Malay students who were mostly middle class, spoke a substantial amount of English at home, and for some reason or other, chose not to leave the secondary school system in PJ for greener pastures elsewhere. I got along fairly well with this group given the similarities in background and interests and I had respect for them for their diligence and hardworking attitude. They performed well academically but were never in the top 10 or top 20 in the cohort rankings (out of about 350 or so in a cohort). The top 10 or 20 students were almost invariably Chinese or Indian students. (And I can say with some level of confidence that this was also commonly the case in many schools in PJ)
Secondly, the substantial group of Malay kids who were from the poorer parts of PJ (close to Taman Medan), clearly didn't speak much English at home (or elsewhere, for that matter) and performed so dismally in class that they often bore the brunt of our jokes when the exam marks were read out. (To illustrate this point, I still clearly remember the names of two consistently unperforming students, Hishamuddin and Nazri, who were happy if they obtained a mark above 40 for any exam. Their average was somewhere between 20 and 30 marks out of 100)
Thirdly, a significant minority of Malay kids who were from the asrama schools. They were mostly not from Selangor or from urban areas but were brought in from 'outstation'. They stayed in asramas (or hostels) which were 100% Malay, were very religious and were probably the most racist group of Malays out of the three groups I've classified. Some of my experiences with this group was so disturbing that I still remember the name and face of one of them - Syamsul - who used to spout hatred and stinging indictments on the non-Malays especially the Chinese. He would openly address the Chinese students with perjoratives (Cina makan babi and such) and would often instigate other Malay students not to join the non-Malays in any activities. He would often use religious language and justifications to slander the non-Malays. My suspicion is that a lot of this hate was probably encouraged, if not taught, by some of the residential advisors or 'ustazs' in these asramas.
So, where did that leave me?
In an environment where 'national unity' is supposed to be strengthened, I was faced with a situation where:
(1) The few good Malays (group 1) were consistently and significant outperformed by the non-Malays
(2) A large majority of Malays (group 2) couldn't speak decent English and had trouble passing exams on a consistent basis
(3) A significant minority of Malays (group 3) were being taught in their asramas or were in an environment where it was encouraged to denigrate non-Malays for religious and other reasons
Is this the national unity that some of our political leaders are talking about when they mention how vernacular schools are creating national disunity and how enrolment in national schools will lead to more national unity?
But still, I wouldn't necessarily call myself an ethnic extremist. I didn't and still wouldn't go around spouting ethnic extremisms and resort to public name calling and denigration. Till now, I always make an effort to get to know more Malay friends and to try to understand their culture, religion, background and struggles.
My experience up to the secondary level was such that I associated, to put it honestly, Malays with religious extremism and academic underperformance.
Things didn't get any better in Singapore given the smaller % and number of Malays in the country and an even smaller % and number in the schools which I went to. In a class of 40+ students in Raffles Institution, there were no Malay (or Indian) students. In a class of about 20 in Raffles Junior College, there was only 1 Indian student.
There was only 1 Malay Asean scholar in my batch (She's probably one of the smartest people I know and she later went to Oxford to read law and is currently a lawyer in one of the biggest practices in the world). The other interactions I had with Malays was on the sports field and in Malay class.
It was only at the university level when I re-encoutered Malay friends who were bright, articulate and diligent. There was (and still is) a large Malaysian contingent at the London School of Economics (LSE) and there were a number of outstanding Malays there (who shall remain nameless since they are or will be in positions of prominence and probably wouldn't want to be associated with me) whom I got to know.
I also visited Cambridge and Oxford on a regular basis and it was there that I got to know more Malay students including arguably one of the most articulate and smartest Malaysians whom I personally know - Adlan Benan Omar. I mention him in name only because he's relatively well known, especially among the Malay elite in Malaysia. I was told that he had memorized the Malaysian constitution by the time he was 13. He studied History in Cambridge and if you had an opportunity to engage him on an intellectual level, I'm sure you'd be blown away. (And he's pretty funny too!)
For all the criticism directed him (fairly and unfairly), Khairy Jamaluddin, that famous or infamous graduate of Oxford (Tony's alma mater) is tremendously sharp in his thinking, creative in his methods and as articulate as they come.
The number of smart and intelligent Malays whom I got to know (or know about) in Englad are just too numerous to mention so I won't. My time in the UK reversed some of the negative memories of my secondary school days.
When I returned to Malaysia from the UK, the workplace and the public space also afforded my many opportunity to interact with many Maly professionals whom I have utmost respect for. All of my Malay colleages in the Boston Consulting Group, KL, were top notch people, graduates of great universities and tremendously creative, bright and inspiring. Many of my Malay friends in PROMUDA, an association with young professionals are among the smartest and brightest in Malaysia.
My point is this - the fact that I went to a national school didn't really help me personally to get along with, not to mention, respect other races, primarily the Malays. I would probably only have gotten the desired interaction if people Adlan Benan Omar or Khairy Jamaluddin went to and stayed in the national school system.
Where did Adlan Benan Omar go to school at the secondary level? MCKK.
Where did Khairy Jamaluddin go to school at the secondary level? UWC in Singapore (only one of his stops since his father was a Malaysian diplomat).
Let me give you another example of an up and coming young man in the Malaysian political scene. His name is Nik Nazmi, an articulate and bright young man who graduated with a law degree from King's College in London and is currently active in opposition politics. You can read about his at this blog. He is an alumnus of La Salle PJ, like myself (except a few years younger) and was obviously an exceptional student. Where did he go after that? You guessed it - MCKK.
Let me state another point for further food for thought.
In all humility, I would probably say that most Chinese (or non-Malay) students who went to the national school system at the secondary level (and this would be almost all Chinese with the exception of those who attend the Chinese independent schools) would probably not have had the opportunity to interact with as many outstanding Malays as I've had, during my university and post university days.
How do you think they would feel about their secondary school and post secondary school experience in regards to 'national unity'?
Furthermore, consider this: I wasn't personally 'hurt' by many of the affirmative action policies in Malaysia. I managed to obtain a scholarship to study in some of the top schools in Singapore. I was lucky enough that my parents had saved enough to afford my an education in two great schools in the UK. I was lucky enough to obtain a couple of scholarships to pursue my PhD here in the US.
What about other middle class Chinese and Indian students who didn't have these opportunities? What would they have said when their Malay friends in secondary school went on to obtain government scholarships and places in desired subjects in public universities even as they were left by the wayside or forced to take less desired subjects at the public universities or go to the private colleges where again there is little interaction with other Malay students?
I distinctly remember the experience of bumping into a former La Sallian when I was back from my summer holidays while studying at the LSE. I was with two of my ASEAN scholar friends from La Salle at Stephen's corner, a mamak place in OUG just off Old Klang Road. (One friend was one year my senior at LSE, the other was studying medicine in Australia)
I can't remember the name of the former La Sallian but I still remember his face and what he said to us. In secondary school, he was slightly chubby, had a clean cut face and was very well behaved and quiet in class and was a diligent student. He was a good student but not a brilliant one. He would consistently rank in the top half of our class (between 10 to 20 in a class of 40) and would periodically crack the top 10. When we saw him sitting at a nearby table (this was 5 or 6 years after we had left La Salle in Form 3), we could hardly recognize him. His face was gaunt and thin and he looked as if he'd smoked too many cigarettes and had too many late nights. He looked at us with some level of recognition and we said hi and exchanged pleasantries. We asked him what he was doing and he told us that he was working in sales. (Keep in mind that the three of us were still in university at this time) I was slightly shocked since I assumed that he would be either a public university or a private college at this stage of his life (we all remembered him as a good student).
Then he said something to us that I remember to this day. He said, "Not everyone is lucky enough to go to university, like you guys".
I wonder to this day whether he was more bitter towards people like me and my two Asean scholar friends whose parents could afford to send us to universities overseas or towards the government for giving other people the chance to attend university despite them not doing as well as he did in school.
(In case it wasn't clear, the former La Sallian is a Chinese)
To end this post, I'd just like to use my own personal story to show that the notion that we can 'restore' national unity by abolishing Chinese and Tamil type primary schools is a myth that deserves to be debunked. I'm all for strengthening the national school system - improving the quality of teachers, making them less Islamic, better teaching of Pupil's Own Language (POL) and so forth. But unless many of the other entrenched institutions in this country (such as elite all Malay or almost all Malay secondary schools and boarding schools, inequalities in the allocation of scholarships and university places, and so on) are addressed concurrently with the issue of Chinese and Indian primary schools, we are being unfair in placing all or most of the blame on Chinese and Indian primary schools as the main cause for national disunity.
I'm sure many of our readers have their own personal anecdotes to share as well, perhaps from other cities or states (Kota Bahru, Batu Pahat, Penang), some negative, some positive.
I'm especially interested to know the views of our Malay readers who have either gone to all Malay schools boarding schools such as MCKK or to national secondary schools with a significant number of non-Malay students (mostly in urban areas) or even to the asramas (is hatred towards non-Malays something that is inculcated) since these are views which people such as myself (and many of our readers) are unfamiliar with. Let the comments begin!
Monday, February 5, 2007
Bakri Musa's thoughts on the Education Blueprint
You can read Bakri Musa's blog here. I've reproduced his latest letter on Malaysiakini which raises some interesting points about the new Education Blueprint. Let us know what you think!
SEEING IT MY WAY, Malaysiakini Feb 2, 2007
M. Bakri Musa
Blueprint For Continued Mediocrity
When Prime Minister Abdullah unveiled the new Education Blueprint
2006-2010 (Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2006-2010) last month,
the Ministry of Education had already posted the entire document on its
website. That was a welcomed change, considering that the earlier
Education Blueprint 2000-2010 was soon made unavailable within only a
few months of its release. Those Ministry folks do learn after all.
Beyond that however, I am unable to discern any other improvement.
Poor Presentation
The report leaves much to be desired in its presentation. I had
expected an English version so I could assess the English competency of
ministry officials, but none was available. After all, if they expect
our students to master English, then these officials should at least
demonstrate their own competence.
Apart from the two forewords by Abdullah and Education Minister
Hishamuddin, there were no other introductions or acknowledgements.
The writers and contributors chose to remain anonymous. They must have
consulted numerous experts in making thse report, but you would not
know it. Now I know why; no one wants to get the blame for this shoddy
paper. There was not even an executive summary.
The first few chapters were devoted to general discussions on
education. Many of the ideas were definitely extracted from other
publications, yet there was no acknowledgments or references. This
omission of standard practice is unacceptable. Readers who may wish to
pursue a particular topic cannot look it up.
The report is full of data and figures presented in endless monotonous
tables. Many could have been better presented as bars, line graphs,
and pie charts. The authors were obviously “graphic-challenged.” Many
of the figures and data are presented without their proper context.
For example, the ministry proudly notes the increase in the number of
new schools over the years but fails to put that increase in
perspective. Did it match the population (specifically, the
enrollment) growth?
With the crowded tables, key figures and trends are easily missed, as
with the declining participation rates at all levels (except for
preschool) since 2000. This alarming trend would have been picked up
easily had the figures been presented as line graphs. As the trend was
missed, this important issue was not addressed. Had ministry officials
analyzed this declining participation rate, they would have discovered
that the figures for non-Malays in South Johore had declined even more
precipitously. These Malaysians have essentially abandoned our schools
for the more superior ones across the causeway.
The page layout has two columns, with one inexplicably twice as wide as
the other. At first I thought the narrow column was a summary, but it
was not. The rationale for this difference in column breadth escapes
me; it makes the layout visually distracting and irritating.
Long on Diagnosis, Short of Prescription
The report duly lists the obvious deficiencies of our schools. No
marks for that! The Ministry does finally acknowledge one salient
point: in education, one size does not fit all. This is true with
much of everything else, except perhaps with condom manufacturing!
The ministry wants to encourage “clusters of excellence,” but does not
elaborate on how to achieve that goal. In tandem with its
one-size-does-not-fit-all philosophy, the Ministry would like some
schools to offer the International Baccalaureate. I am all for that,
but then the report does not address the fundamental issue: Does that
mean that some schools can be English medium?
Where the report rightly identifies the problems, it offers the wrong
solutions. It acknowledges the declining quality of teaching and
suggests making the recruiting of teachers more rigorous. That is
putting the cart before the horse. The problem is more upstream.
Teaching no longer attracts the bright and talented for among other
reasons, the pay is lousy. Toughening the recruitment criteria would
do nothing to change that reality. The pay would have to be increased
substantially to make the profession competitive. Once you have a
surplus of applicants, then you could be choosy and have higher standards.
The report duly notes that non-Bumiputras are abandoning the national
stream. The government hopes to attract them back by offering
electives in Mandarin and Tamil. That however was not the reason they
are abandoning national schools rather that these schools have become
Islamic institutions, and thereby turning off non-Muslim parents.
Had Ministry officials conducted surveys, they would have discovered
this crucial fact. This brings out another weakness of this report:
it lacks empirical data and findings to support its recommendations.
Its recommendations have that seat-of-the-pants quality.
A major failing of Malaysian schools is the curriculum: too
examination oriented, emphasis on rote learning, and not enough
emphasis on science and mathematics. Thus one would expect the
Blueprint to have substantive recommendations on the matter. Instead
curricular reform would have to wait till the next blueprint on some
indeterminate future date. As an aside, it is pathetic that four years
after introducing the teaching of science and mathematics in English,
it is only now that the Ministry is assessing the English competency of
the teachers!
Ministry officials have obviously not learned from reform efforts
elsewhere. For example, Malaysia gives stipends so poor children can
attend schools. Why not tie it to actual school attendance, meaning,
you would get paid only if your children were in school, as with
Mexico’s Progressa program. Similarly, Chile offers many workable
models for private schools as well as for school-based management.
National Schools With Various Languages of Instruction
Malaysian schools are deepening instead of reducing the racial divide.
They are designed to appeal to racial identities. In my book An
Education System Worthy of Malaysia, I suggested that Malaysian schools
should instead focus on their language of instruction. Thus instead of
Sekolah Kebangsaan Jenis China (National-Type Chinese school), meaning
a school primarily for Chinese, characterize them as national schools
that use Mandarin as the language of instruction. That would
immediately change the focus. Such schools could then attract
non-native Mandarin speakers like Malays by for example, serving halal
foods and having Mandarin-speaking Malay (or at least Muslim) teachers
to serve as role models. There are millions of Muslim
Mandarin-speakers in China who would gladly teach in Malaysia. We
could also have French- or Swahili-Type National Schools, meaning,
schools using those two languages as their medium of instruction.
As for the obvious poor physical conditions of our schools (as
evidenced by double sessions), the report suggests nothing beyond
recommending more funds be devoted. That does not address the root
cause. Our schools are in such a poor state because the funds are used
less to improve the facilities more to provide jobs for favored
Bumiputra contractors. Apart from unnecessarily inflating the costs,
such constructions are often shoddy and dangerous, as attested by
buildings collapsing soon after their completion. Unless the tender
mechanism is revamped to ensure that only the most qualified and
efficient contractors get the job, we will never improve our school
facilities no matter how much money we pour on the problem.
The Education Blueprint preceding this one had a shelf life of only a
few months. This one would also be soon forgotten, and a good thing
too for this Education Blueprint 2006-2010 is nothing more than a
blueprint for continued mediocrity.
SEEING IT MY WAY, Malaysiakini Feb 2, 2007
M. Bakri Musa
Blueprint For Continued Mediocrity
When Prime Minister Abdullah unveiled the new Education Blueprint
2006-2010 (Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2006-2010) last month,
the Ministry of Education had already posted the entire document on its
website. That was a welcomed change, considering that the earlier
Education Blueprint 2000-2010 was soon made unavailable within only a
few months of its release. Those Ministry folks do learn after all.
Beyond that however, I am unable to discern any other improvement.
Poor Presentation
The report leaves much to be desired in its presentation. I had
expected an English version so I could assess the English competency of
ministry officials, but none was available. After all, if they expect
our students to master English, then these officials should at least
demonstrate their own competence.
Apart from the two forewords by Abdullah and Education Minister
Hishamuddin, there were no other introductions or acknowledgements.
The writers and contributors chose to remain anonymous. They must have
consulted numerous experts in making thse report, but you would not
know it. Now I know why; no one wants to get the blame for this shoddy
paper. There was not even an executive summary.
The first few chapters were devoted to general discussions on
education. Many of the ideas were definitely extracted from other
publications, yet there was no acknowledgments or references. This
omission of standard practice is unacceptable. Readers who may wish to
pursue a particular topic cannot look it up.
The report is full of data and figures presented in endless monotonous
tables. Many could have been better presented as bars, line graphs,
and pie charts. The authors were obviously “graphic-challenged.” Many
of the figures and data are presented without their proper context.
For example, the ministry proudly notes the increase in the number of
new schools over the years but fails to put that increase in
perspective. Did it match the population (specifically, the
enrollment) growth?
With the crowded tables, key figures and trends are easily missed, as
with the declining participation rates at all levels (except for
preschool) since 2000. This alarming trend would have been picked up
easily had the figures been presented as line graphs. As the trend was
missed, this important issue was not addressed. Had ministry officials
analyzed this declining participation rate, they would have discovered
that the figures for non-Malays in South Johore had declined even more
precipitously. These Malaysians have essentially abandoned our schools
for the more superior ones across the causeway.
The page layout has two columns, with one inexplicably twice as wide as
the other. At first I thought the narrow column was a summary, but it
was not. The rationale for this difference in column breadth escapes
me; it makes the layout visually distracting and irritating.
Long on Diagnosis, Short of Prescription
The report duly lists the obvious deficiencies of our schools. No
marks for that! The Ministry does finally acknowledge one salient
point: in education, one size does not fit all. This is true with
much of everything else, except perhaps with condom manufacturing!
The ministry wants to encourage “clusters of excellence,” but does not
elaborate on how to achieve that goal. In tandem with its
one-size-does-not-fit-all philosophy, the Ministry would like some
schools to offer the International Baccalaureate. I am all for that,
but then the report does not address the fundamental issue: Does that
mean that some schools can be English medium?
Where the report rightly identifies the problems, it offers the wrong
solutions. It acknowledges the declining quality of teaching and
suggests making the recruiting of teachers more rigorous. That is
putting the cart before the horse. The problem is more upstream.
Teaching no longer attracts the bright and talented for among other
reasons, the pay is lousy. Toughening the recruitment criteria would
do nothing to change that reality. The pay would have to be increased
substantially to make the profession competitive. Once you have a
surplus of applicants, then you could be choosy and have higher standards.
The report duly notes that non-Bumiputras are abandoning the national
stream. The government hopes to attract them back by offering
electives in Mandarin and Tamil. That however was not the reason they
are abandoning national schools rather that these schools have become
Islamic institutions, and thereby turning off non-Muslim parents.
Had Ministry officials conducted surveys, they would have discovered
this crucial fact. This brings out another weakness of this report:
it lacks empirical data and findings to support its recommendations.
Its recommendations have that seat-of-the-pants quality.
A major failing of Malaysian schools is the curriculum: too
examination oriented, emphasis on rote learning, and not enough
emphasis on science and mathematics. Thus one would expect the
Blueprint to have substantive recommendations on the matter. Instead
curricular reform would have to wait till the next blueprint on some
indeterminate future date. As an aside, it is pathetic that four years
after introducing the teaching of science and mathematics in English,
it is only now that the Ministry is assessing the English competency of
the teachers!
Ministry officials have obviously not learned from reform efforts
elsewhere. For example, Malaysia gives stipends so poor children can
attend schools. Why not tie it to actual school attendance, meaning,
you would get paid only if your children were in school, as with
Mexico’s Progressa program. Similarly, Chile offers many workable
models for private schools as well as for school-based management.
National Schools With Various Languages of Instruction
Malaysian schools are deepening instead of reducing the racial divide.
They are designed to appeal to racial identities. In my book An
Education System Worthy of Malaysia, I suggested that Malaysian schools
should instead focus on their language of instruction. Thus instead of
Sekolah Kebangsaan Jenis China (National-Type Chinese school), meaning
a school primarily for Chinese, characterize them as national schools
that use Mandarin as the language of instruction. That would
immediately change the focus. Such schools could then attract
non-native Mandarin speakers like Malays by for example, serving halal
foods and having Mandarin-speaking Malay (or at least Muslim) teachers
to serve as role models. There are millions of Muslim
Mandarin-speakers in China who would gladly teach in Malaysia. We
could also have French- or Swahili-Type National Schools, meaning,
schools using those two languages as their medium of instruction.
As for the obvious poor physical conditions of our schools (as
evidenced by double sessions), the report suggests nothing beyond
recommending more funds be devoted. That does not address the root
cause. Our schools are in such a poor state because the funds are used
less to improve the facilities more to provide jobs for favored
Bumiputra contractors. Apart from unnecessarily inflating the costs,
such constructions are often shoddy and dangerous, as attested by
buildings collapsing soon after their completion. Unless the tender
mechanism is revamped to ensure that only the most qualified and
efficient contractors get the job, we will never improve our school
facilities no matter how much money we pour on the problem.
The Education Blueprint preceding this one had a shelf life of only a
few months. This one would also be soon forgotten, and a good thing
too for this Education Blueprint 2006-2010 is nothing more than a
blueprint for continued mediocrity.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Primary Schools Comparison
I think we need to move on from the previous post, despite the record number of comments. I've been slowly reading through the new Education Blueprint and I want to start by examining the number of primary schools, in particular comparing the national primary schools and the national type primary schools.
For those who are not familiar with some of these statistics, let me lay them out. The number of national primary schools have increased from 4844 in 1990 to 5761 in 2005, an increase of 19%. In comparison, the number of national type Chinese primary schools (SRJK) have actually decreased from 1288 to 1287 in the same time period. The number of national type Tamil primary schools (SRJT) have decreased from 538 to 525 in the same time period. In other words, funding for new primary schools for the past 15 years have gone almost exclusively to national type schools. (There might have been some new Chinese primary schools built e.g. Wawasn or Vision schools and relocated Chinese primary schools such as Pei Chai and Tropicana)
In the same time period, the enrolment in national schools have increased from 1.8 million in 1990 to 2.4 million in 2005, an increase of 35%. Enrolment in national type Chinese primary schools (SRJK) have also increased by 11% in the same time period, from 580,000 to 650,000. Enrolment in national type Tamil primary schools (SRJT) have also increased, but only by less than 3% from 96,000 to 99,000.
While one can justify the increase in the number of national primary schools because of the large increase in the number of students enrolled in them, it is much harder to justify the lack of an increase in the number of national Chinese type primary schools given that enrolment in these schools have also increased. To think about it another way, there have been an increase of 70,000 students in the national Chinese type primary schools with no increase in the number of schools. While this 70,000 number doesn't seem large given that it amounts to roughly 50 additional students in each of the 1287 schools, it is important to realize that overcrowding in national type Chinese primary schools is a serious issue.
The new Education Blueprint also provides the number of low enrolment schools or 'Sekolah Kurang Murid (SKM)' which it classifies as schools with less than 150 students.
There are 1642 SKM for the national primary schools, 530 such schools among the national Chinese type primary schools, 329 such schools among the national Tamil type primary schools.
So what I did was to estimate the number of students enrolled in these SKM schools and take away these from the total enrolment of students in each type of school - national, Chinese and Tamil. I then divided these numbers by the number of schools for each type minus the number of SKM schools. I wanted to do this to get a sense of the average number of students per school for the schools with normal enrolments.
What I found was the following - There are approximately 520 students per school for the national schools, approximately 750 students per school for national Chinese type schools and approximately 250 students per school for national Tamil type schools. (not including the SKMs)
When I examined the number of teachers per school type (including the SKMs since the data doesn't distinguish between number of teachers in SKMs and non-SKM schools), I found that the average number of students per teacher was 20 in national Chinese type primary schools versus 16 in national schools and 14 in national Tamil type schools.
I don't know about our readers, but I find this situation at least a little lopsided. Shouldn't those tax-paying parents who send their kids to national Chinese type primary schools at least be given their fair share of government expenditure at the primary school level? (I'm not even going to discuss the situation at the secondary and university level yet)
Perhaps, I'm making a lot out of nothing given that the results that are being produced at the national Chinese type primary schools are still pretty good despite the large number of students per class (many over 50 and some even over 60 in certain areas). (One should remember that approximately 60,000 or 10% of the student enrolment in these Chinese type primary schools are non-Chinese students so I'm not only talking about Chinese parents)
But is the current situation of an increasing number of students in Chinese type primary schools but without any increase in the number of Chinese type primary schools sustainable? How many of the SKM Chinese type schools can one 'transfer' to urban areas where demand continues to be high?
Lastly, I think that Tamil schools have the most to worry about in the sense that these schools are the most poorly resourced and have the least amount of government as well as community support.
For those who are not familiar with some of these statistics, let me lay them out. The number of national primary schools have increased from 4844 in 1990 to 5761 in 2005, an increase of 19%. In comparison, the number of national type Chinese primary schools (SRJK) have actually decreased from 1288 to 1287 in the same time period. The number of national type Tamil primary schools (SRJT) have decreased from 538 to 525 in the same time period. In other words, funding for new primary schools for the past 15 years have gone almost exclusively to national type schools. (There might have been some new Chinese primary schools built e.g. Wawasn or Vision schools and relocated Chinese primary schools such as Pei Chai and Tropicana)
In the same time period, the enrolment in national schools have increased from 1.8 million in 1990 to 2.4 million in 2005, an increase of 35%. Enrolment in national type Chinese primary schools (SRJK) have also increased by 11% in the same time period, from 580,000 to 650,000. Enrolment in national type Tamil primary schools (SRJT) have also increased, but only by less than 3% from 96,000 to 99,000.
While one can justify the increase in the number of national primary schools because of the large increase in the number of students enrolled in them, it is much harder to justify the lack of an increase in the number of national Chinese type primary schools given that enrolment in these schools have also increased. To think about it another way, there have been an increase of 70,000 students in the national Chinese type primary schools with no increase in the number of schools. While this 70,000 number doesn't seem large given that it amounts to roughly 50 additional students in each of the 1287 schools, it is important to realize that overcrowding in national type Chinese primary schools is a serious issue.
The new Education Blueprint also provides the number of low enrolment schools or 'Sekolah Kurang Murid (SKM)' which it classifies as schools with less than 150 students.
There are 1642 SKM for the national primary schools, 530 such schools among the national Chinese type primary schools, 329 such schools among the national Tamil type primary schools.
So what I did was to estimate the number of students enrolled in these SKM schools and take away these from the total enrolment of students in each type of school - national, Chinese and Tamil. I then divided these numbers by the number of schools for each type minus the number of SKM schools. I wanted to do this to get a sense of the average number of students per school for the schools with normal enrolments.
What I found was the following - There are approximately 520 students per school for the national schools, approximately 750 students per school for national Chinese type schools and approximately 250 students per school for national Tamil type schools. (not including the SKMs)
When I examined the number of teachers per school type (including the SKMs since the data doesn't distinguish between number of teachers in SKMs and non-SKM schools), I found that the average number of students per teacher was 20 in national Chinese type primary schools versus 16 in national schools and 14 in national Tamil type schools.
I don't know about our readers, but I find this situation at least a little lopsided. Shouldn't those tax-paying parents who send their kids to national Chinese type primary schools at least be given their fair share of government expenditure at the primary school level? (I'm not even going to discuss the situation at the secondary and university level yet)
Perhaps, I'm making a lot out of nothing given that the results that are being produced at the national Chinese type primary schools are still pretty good despite the large number of students per class (many over 50 and some even over 60 in certain areas). (One should remember that approximately 60,000 or 10% of the student enrolment in these Chinese type primary schools are non-Chinese students so I'm not only talking about Chinese parents)
But is the current situation of an increasing number of students in Chinese type primary schools but without any increase in the number of Chinese type primary schools sustainable? How many of the SKM Chinese type schools can one 'transfer' to urban areas where demand continues to be high?
Lastly, I think that Tamil schools have the most to worry about in the sense that these schools are the most poorly resourced and have the least amount of government as well as community support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
