Maximum 10 for SPM

Malaysian Minister of Education announced that students sitting for SPM (O-levels) examination would only be allowed to sit for a maximum 10 subjects. Personally, I felt this is the way forward from the education viewpoint.

Why it's good?

Firstly, this initiative reduce the highly-intensive rat-race for scoring more A's in examination. Under the current open examination, it seems almost "ridiculous" to have students sitting for 23 subjects, possibly all the available subjects. However, what's the point? It is just producing "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Secondly, this limitation is the right way to re-align the focus of education, which should be about learning and not examination. In a way, by reducing the numbers, students can now give more attention to the learning of the subjects, rather than preparation for examination. After all, the purpose of learning is to master the subject.

Thirdly, this initiative also enable students to think carefully about the subjects that they are interested. I recalled that when I was studying in STPM (A-levels), I have to make an important decision in choosing the subjects due to the limitation of only 5 subjects. Therefore, I was forced to seriously think about my strengths, weaknesses, abilities as well as the practicality of the subjects that I will be taking. After making such decision, learning seems to be more "purposeful" and interesting.

What else need to be done about SPM education?

Firstly, the Minister, policy-makers and educationalists should consider reducing the number of core subjects in SPM examination. As far as I could remember, students have to take Malay Language, English Language, Mathematics, Islamic Studies or Moral Education and History. Perhaps, consideration should be given to reduce the number of core subjects. Although I do not doubt the importance of history, but forcing everyone to study history for the sake of examination certainly isn't the best way to learn history. As for moral education, my frank opinion is that this subject should not even exist in the first place; plainly redundant and ridiculous.

Secondly, as I applaud the initiative to place a maximum cap to the number of subjects, I also wish to contend that the minimum cap to be reduced or removed. In a way, the system should be more flexible for students at the other spectrum, those with low academic abilities, to take less number of subjects. It is important to note that, while public examinations at Year 6 and Form 3 require all students to attempt similar number of subjects, nevertheless, considering those who failed terribly in these previous examinations, it is almost unthinkable that they will be able to cope with 8-10 subjects at this level of examination. Perhaps, it would be more practical and useful for these students to concentrate on two or three subjects, rather than taking 10 subjects and failing all of them. After all, education is about learning, and more importantly, should be an enjoying experience for all.

How to define a Top Scorer?

Subsequent to the article about JPA scholarship, I wish to take this opportunity to examine another important element in the discourse - "top scorer".

How do we define a top scorer?

Is Student X with 17A's smarter or cleverer than Student Y who scored 9A's?

The mere comparison based on examination result can be misleading.

First, are we assuming all students are given the equal opportunity in terms of number of papers? Although technically, students are allowed to attempt as many papers as possible, in SPM, nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that not all schools in Malaysia are capable to provide adequate "education" and support. Therefore, there might be an element of inequality creating further inequalities, whereby students in the less developed schools will have great difficulties to compete with those in better schools on a level playing ground.

Second, the core subject we are discussing is education. Is scoring more A's means the person is better educated or more intellectual? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in equating what it meant to be educated and being a top scorer. With this strong emphasis on examination results, it will eventually drives Malaysian education system to become even more exam-oriented. Again, isn't this what our Education Minister is trying to change?

Third, relating to my previous article about the distinction of financial aid and scholarship, I wish to re-emphasise that if JPA scholarship is meant to be a "scholarship", then what concerns this debate is developing the best brains for civil service. However, do we really need all the top scorers to be civil servant? If the answer is no, then JPA scholarship needs to further tighten the regulation to ensure all the scholars ultimately return to serve in the civil service, and at the same time, only provide the scholarship for those with great potentials to be capable civil servant. Hence, being a top scorer is just an additional plus-point to the application, and not the criteria.

Fourth, if JPA scholarship is playing the role of financial aid, then, the award needs to seriously re-consider providing a greater weightage to the financial needs of the applicants according to their needs. Again, being a top scorer is just an additional bonus, not a definite criteria.

Fifth, taking into consideration that JPA scholarship awards according to disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, law etc., therefore, the evaluation on the academic results need to be more refined. The definition of top scorer should be not used as the overall indicator, but more importantly, the academic performance of the related subjects to the disciplines of the scholarship. For example, if an applicant scores 10A's in pure sciences but applies for law, then it certainly does not make sense to award the JPA scholarship to this applicant. Therefore, evaluating specific subjects performance is a more practical and sensible way to determine the awarding of the scholarship; if examination results remain the most important measurement.

In conclusion, before continuing this discourse about scholarship, it is essential to take a moment and ponder upon the very crucial question, "How to define a top scorer?"

JPA Scholarship

The debate about JPA scholarship has began to heat up again, with MCA and MIC calling for the scholarship to be awarded based on merit. (For the benefit of non-Malaysian readers, JPA scholarship is the Public Service Department scholarship).

On a personal note, I would call for JPA scholarship to be revamp. The following are my reason and how the revamp should be:

Don't award scholarship based on SPM (o-level equivalent) results.

• It does not make sense to award a university-level scholarship strictly based on an examination taken two level before. Many cases in the past where after receiving the scholarship, students do not do well in their A-levels and subsequently do not meet the requirement to qualify for university

Need to differentiate between scholarship and financial aid.
This distinction needs to be clearly specified.

1. If JPA scholarship is going to help students from poor background to succeed, then it should take the form of financial aid. Give to students who are academically deserving, but more importantly, those with genuine financial needs. Fundamentally, financial aid could be allocated based on quota according to the needs of the target groups. In such circumstances, the financial aid should also provides the flexibility for students either to serve their bond or repay the financial aid after graduating. After all, these aids are intended to help the poor come out from poverty through education, and it should not concern about training and keeping the best brains.
   
2. On the other hand, if JPA scholarship is a "scholarship", then it should be strictly merit-based and given out to the best brains in the country, regardless of background and ethnicity. Adding to that, students should be assessed not only by their academic result and extra-curricular activities involvement, but more importantly, their suitability to serve in the civil service. In addition, the Public Service Commission must ensure all these brains will eventually come back and serve the country in the civil service. This is one important aspect JPA scholarship must improve for the country to reap the benefits.
   

Without this clear distinction of scholarship and financial aid, the debate about equality and the objective of JPA scholarship is misleading and a waste of time.

Why waste "university-level" scholarship money for A-levels tuition fees?

• The more rationale method would encourage all students, regardless of how smart and bright, to continue STPM or "Matriculation" programme in public schools. After all, isn't the STPM a globally recognised qualification examination to university worldwide? If this is not the case for both STPM and Matriculation, then it's about time the Malaysian education policy-makers began to fundamentally think about this. I know for sure, National University of Singapore do not recognise Malaysian Matriculation programme.

Scholarship to be awarded after receiving a University offer.

• This is the best way to ensure that the scholarship is given out based on merit. Why award a scholarship when the student have not even got a university placement? Isn't gaining entry into the best university such as Harvard or Cambridge, a better and more accurate indicator of the student's ability and competence, rather than just relying on SPM results and extra-curricular activities? In a way, JPA also do not need to be worried about the suitability of the students to excel in their particular field of interest. This responsibility has been given to the admissions officers in these university.

Additions:
DAP has also joined the bandwagon to discuss about JPA scholarship through organising a public forum. I wonder, is it possible to distangle politics from education? Perhaps only without political influence, educational decisions could take place. Well, just my naive thinking.
(Again for the understanding of non-Malaysian readers, MCA and MIC are political parties in the ruling coalition that "represent" the Chinese and Indians, while DAP is another political party on the opposition side in Parliament).

My Prayer for Malaysia

My prayer for social justice in Malaysia.

"Almighty God, who hast created man in thine own image; Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice among men and nations, to glory of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. "

Prayer taken from The Book of Common Prayer (1928). May God be merciful to the nation of Malaysia, despite the constitutional and political turmoils.

No Pork

Take a break and laugh your head off!