Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Educational development
Educational reform
Democratization of education
Secondary education
The democratization of education in Malaysia has come a long way since the early 1960s. In the early
1990s, the government decided to democratize secondary education in order to widen formal access to
secondary education, especially at the upper secondary level. It is the contention of this paper that the
widening of formal access to education may not lead to real access to education if effective measures are
not put in place. It is also the contention of this paper that the democratization of education that leads to
the massication of education or mass education should not be at the expense of educational quality and
excellence if it wants to have a more signicant impact on the actual outcomes of schooling. This paper is
divided into two parts. The rst part provides the background information on educational expansion that
stems from the democratization of secondary education such as enrolment rates, number of schools and
teachers as well as organizational adjustments. The second part examines the problems and challenges
of the democratization of secondary education in relation to issues such as diverse needs of students,
disciplinary problems, school dropouts, urban and rural disparity, preferential policy and educational
quality and excellence. All these issues have an impact on the desirable outcomes of the democratization
of secondary education as far as real access to education as well as equality and quality of education are
concerned.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The democratization of education or the universalization of
education in Malaysia began with primary education (Primary
Year One to Year Six) in 1962. Shortly after that, the government
decided to democratize lower secondary education (Secondary
Year One to Year Three). Further breakthrough in the democratization of education only came about in the early 1990s whereby
the government allowed more students to progress to upper
secondary education (Secondary Year Four and Secondary Year
Five). This democratization of secondary education has brought
about the transformation from an elitist to a universal or mass
secondary education (Lee, 2002). However, it has also brought
about a host of problems and challenges to the education system
with regard to its capacity to provide real access to education as
well as better equality and quality of education. These problems
and challenges need to be duly addressed by the government
otherwise the democratization of secondary education will be
deemed dysfunctional to all intents and purposes. This is primarily
because the democratization of education is not just about
54
55
56
Recent developments show that the government has backpedaled on the open certicate examination. It has now xed a
maximum ceiling of 12 subjects for the SPM examination
(Nanyang Siang Pau, 2009). This decision was taken following
the earlier controversy over the award of scholarships by the Public
Service Department (PSD) to high achievers in the SPM examination to pursue higher education abroad. The demand for the PSD
scholarships has been highly competitive. Many students took as
many subjects as they possibly could in the SPM examination in an
attempt to outbid other students. This had put the PSD in a tight
spot as some of the extra subjects taken by the students were not
relevant to their core areas of study. These extra subjects were not
considered by the PSD in the awarding of scholarships. Consequently, many students who had scored more As in the SPM
examination were unable to secure the coveted scholarships. This
had led to much discontent among them. Thus, the PSD was forced
to put a ceiling on the number of subjects in order to resolve this
tricky issue. Though driven by practical considerations, the
restriction on the number of subjects has gone against the original
aim of the government to implement the open certicate
examination at the upper secondary level.
The democratization of secondary education in Malaysia has
also led to changes in the way policy makers have looked at the
needs of students who are spastic, handicapped, visually and
hearing impaired as well as those with learning difculties. Prior to
this, these students were only provided with a basic education at
the primary level. Under the democratization of secondary
education, these students certainly have their basic rights to
progress to higher levels of education just like any other normal
students. In this respect, the Malaysian government has done the
right thing by establishing special education schools at the
secondary level. These schools offer visually and hearing impaired
programs, consolidated class program and inclusive education
program. In 2001, there were 79 secondary schools catering to
children with learning disabilities, 13 secondary schools catering
to visually impaired children and 40 secondary schools catering to
hearing impaired children (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2001).
The establishment of sports schools by the government has also
augured well for the diverse needs of the students, especially those
who excel in sports. This will help the students to nurture and
develop their full potentials. There are currently two sports schools
in Malaysia: the Bukit Jalil Sports School established in 1996 and
the Bandar Penawar Sports Schools established in 1988. These
schools cater to the secondary school students. Students in these
schools follow the same academic curriculum and sit for similar
public examinations just like students from other types of
secondary schools. However, their daily activities include intensive
sports training sessions (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2001;
KPM, 2001). The government is planning to build additional sports
schools to cater to more students who are talented in sports (KPM,
2006).
Apart from sports schools, the government has built special
schools for students who are inclined towards the performing arts.
There are currently two arts schools: one in Johor Bahru (in the
state of Johore) and the other in Kuching (in the state of Sarawak)
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2008). In 2008, the two schools
had a combined enrolment of 343 students, of which 172 were
Secondary Year One students and 171 were Secondary Year Two
students (KPM, 2008).
One special feature of the democratization of secondary
education in Malaysia is the increasing efforts by the government
to meet the needs of Muslim parents who prefer their children to
go through an Islamic education. The surge in the demand for
Islamic education in Malaysia is the direct consequence of the
Islamic resurgence that began in the 1970s (Chandra, 1987).
Subsequently, Islamic Education was incorporated as a core
57
58
medium at the secondary level (Sin Chew Jit Poh, 18 June 2006).
The lack of prociency in the Malay language is particularly acute
among Chinese students who come from the Chinese new villages
(Lim and Song, 1999). On the other hand, the problem of dropout is
even more severe among Indian students. It is estimated that about
26.5 percent or 39,680 students have dropped out of secondary
schools in 2004 (Yayasan Strategik Sosial, 2004).
Under the Malaysian education system, students from the
Chinese and Tamil primary schools have to switch to the national
language (Malay) medium upon entering national secondary
schools. As these students have only learnt the Malay language as
a subject at the primary level, many of them have not acquired the
required level of prociency to enable them to learn effectively in the
Malay language medium. The language medium has thus become a
barrier that impedes their learning processes. Language barrier has
been singled out by many scholars as an intervening factor that
blocks the free ow of students through the education system. Chai
(1971), for instance, argues that children who lack linguistic skills,
but are otherwise intelligent and capable scholastically, may be
disqualied and debarred from further education (p. 61). Although
the lack of prociency in the Malay language among the Chinese and
Tamil primary school students is a long-standing problem, it has
been compounded by the democratization of secondary education
whereby increasing number of students who do not have the
required prociency in the Malay language are allowed to progress
to the national secondary schools.
Also, students from the Chinese and Tamil primary schools have
to go through an extra year of language transition class, i.e., the
Remove Class, upon entering the national secondary schools. But
the Remove Class has not lived up to its expectation. Many Remove
Class students fail to improve their prociency in the Malay
language to a satisfactory level. This is because the implementation
of the Remove Class is hampered by poor quality teaching and
attitudes of the Malay language teachers (Jasbir and Mukherjee,
1990) and insufcient Malay language teaching periods as well as
inappropriate pedagogy (Koh, 1985). Thus, many Remove Class
students have not beneted from the extra language transition
year that they have gone through (Santhiram, 1999; Tan, 2007). In
1997, 10.7 percent of the Remove Class students were unable to
make it to Secondary Year One (KPM, 2001).
Given the above, there is an urgent need to revamp the Remove
Class. But the government is seemingly unaware of such a pressing
need. Instead, driven by the democratization of secondary
education, it has marginalized the Remove Class. Beginning in
the mid-1990s, more students were allowed to skip the Remove
Class. These students included those who had not acquired good
achievement grades in the Malay language in the Ujian Penilaian
Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) or the Primary School Assessment Text a
common public examinations taken by primary school students at
the end of their primary education. Prior to this, only students who
had acquired good achievement grades in the Malay language (and
other subjects) were allowed to skip the Remove Class. As a result
of this, Remove Class enrolment had dropped markedly. In 1990,
there were 89,221 Remove Class students. By 2000, the number of
students had dropped by more than 50 percent to 42,219 (KPM,
2001). By 2008, there were only 28,198 students attending the
Remove Class (KPM, 2008). The marginalization of the Remove
Class is certainly not in the best interests of non-Malay students,
though many of them are happy that they are not required to go
through an extra year of schooling. However, the fact remains that
they have to pay for their lack of prociency in the Malay language
when they progress to higher levels of secondary education.
While the government has marginalized the Remove Class, it
has, nonetheless, implemented a new program in 2006, which will
benet the non-Malay students in terms of enhancing their
prociency in the Malay language. The new program comes in the
59
60
position of the Malays (Gomez and Jomo, 1997). One of the main
reasons was that the Malays, especially rural Malays, were
deprived of the much needed educational mobility during the
colonial period. As a result of the divide and rule policy of the
British colonial government, they were largely conned to a
system of Malay education that did not go beyond the rudimentary
level. Apart from conning them in their social milieu (Haris,
1983), the British colonial administrators were wary of creating a
class of political malcontents capable of overthrowing them
(Stevenson, 1975). In line with the divide and rule policy, the
British did not stop the non-Malays (Chinese and Indians) from
pursuing their mother tongue education. But the non-Malays,
especially the urban-based Chinese, were also given the opportunities to attend English schools, which were mainly located in
urban areas. This had beneted the Chinese as English education
was the best means of social mobility during the colonial period. It
was the only type of education that prepared students for higher
education. Even without a higher education, a working knowledge
of the English language would help in employment as a clerk in the
government service or commercial rms. However, for those who
had gone through Chinese education, their socioeconomic mobility
was also guaranteed by the fact that Chinese school graduates,
especially those with Senior Middle Three (equivalent to Grade 11)
qualications, were sought after for clerical and management
posts in the Chinese commerce and industrial sectors in urban
areas (Chai, 1971). Consequently, the Chinese had surged ahead of
the Malays in terms of socioeconomic mobility through the
provision of education.
In the aftermath of the May 13 racial riots, the lack of
socioeconomic mobility through the provision of education among
the Malays has become one of the underlying concerns in the
implementation of the NEP by the Malay dominated government.
One of the main reasons that sparked the racial riots after the hotly
contested 1969 General Election was that there was no marked
improvement in Malay educational mobility since the country
attained its independence in 1957. Although prior to independence, the Malays were given the assurance that the Malay
language would be made the main medium of instruction in the
national education system (see Federation of Malaya, 1956), the
implementation, especially the establishment of Malay secondary
schools, was too slow to have any signicant impact on their
educational mobility. Instead, the government continued to give
emphasis to English education (Roff, 1967). The height of Malay
resentment against the governments language policy was the
enactment of the National Language Act in 1967. Although the Act
recognized the Malay language as the sole ofcial language, it,
nevertheless, allowed the continued use of English for ofcial
purposes (Haris, 1983; von Vorys, 1976). Malay resentment was
also fuelled by the demand of the Chinese educationists to
establish a Chinese medium university a move considered by the
Malays as an outright challenge to the supreme status of the Malay
language in this country. Racial tensions were heightened as a
result of intense politicking over the language and educational
issues during the campaigns leading to the 1969 General Election
(Vasil, 1972). Race riots broke out on May 13, 1969 when elections
results showed that the Chinese had made impressive political
gains in several states at the expense of the Malays (see Comber,
1986; Goh, 1971; National Operations Council, 1969 for detailed
accounts of the race riots).
Although the democratization of education should ideally be
grounded on the universally accepted principle of equality of
education, equality of education should not be at the expense of
the disadvantaged groups. It is for this reason that afrmative
measures were implemented for the Malays in Malaysia under the
aegis of the NEP. As a concerted effort to improve the educational
mobility of the Malays, the government has built fully residential
61
62
63
64
Santhiram, R., Tan, Y.S., 2002. Mother tongue education of ethnic minorities in
Malaysia: marginalization, resilience, responses and consequences. Journal of
the Institute of Asian Studies 20 (1), 5376.
Sefa Dei, G.J, 2009. Race and minority schooling in Canada: dealing with questions of
equity and access in education. In: Bekerman, Z., Kopelowitz, E. (Eds.), Cultural
Education Cultural Sustainability: Minority, Diaspora, Indigenous, and EthnoReligious Groups in Multicultural Societies. Routledge, New York and London,
pp. 209230.
Sin, Sin Chew Jit Poh (Sin Chew Daily), 18 June 2006.
Stevenson, R., 1975. Cultivators and Administrators: British Educational Policy
Towards the Malays 18751906. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.
Tan, L.E., 1988. Chinese independent schools in West Malaysia: Varying responses
to changing demands. In: Cushman, J.W., Wang Gungwu, (Eds.), Changing
Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese since World War II. Hong Kong
University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 6174.
Tan, L.E., 2000. Chinese schools in Malaysia: a case of cultural resilience. In: Lee,
K.H., Tan, C.B. (Eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Shah
Alam, pp. 228254.
Tan, Y.S., 2007. Pendidikan Dwibahasa Transisi Etnik Cina Semenanjung Malaysia.
(Transitional Bilingual Education for the Ethnic Chinese in Peninsular Malaysia)
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.
Tey, N.P., 2006. Population and development trends. In: Wong, Y.L., Tey, N.P.
(Eds.), Our People Our Future: Malaysian Population in Perspective. University Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 728.
Vasil, K., 1972. The Malaysian General Election of 1969. Oxford University Press,
Kuala Lumpur.
Vijaindren, A., 2010. Teachers too soft on students? New Sunday Times, 1 August.
von Vorys, K., 1976. Democracy Without Consensus: Communalism and Political
Stability in Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.
Yahya, E., 2005. Pendidikan Teknik dan Vokasional di Malaysia. (Technical and
Vocational Education in Malaysia) IBS, Petaling Jaya.
Yayasan Strategik Sosial, 2004. Education: The Vehicle for Social Advancement.
Kuala Lumpur (Unpublished strategic paper).
Yetman, N.R., 1991. Introduction: denitions and perspectives. In: Yetman, N.R.
(Ed.), Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American
Life. 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, pp. 129.