The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025

The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025
M. Bakri Musa

First of Five Parts: Education Blueprint – Transparent, But Not Bold Or Comprehensive

Education reform is inflicted upon Malaysians with the regularity of the monsoon. Like the storm, the havoc these “reforms” create lingers long after they have passed through.

In this five-part commentary I will critique the latest reform effort contained in Preliminary Report: Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 released on September 11, 2012. The first three essays will address the Blueprint’s findings and recommendations; the fourth, its omissions, and the last, the flaws in the process with this particular reform effort.

The Blueprint clearly identifies the main problems and challenges at both the system and individual levels, but fails to analyze why or how they came about and why they have been let to fester. Consequently the recommendations are based more on conjecture rather than solid data; more towards generalities and the stating of goals rather than on specifics and how to achieve those goals. On the positive side, the goals and milestones (at least some of them) are clearly stated in quantifiable terms, so we would know whether they have been achieved going forward.

Despite extensive public participation and the inclusion of many luminaries (including foreign ones) on the panel, the report has many glaring omissions. It fails to address the particular challenges facing Islamic and rural national schools. This is surprising considering that the constituents in both streams are Malays, a politically powerful group. Even more pertinent, those schools regularly perform at the bottom quartile; they drag down the whole system. Improving them would go a long way in enhancing the entire system. Yet another omission is the failure to analyze and thus learn from earlier reform efforts.

This Blueprint does not live up to Najib Razak’s assertion of being “bold, comprehensive and transparent.” Transparent perhaps, but not bold or comprehensive! That is not surprising as the panel is dominated by civil servants. They have been part of the problem for so long that it would be too much to expect them now to magically be part of the solution.

Predictability of Education Reform
It is a particularly Malaysian obsession to reform its educational policy with the political season. Every new minister feels compelled to do it, as if to demonstrate his political manhood. Now it is Muhyiddin’s turn.

Five years ago under Hishamuddin there was Langkah Langkah Ke Arah Cemerlangan (Steps Towards Excellence). Five years before that under Musa Mohamad was Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010: Rancangan Bersepadu Penjana Cemerlangan Pendidikan (Education Development 2010-2011. Plan for Unity Through Educational Excellence). Notice the long pretentious titles and frequent use of the word “excellence.”

In the meantime generations of young Malaysians, especially Malays, continue to pay the price for the follies of previous reforms, in particular the one in the 1970s that did away with English schools. Someone finally wizened up and brought back the teaching of English, albeit only in science and mathematics. Then just as we were adjusting to and recovering from that reversal, a new leader who thought himself smarter changed back the system!

This latest reform released on September 11, 2012, will prove to be the 9-11 of Malaysian education. The destruction may not be as dramatic visually and physically as the other 9-11, but the wreckage will be real and massive, with the havoc remaining long after to haunt current and future generations. The damage will be extensive, cumulative, and compounding.

As in the past, this time we are again being promised that this storm of a reform will wash away the thick polluted haze that has been hovering over our schools. Yes, the air will be clearer and fresher after a storm, and the birds will sing. Meanwhile however, we have to deal with ripped roofs, flood debris, and destructive landslides.

In compiling this Blueprint the government has commendably sought wide public participation and at great expense. The public in turn responded massively and enthusiastically, reflecting the angst over our education system. The panel however, did not sufficiently discern the difference between quantity and quality, and duly gave equal time to the bombasts as well as the wise.

The Challenge of Quality

This Blueprint, like earlier ones, is already getting rave reviews from the usual quarters. Just as predictably, a year or two from now even before any of the recommendations have been fully implemented, “scholars” from our public universities will declare through their “research” that the reforms have already produced the anticipated improvements!

We saw this when the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English was rescinded. Barely a year into the program and “scholars” from our public universities were already trumpeting the “remarkable” improvement in the science and mathematics scores especially among rural Malay students. With all those great improvements one wonders why we need another reform!

This new Blueprint was barely released when Muhyyiddin announced a new history curriculum, meaning, one written by UMNO hired hands. So much for the weight given to this reform and its objective of creating students capable of critical and independent thinking!

No one would argue with the Blueprint’s objectives of improving access, quality, equity, unity, and efficiency. Consider quality; it is uppermost in everyone’s mind. The government proudly parades the success rates at its national examinations, as with the accelerating number of A’s scored. Yet when assessed by such external yardsticks as TIMSS and PISA, our students scored poorly. As the report acknowledges, they are at least two to three grades behind their counterparts in South Korea, and declining.

The panel glosses over this glaring anomaly and thus fails to draw the only and important conclusion: Obviously what we teach and how we test are substandard; worse, we are doing both wrong!

If your home thermometer says you do not have a temperature but at the hospital you register a high fever, then you should get rid of your thermometer lest you would be dangerously misled in the future. If we wish our students to be in the top third in PISA and TIMSS, then we should first dispense with the current curriculum and testing as they do not correlate (in fact inversely correlated) with those international measurements.

Consider another objective, to have our students be bilingual in Malay and English. I agree with that; the problem is how to achieve it. The panel addresses the issue generally, but the kampong boy in Ulu Kelantan faces a vastly different problem in learning English vis-a-vis the diplomat’s son in Bukit Tunku; likewise a Tamil girl on an estate school in Ulu Tiram learning Malay to a penghulu’s daughter at a national school in Ulu Trengganu.

It would be wiser to focus first on the problem areas, as with improving the Malay proficiency of students in vernacular schools and the English skills of Malays in national schools. Correct both and you would go a long way in improving the system’s overall performance, and in the process satisfy many.

As the challenges are very different; the solutions too must necessarily be different. For vernacular schools especially in areas where Malay is not widely spoken, devoting more hours to Malay and having bilingual (Malay and the vernacular language) teachers would be the more appropriate solution.

In the kampongs however, not only is English not widely used, there is also active antagonism to using and learning it. Again this is not a problem unique to the kampongs. In Western Canada there is similar resentment towards learning French despite it being Canada’s second official language. To overcome this and compensate for the low level of French usage in the community, some schools have total immersion classes where pupils would spend their first three or more years in classes conducted entirely in French. As the program is entirely voluntary, it is politically and socially palatable. As parents discover the many advantages, the enrollment soars.

A similar solution could be employed in the kampongs. Have English immersion classes for the first few or better yet, throughout the entire primary school years. Introduce Malay only at Form One. Go beyond that and have secondary schools that would teach half the subjects in Malay and the other half in English. Science and mathematics would be the ideal subjects to teach in English. Such a school would produce fluently bilingual graduates.

Aware of the political sensitivities Malays have towards learning English, I would make the program entirely voluntary, like those French immersion classes in Western Canada. Kampong Malays are as rational as those Anglophone Western Canadians. Once those Malays see the advantages of being proficient in English, they will flock to enroll their children in those immersion classes.

Such schools could be the innovation worthy of emulation by other nations who similarly aspire to have their students be bilingual. Such Malay-English bilingual schools are much easier to set up than Arabic-English or Mandarin-English ones as Malay and English share the same roman script. I would restrict such schools to only those who already have (or can demonstrate) near-native fluency in Malay so that those students would not “forget” how to speak Malay.

In practical terms, this was how my contemporaries and I learned English back in the 1950s. English usage was even much lower then, in fact nonexistent, at my home and community. I advocate bringing back those English schools, but site them only in areas with low level of English and high Malay usage, as in the kampongs.

If we were to bring back the old English schools (as the parent-group PAGE is advocating) and locate them in the cities where the usage of Malay is low, then we would only resurrect the old problem where students would ignore Malay.

Similarly, such Malay immersion classes could be used to enhance the proficiency of non-Malay students, especially in communities where the usage of Malay is low.

The panel highlights the many islands of excellence in our school system. Yes there certainly are, as with the missionary and independent Chinese schools. As they are already doing a superb job there is little need to reform them. Instead the government should support them so they could enhance and replicate their successes. Others (including and especially the government) would then be inspired to emulate them. I would impose only one condition for that generous public support and that is the enrollment must reflect the general Malaysian society. Such a policy would also further one of the stated goals of the Blueprint: to enhance unity among our young.

Next: Part Two: Quality Schools Begin With Quality Teachers

10 Responses to “The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025”

  1. tebing tinggi says:

    Enhance unity among the young,

    That should be the gool of any education system in any cotary or nation to see that there is socisl interagation to the fullest to secure the healty nation building.
    A lot of parties had critize Malaysian educational coriculum for not to thier expetation to achive to fullest to any eductional standerd but never we heard any parties suggesting that education system too is playing the biggest role in national interagation ,that what malaysia is very much lacking that result to unhealty political approched of racial party system which distrect further social intregration among Malaysian which are already very much lacking.
    Vernecular shool ,could satisfied racial aspiration of a group but does support the 1 Malaysia aspiration.

  2. Ex-Malaysian with sentiment for Malaysia says:

    Hi Dr Bakri
    I am an ardent follower of your writings. Now I live in Canada but I still have a lot of sentiment for my ex-home country, Malaysia. I agree with you fully that the bunch of clowns in the Education Ministry have really screwed up the education system.

    The over emphasis on religious education, read Islamic, have made our students incompatible with the modern education system practiced world wide. I understand this well because my older children went through the Malaysian education system whilst my younger children went through the Canadian system. How amazing is the gap. Rightly, GOM must de-stress Islamic education at school and come up with solutions to placate the Malay masses. It is so unfortunate that the Malaysian education system is so heavily politicized and can be so easily politicized. So sad indeed.

    With my younger children attending Canadian schools, I find that Canadians are having difficulties competing with Asian immigrant students, read Chinese and then Koreans, at schools. With the large influx of Asian immigrants to Canada, going to U of Toronto campus is like visiting a campus in China. GOM must come up with solutions to inspire Malay students to compete with the Chinese. Otherwise, the gap between the Malays and Chinese will widen again. This is one consolation prize that GOM has won, that is, closing the gap between the Malay and the Chinese in the field of education. But the bet placed for winning this prize is high and not worthwhile

  3. Appu says:

    Dear Bakri,

    I have been following your write ups for quite a while. It’s a great lost for Malaysia that you have to work in other country. If only, we have people like you as our leader, this country of ours will be at par with Singapore.

    Best regards,
    Murugesan Nagu ( Appu )

  4. Thumb Logic says:

    My children and I were constantly reminded that we were immigrants. We made sure we worked hard to ensure that we could work anywhere in the world. Today my children are working abroad and spending their money in Malaysai. Thank you Malaysia for making us strong.

  5. Ross says:

    Excellent Article.
    You have hit the nail on its head.

  6. Ghab says:

    That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong. William J. H. Boetcker

    A week ago , ministry of Education released its Education Blueprint . As much for the debate is welcomed , some would be pleased and some would not . To those who were not , I am saying tough for them !! The new paradigm of education must be commissioned for implementation . This is all about the destiny of our nation . Everyone must be mindful to allow constructive notions to be positively debated in due course for esteem and dedication .

    As usual , the debate would often politicize intensely to a point of beyond reasons . The argument junctures for education system requires for total overhaul because the ruling parties have debunked it . They yell their guts out that education in Malaysia is dead . and racial segregation has been widening , well and living because of the education system . These are their pretentiously criticism for the sake of smearing rather than improvement .

    The assembled criticism will be pandering over the education loopholes , a fixed and constructed political spin has been aggressively perceived for action receivable for public consumption . They would always bidding for a perfect system but non of it is in existence . But they refuse to acknowledge the existing and workable education system , of cause , it is not perfect one .The achievement which make us what we are today . They rather glorify for champions who are accessaries to destabilize the system and hold education as one of their tools . What is obliged for improvement in the education system is totally overlooked .

    They are elated political bounties of fanatical patriotism who have been damming to pick on anything even to dismiss the nobility of education . They take themselves for granted that they are too the responsible stake holders . For anyone to please their orchestrated criticism is going to make mistake .

    The Education Blueprint is meant for and realized on this premise : to engage a total involvement by a whole range of systems and methodologies , with human drive education is the catalyst . Let us positively keep it on track .

    For sure , the first class educationists are in application triggering for excellence , the quality of teacher is essentially a prime content for the Education Blueprint . To immediately jump start the program , it is to assure that teachers placement are accommodated according to their expertise . Similarly , the teachers of the vocational and technological education are equally placed for pedagogical parameter .

    They will be retraining to meet up with new challenges from the rescheduling exercises in the innovative vocational learning process . For example the platform of , the thirty percent academic syllabus contents for a curriculum is reduced from the current fifty present mark and a seventy percent increase for vocational training skill from the fifty percent are emphasized and going to be absolutely mandatory . Learning through computers , advanced engineering workshops and recognized certification are prerequisites and hardwares thus going to producing innovative and skill technologists for excellence , we hope .

    Mindful for the ninety five percent of the non cream students are observed and distinguished . The program will provide a distinct blue-color skilled and trained technologists . It is set to the fulfillment of our future , to reorganize our work force and strengthen our human resource . Would this transformation program is going to politicizing ?

    The above are just scanty fixtures and inclusive parameter that should be debated for positive fine tuning rated for the Education Blueprint 2013-2025 . Considering this constructive thinking is worthy . After all , POLITICS IS NOT EVERYTHING . Even though the general election is around the corner , education must not be victimized and taken it for ransom for a political gain and self interest .

  7. Kiru says:

    Bakri’s article rest on solid grounding in logic and reasoned arguments which should be at the heart of any education minister and it’s absence is a primary reason why so many errors in reasoning occur in our education policies. Looking forward to part 2..


    Is it possible to have equality for all in this country in so far as education is concerned?

    The answer is, to have100% equality for all is quite impossible, but to make it close- 70%, 80%, or even 90%, are possible and realistic targets. Even in your own home, there’s no such a thing as equality for all, whether parents or guardians consciously or unconsciously realise it or not. Some parents or guardians in a household will always be in a ‘denial mode’ about it and they insist that all the children in the household are given equal opportunities. However, this debate can go on without any conclusion so. Let me leave it at that.

    In Malaysia, it has always been clearly seen that opportunities for education and in particular, higher education, has never been equal for all for very valid reasons, agreeable or otherwise. One of the main reasons why is because of the disparity in the size of each of the main communities i.e., Malay, Chinese and Indians there are in the country. The population of the country is 29,179,952 (July 2011 est.). Malays at 50.4% of the population have always dominate with the Chinese forming 23.7 % of the population, the Indians 7.1% of the population and indigenous people at 11%. The others who do not belong to any of these communities form the others 7.8%. (See:

    Besides compulsory national school systems offered by MOE, government agencies like MARA, NGOs and the various race-based political parties representing all the communities in the country, private organisations and institutions, etc. are providing some form of training and education to the people from the various communities, some are ‘open to all’ and some are limited to the people in their respective communities only. Whatever it is, as long as the aim is to produce educated, talented and skilled people which eventually will go into the country’s economic stream, how they do it doesn’t matter.

    However, from what I observe, it looks to me that the Malay NGOs and education groups, private organisations and institutions, are the most enthusiastic in wanting to teach, train and develop their young in the areas of education, talent and skill training and many are self-funded, sponsored by philanthropists or funded by donations received from the public in general. None are government funded. There are many that have been around for more than 20 years and their popularity never fade. It’s because of their good management and administration, good quality of teachers who themselves are also dedicated and the good results achieved by the students who study there.

    The privately funded Malay NGOs and education groups open private schools and education centres not only to teach religious studies, which is what many people (non-Malays/non-Muslims) believe, some offer national primary and secondary schools’ syllabus and curriculum, some offer English medium schools, some offer Arabic school’s primary and secondary schools’ syllabus and curriculum and some offer a mix of all. All these schools teach religion (Islam) and insist on their students to observe and perform what are required as a good Muslims. Upon completing their primary, secondary and pre-university (or foundation courses) many proceed on for their further studies at local or overseas universities to further their studies in subjects or areas of studies of their choice whether in Islamic studies or the like, sciences and arts or humanities, medicine and all the disciplines of engineering. Upon graduating, some go back to their alma mater to teach, some to local universities, some went on to work with the government or the private sector and some become entrepreneurs and venture into business. There are any who are doctors, engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc. serving the public sector and the private sector. It is a myth to say or to think that all of them become clerics (religious teachers, ustaz and ustazahs).

    The non-Malay communities do not seem to be as enthusiastic as the Malays and it seems that they (the non-Malays) prefer the government to undertake that task and provide them with all the required facilities and funds saying that they all pay tax, as though only they pay tax and others don’t, thinking and some even insisting that that is the governments’ responsibility and not theirs.

    They keep on complaining about the alleged unfair treatment and the ‘privileges’ that the Malays get and some even go on to allege that some of the Malay NGOs and education groups get government’s aid whilst, at the same time, they do not look at their weaknesses and they do not even take any effort to check or find out whether what they alleged have any basis or otherwise or to substantiate them.

    I attended a forum at the KLSCAH (Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall) last Wednesday evening to hear what the panel of speakers Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Datuk Toh Kin Woon, Datin Noor Azimah Rahim (President, PAGE) and moderated by Tuan Hj Zaid Kamaruddin, Secretary General, IKRAM, would say in their discussion on the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025. I was looking forward to some new suggestions or proposals that are not yet in the blueprint, that would benefit all the people but Dr Lim, one of the panel members, who was clearly trying to dominate the talk, only discussed issues that affect or benefit his community whilst the other two panel members Datuk Toh Kin Woon and Datin Noor Azimah Rahim, discussed issues that affect or benefit all.

    I notice that, instead of ‘attacking’ the blueprint, which he was supposed to do to improve it for the sake of all the young people of the country, Dr Lim Teck Ghee, in his presentation, kept on harping on the alleged unfairness of MOE, in particular, on the alleged ‘special’ treatment MRSM gets. He gave some data, information and statistics without even verifying them and insisted on being right about them. He even insisted that MOE allocates a large part of their resources, their human capital (administrators and teachers) and funds to MRSM.

    It looks like, when debating, many people, including famous personalities, are ‘allowed’ to go ‘off-tangent’ or ‘out-of-topic’ that started I believe, at the big debate between Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng when they decided to argue ‘Malaysian Chinese at the Political Crossroads’ in February this year at Times Square Hotel KL where, instead of talking about the subject matter, CSL almost from start to the end, talked about ‘hudud’ and nothing else and at the end of the debate, which I attended, until now, I still do not know what are the Chinese people’s political crossroads. Similarly, at the talk to discuss improvements for the Malaysia Education Blueprint 20123 – 2025 held last Wednesday evening, Dr Lim’s discussion was more about MRSM than the blueprint itself. He is like ‘barking the wrong tree’. Little did he realise or know that MRSM’s allocation does not come from MOE and that MRSM does not tax any of MOE’s resources in any way at all, neither their human resource (teachers) nor their funds.

    MRSM is under MARA, an agency under the Ministry of Rural Development and all expenses for MRSM come from this ministry’s budget.

    I told him that most of the things he said about MRSM, if not all, are only his opinions and that those things he said are not facts and that he was wrong, most of the time. I even challenged him to substantiate and support what he said and alleged by showing actual and verified facts and figures that he get from the source and not from third parties but he avoided my challenge.

    Dr Lim said, “MRSMs are taxing MOEs resources (human capital and funds) and this had deprived national schools of the human resource and funds that are supposed to be channelled to national primary and secondary schools”. I told him that he was wrong and that MRSMs do not use any resources (human resource and funds) of MOE which he acknowledged by looking a little bit ‘surprised’. There, I have already proven him wrong just on that account and I do not have to prove him wrong about the statistics, statements and data he showed earlier at the talk.

    Anf Dr Dr Lim to suggest that something that is already going on smoothly and successfully such as MRSMs, to be closed, is a very selfish move!

    He (Dr Lim) didn’t say that but he hinted for it to be closed.

    I believe that if the people from the other communities feel that the MRSM concept is good for them, they should ask the government to provide them with something similar and it will be up to the government to direct whichever ministry to organise that for them or to give them anything at all (funds and teachers). Better still, since the communities I am referring to have many rich people among them, there should not be any problem at all for them to get these people to fund this project for them and this would be a better way to start rather than to get the government to organise and fund the project for them. Once the schools are up, and if they restrict the enrolment to the school to the people of their own community only, no one would complain.

    MRSMs are secondary schools run by MARA which is under the Ministry of Rural Development and they offer the national secondary school syllabus and curriculum. Students are selected from national schools throughout the country who perform well in their national UPSR examinations (for entry into Form 1) and their national PMR examinations (for entry into Form 4) and, at this level, they are streamed into science (life sciences), science (physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science and engineering) or accounts and humanities and they are all coached and prepared to seat for the national SPM examination. They are fully funded by the budget allocated to the Ministry of Rural Development, Malaysia.

    It is most unfortunate that there are educators with PhDs including some who are professors teaching in IPTS, such as Dr Lim who insists that their opinions be accepted as facts and also most unfortunately, there are some gullible people who accept his insistence for his opinions to be accepted as facts. This, somehow, will lead to other negative implications and even may lead to untoward circumstances as more and more people begin to believe his ‘story’ just because he is a Dr and a professor, regardless whether he is right or wrong, and for him to continue insisting even after being proven wrong raise questions on his integrity and his actual intentions.

    Dr Lim also, whether he realised it or not, acted as though he was the moderator at the talk and he even stopped a Prof Dr Omar Yaakob from IKRAM, a member of the audience, like me, who was trying to explain his school system that he believes is very successful and very popular from starting with just one school and now they have a few within a very short period of time. If at all there was someone who wants to stop Dr Omar, it should be Hj Zaid Kamaruddin from IKRAM, the moderator, and not Dr Lim, who is only one of the panel speakers. Prof Dr Omar was neither trying to suggest nor propose anything nor promoting his schools, he (Prof Omar) was only trying to tell his story for all to know but at the point when he was saying that he used the Islamic concept, Dr Lim stopped him abruptly and he did not allow him (Prof Omar) to continue with his story. He (DrLim) even made some unwarranted remarks about Islam which, as a Muslim, they were unpleasant to hear. It seems to me that Dr Lim does not want to hear anything about Islam at all. What! Is Dr Lim Islamophobic or what? He wasn’t even the moderator and he had the gall to stop someone from the audience from continuing with his story and ignoring the moderator. I wonder what he (Dr Lim) is scared of!

    Later, I also found out in a very unpleasant and unfriendly way, that he (Dr Lim) also does not want to hear anything that he does not want to hear at all like, after the talk, when I tried to have a friendly discussion with him and wanted to make some comparisons between Malaysia and Singapore to support my points, he told me in no uncertain terms, “I am not interested to know about Singapore!” We didn’t have that friendly discussion which I was hoping for.

    It looks like whenever education is discussed in public; be it in forums, conferences, dialogue, etc. the ‘issue’ of MRSM is always raised, rightly or wrongly, especially when there are Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian community representatives around.

    Whatever funds are used for MRSMs, to me, they are funds used well or money well spent as they produce human resource the country needs, what the people should question are funds that are plundered from ‘state coffers’, running into billions, by unscrupulous people, some of them leaders from certain political parties and their cronies through corrupt practices and ‘closed contracts’.

    By the way, MARA sends their sponsored graduates to be trained as teachers either to education and training institutions or colleges locally or overseas for them to later teach in MRSMs, they do not depend on MOE for this.

    Ask yourselves what have you yourselves have contributed to your community and to your country and are you yourselves loyal and good citizens? Do not complain about what others are doing and more so, when what they do is beneficial to the people and to the country.

    Anyway, I also offered my help to set up something like MRSM because I think I can help them in some ways but, please I don’t expect them ask me for the moon and the stars. I am in no position to do or to give them that.

    Now, back to the Malaysia Education Blueprint, besides the repeated demand for English medium schools and to re-instate PPSMI, there’re no other new issues that are related to it that were raised at the talk. Many other proposals raised were general in nature such as asking for quality education and better teachers which are already one of the eleven shifts in the blueprint.

    Again, for Dr Lim to make remarks like, ‘Why do they call them shifts’ I don’t know!” when referring to the eleven shifts in the blueprint, I think, as an educator himself, his remark here is uncalled for. To me, it was not a question at all, it was more of an innuendo.

    They are, to me ‘paradigm shifts’ (trying to think out of the box), if he wants to know.

    ‘Education blueprint: Don’t stampede us into approval’ says the headline in Dr Lim’s article in, Sep 21, 2012 and I wonder who is trying to ‘stampede them (him) into approval’?

    Ask him yourself, I don’t have the answer.

    I know that there are many things that the people want that are not in there and what I also know is that MOE hasn’t finalised the blueprint yet and they welcome feedback from members of the public to improve on it. MOE will also organise an open day sometime next month to allow for the members of the public to give their feedbacks. However, you do not have to wait for the open day to do that, please go to MOE’s website and send them their feedbacks anytime. I have done that already, myself.

    In my feedback to MOE, I have raised many shortcomings, what to do about them and even suggesting that the blueprint be revamped in my articles as follows (this was not discussed at the talk last Wednesday):

    1. Shortcomings of the Preliminary Malaysia National Education Blueprint 2013- 2025 (Published by MI on 12/9/2012 and even YB Lim Kit Siang took this and published it in his blog); (
    2. The Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025: MOE is very stubborn (
    3. The Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025 itself now needs a revamp! (Published by MI on 17/9/2012) (

    By the way, I am not from MOE nor am I with MOE and, as an independent activist, I am impartial as far as the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025 is concerned, and I have sent many criticisms and proposals challenging the blueprint to MOE myself.

    As I said above, “… to have100% equality for all is quite impossible, even in your own home, there’s no such a thing as equality for all,” unless , of course, I am the Minister of Education of Malaysia or better still, the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

    However, sorry to disappoint you all, I am not going to be a candidate for GE 13 because I am apolitical. I will cast my vote, nevertheless!


  9. Hiriyati says:

    Dear all,
    I’ve been following the good Dr’s views on the recently released Preliminary Education Blueprint, which is still a PRELIMINARY Report. The public is welcomed to give their views on the report before the blueprint is finalised by the end of the year. Please forward your feedback to the Ministry of Education via PMO’s portal if you sincerely care.

Leave a Reply