Talk:Education in Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is some inaccurate informations here. Ex. Chung Ling High School is converted to English Schools before The Independence. There are only 60 Chinese Independant Schools in Malaysia, not 61. -- Terrorgen 00:51 23 Jan 2006 (UTC+0800)

There seems to be an emphasis on Chinese primary & secondary schools, but not much on national schools or Tamil schools. Or heck, even private schools or tuition centres (which seem to be a huge part of Malaysian education). Can someone add them in? -- Mydemand 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody please improve on the descriptions of secondary and tertiary education? ;-) I'm just a Form 2 student, so I don't know much about what's beyond that. --219.95.155.11 10:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

this topic should include chinese secondary education (independant schools) Terrrogen | Talk --Terrorgen 03:53, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merging

Can somebody who has the time please merge the older revision before the anon's rewrite with the current one? Both have a lot of valuable information. Thanks in advance to anybody who has the time. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: This still hasn't been done, actually. Both revisions had a lot of information not available in the other revision, and I don't have the time to stick the two back together. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Matriculation

removed "However this only applies to Bumiputera students"

Wrong. All may APPLY for matericulation. But you will probably not get it unles... --Malbear 01:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed "However, since 2003 the matriculation programme has been opened to a small percentage of non-Bumiputera's as well. "

Wrong again. "some" non-bumiputras have always been admitted to matriculation. --Malbear 01:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed "from mostly non-Bumiputera's "

This statement is a red herring unless you have some evidence. First you will need rough numbers of people criticising it and subsequently the proportion of folks who are/are not Bumiputras advocating this view. Is probably logical that some criticise it. Following that, it is credible that such a criticism exist int hat form.....but to state that most of those who criticise it are non-Bumiputra may not be true. Most non-Bumiputra parents have already given up on the local uni and sent their children to private colleges. Heck, 2 percent of malay parents now send their children to private chinese schools (words of the PM, not mine). While such criticism does exist (cf. the local press), its not really clear who the voices are behind it. --Malbear 01:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

The article, like every other article which has something to do with Malaysia, seems rather biased. I for one think the education here stinks, but some of the stuff in the article seems to me rather unfounded. I've never heard of a controversy about demographics and the PTS. Heck, the article doesn't even mention how it is biased. That part seems rather weak to me — can I have a source please? And the Politics section could be toned down a little. Johnleemk | Talk 09:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: The article still says that the PTS demographics were biased, and it's glaringly lacking a source. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Glaringly biased - why can't there be some balanced writing instead of paragraphs of criticism? Not a place to "unload" your personal dissatisfactions

[edit] Compulsory schooling

Compulsory Schooling does not exist in Malaysia as far as legislation goes. Otherwise it would be illegal for Orang Asli and the noodle man not to send his child to school. Education is however "free" to citizens.

According to the Serawak on line site (http://www.sarawak.gov.my/contents/education/education.shtml) " The Government is soon to make primary education compulsory for all Malaysian children." This would imply that such legislation does not at this moment exist. Kindly cite a source that such legislation does exist (even then, enforcement....) Malbear 07:57, 24th Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Terminology for primary education

Can someone confirm

"Primary Education in Malaysia consists of 6 years of education, referred to as Standards 1 through 6."

The term that was used Darjah (before) is loosely translated as Standard or Grade but I thought the new term is "Tahun" which is "Year"....Anyone?

Malbear 07:57, 24th Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. As a primary student, we used Standard and Year interchangeably. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fair Enough. So what should the entry reflect? The "official" name or the standard usage one or both with an annotation as to which is which?

Malbear

I think now, they use the term "tahun". But, during my primary school year, they use "darjah".--Dehanz 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted last change

Please provide a source for the following removed paragraph, as the quote is highly inflammatory, if true:

In 2004, the government created a new ministry called the ministry of higher education to oversee tertiary education. It's first minister, Dr Amir Shafie stated "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher".

It is quite possible the quote may have been mistranslated, miscapturing the Minister's real meaning. Right now it does not sound like something a Minister would say. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In other words this is not something you want the minister to say but he has said it and now you wish to supress the truth? Shame on you.
Ok two things you reverted which are true but somehow don't fit your worldview
  1. UiTM is only for Bumiputra
  2. Shafie Salleh is a quota monster.
  1. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ02Ae05.html Then there was Higher Education Minister Dr Shafie Salleh's remark: "I will never allow non-Bumiputra students to enter [Universiti Teknologi Mara] UiTM. I will not compromise on this matter." Bumiputra means "sons of the soil" and refers to Malays and a handful of indigenous minority groups, such as the Ibans and Orang Asli. Government policy grants the Bumiputras privileges.
  2. http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=94883 "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher," he said.
I trust that you will be gentlemanly enough to change it back because I can't e arsed to repeat something I have already written right now. Will check back in 12 hours to see it has been done. Alternatively I will add it back myself and find recourse for removal of FACTS simply because they make you unhappy....Yhank you sir--Malbear 09:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. I have always assumed your changes that I viewed as detrimental were not made on purpose in order to introduce errors or because of any intentional bias. I was just asking for a source. If you had a source, why was it not included? Just place [http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=94883] after the sentence. The removal of the UiTM info was not intentional — apparently the rollback feature of the software rolled back both of your consecutive recent edits instead of only your most recent one. I will revert my change, but next time please provide a source if possible, particularly for controversial issues such as this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Update: Apparently Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang's son, disputes this: [1]. Here's the quote:
Dr Shafie had also assured UMNO delegates that so long as he remains as Higher Education Minister the number of Bumiputera students in public universities will always exceed the given quota. For example, he said in 2002, there were 69 per cent Bumiputera students, while the quota was only 63 per cent, while in 2004, there were 64 per cent Bumiputeras (the quota was only 53 per cent).
This example given by Guan Eng clearly indicates that what Shafie meant is that there will always be more Bumi university students than the minimum quota allocated to them. The quote given in the article implies that Shafie intends to raise the the quota year after year just for the heck of it. This doesn't mean that he's justified in making such racist comments, but as I suspected, there's more to this quote than at first glance. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually the initial assertion is not regarding quotas. Whether the final "play" is the imposition of quotas or the shooting of qualifying non-Bumi students (heh heh) the point is that a non-bumi student is disadvantaged for univerity entry to universities paid for by their own tax dollars. And totally denied entry into certain universities again paid for by their tax dollars. This is whats happening and I hope its been reflected proportionally in the article. --Malbear 07:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um...why again are you trying to bias and politicise this article?
Such gauruntees, whether through the use of quotas or not, would put non-Bumiputra students at a disadvantage and implies that race-blind meritocracy is not a current priority of the present administration.
It's bleeding obvious that that's what's going to happen. We're making an implicit point explicit, but this is not the conclusion all readers will draw. Leading them to this conclusion is directly biasing the article. We're supposed to tell them about the quote, about the quotas, what Guan Eng said, but we're not ever supposed to tell them what conclusion to draw from what we told them. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
for the simple reason that earlier in the article it states that (1) a system of meritocracy will be practiced and (2) that quotas are being reduced. This paints a picture that the system is getting MORE equal but the truth is that it is not so. Why are you trying to politicise it by hiding whats happening?--Malbear 10:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Removing that paragraph hides nothing. Shafie's statement makes it bleeding obvious that the government has no intention of taking any serious action to move towards meritocracy. We don't need to repeat it. I'm trying to remain calm here, but it's sickeningly and ironically annoying how only days ago I was arguing with one idiotic Bumi who thinks Chinese are evil and out to get the Bumis if they try to dismantle the NEP, when now I'm here debating with a Chinese who, consciously or not, tries to insert his bias into every article relevant to his political opinions by constantly harping on the points in the article he agrees with. Stop treating the readers like idiots. Shafie's statement makes the whole sentence redundant, because his quote directly states that he doesn't give a shit about meritocracy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okey. Removed all the commentary and we let the quotes speak for themselves on both sides.--Malbear 10:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I moved the other quote from Guan Eng to the section on Chinese schools since it had nothing in common with the other quote except they're from the same person. I also clarified how Guan Eng alleged the statement can be misinterpreted. I've also done some cleanup elsewhere in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Have split the Guan Eng quote into two sections. The first part deals in the fact that students of other races study in Chinese schools. The second bit has to be where it is because it's doubtful that he holds the views that Shafie does.--Malbear 05:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this, but this article is starting to sound like a newspaper column. Could someone please re-edit the whole thing so that it is stylistically more like an encyclopedia article? Perhaps, references to specific quotations should be re-written in the third person instead of verbatim to improve the flow. Also, some of the sentences in this article are leaning towards POV.


UiTM has a campus in Section 17, Shah Alam that caters for pre-university education, especially sponsored students meant to go overseas. Scholars from different races go there. I believe it is called INTEC. Just to say that UiTM is not strictly bumiputra-only.

[edit] Template:Education infobox

I created a template, Template:Education infobox which can give a quick at a glance demographics table for education articles. See its implementation at Education in the United States and feel free to help improve the template.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Could we please convert the links like this [2] into proper references, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style? Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Resources

         The three major resources of malysia are tin,copper and timber. there are many more but those are the main three.

[edit] Should mention about "The philosophy of Malaysian Education"

I think this artical is unbalance,especially in the part "secondary school", as the main stream school system is not largely describe.

However, this article is over focus on "chinese independent secondary school", this should be a independet articale. I think others(non malaysian) will hardly understand what happen becoz this event(the rise of chinese school) is very complex.

Chinses Independent secondary school is part of the malaysian education system, but it does not represent the whole system.

More importent, this article is not mention about "the philsosophy of Malaysian Education" at all. Some one should adjust it, becose this is a very importent figure.

[edit] favour vs favor, program vs programme, etc

I find those that want to turn the article into Queen's English standard as highly annoying and irritating. Could we edit on substance instead? __earth (Talk) 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, by the way -- as I understand it, the manual of style advises us to both use the kind of English applicable to the article (i.e. an article on Tony Blair should use Commonwealth English, while one on the White House should use American English) and refrain from altering it if we don't like the style. Hm? Anyway, I don't see the point in reverting these pedantic edits, so -- like you said -- let's focus on the article's substance instead. Johnleemk | Talk 05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Education and Politics

This is weird, is this section, don't you find it odd that Acts like Universities and University Colleges Act are not mentioned at all? 130.195.2.100 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have added more some preliminary information about UUCA and the tuition phenomenon in Malaysia. Some help would be appreciated. 203.109.210.197 12:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/u/Talk%7EEducation_in_Malaysia_c9e6.html"