An express lane for the intelligent

AT THE tender age of seven, did you feel more intelligent that the boy sitting next to you in school? Whether you did or not, there was an attempt in the 1960s to push the more intelligent ones – or the pupils perceived to be more intelligent – more quickly through their primary education. A development arising from the Rahman Talib Report was the concept of express classes “for more intelligent children to complete their primary education in five years instead of six.” (The Straits Times, 14 January 1962) A Unesco paper in 1973, titled “The educational statistics system of Malaysia 1972”, gave more information:

At the beginning of the second year in a large primary school, the more intelligent pupils are placed in the express class based on their performance in the previous year, the recommendation of their class teachers and the approval of the parents concerned. They will remain in such class until they complete the remaining part of the primary education in the next four years thereby completing the primary education in five years instead of six. Prior approval of the Chief Education Officer must be sought whenever a Head of School wishes to start an express class. Express classes exist in a number of large primary schools and statistics on them are regularly collected. In 1971, the number of Express classes in West Malaysia was 98 classes with 3,835 pupils.

The pioneering Standard Two Express class
at Westlands School in 1962.

Thus in 1962, an express class was introduced into Standard Two in Westlands School. Ironically, many of my friends who were streamed into the first Standard Two Express simply had no idea why we had been so chosen. Guinea pigs, we turned out to be. Or whether our parents had been informed at the very least. Were we really that more intelligent that the rest of our classmates who did not go into the express class? On what basis were we chosen? Even the old teachers that we spoke to could not recall the criteria of selection. If I could remember correctly, one told me recently, each class in Standard One in 1961 were requested to pick their five best pupils to go to the express class the following year.

(As a footnote, perhaps I WAS a wee bit more intelligent at my young age after all. I do remember that in 1964, the school introduced an Intelligence Test for the first time in its history. Everyone took the test and to my surprise, I scored the highest marks among my peers, not only in the class but in the whole of Standard Five. But no prize was forthcoming for me, unfortunately. The school offered no prize for this test. Darn. The very first and only time I ever came out tops among the boys in any test and I got no prize, no recognition. Ha ha... 😜)

I have no idea how long the original Standard Two express classes lasted in the Malaysian education system. Contrary to the Unesco report I mentioned earlier, it was suggested in an academic paper, “The identification of gifted and talented students” by Siti Fatimah Mohd Yassin, Noriah Mohd Ishak, Melor Mohd Yunus and Rosadah Abd Majid, published in 2012, that the programme ended in 1970. I have also seen a short report in The Straits Times of 26 July 1968 that the Minister of Education, Mohammed Khir Johari, had wanted the express classes to be discontinued from 1969. The system was not good enough, he had felt. There were varying standards in different schools and he claimed that the pupils were admitted to express classes at the discretion of teachers and headmaster only.

Neither was this the only experimentation by the Ministry of Education. According to Abu Yazid bin Abu Bakar from the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, the Ministry of Education had intermittently introduced such express class programmes for pupils with high academic potential over a period of three decades (1960s through 1990s). In his paper, “Developing gifted and talented education program: The Malaysian experience” published in Jan 2017, he wrote that the express classes in 1962 gave such pupils the opportunity to accelerate their elementary education. “Likewise,” he added, “the Level One Assessment System in 1996 was a similar acceleration effort to shorten the elementary education of academically talented pupils. However, all these transformational efforts to develop programmes specifically tailored for gifted and talented pupils were short-lived due to factors such as lack of instructions, training, leadership and resources.”

© Quah Seng Sun

Pursuing unity through education

PRIMARY education in this country has changed a fair bit. Two major reports, the Razak Report (1956) and the Rahman Talib Report (1960), resulted in two pieces of legislation that, amongst other aims, made education a primary tool to foster national unity. As a means of unifying the country, their main focus was on making Malay the national language and English a lingua franca. The laws were also aimed at streamlining the school system.

Prior to the re-organisation from January 1957, there were two stages in a child's primary education, where teaching in the English language was concerned. First, he would have to undergo a basic elementary education for two years before he could move on to a primary school for the next four years. The smarter ones would then progress to the secondary school stage after overcoming some Government examinations along the way. Double promotions were already not unheard of, while there were many reported instances of over-aged pupils too. Too many, in fact.

A few primary schools were already considered as the feeder schools to Penang Free School. First, there was the Northam Road Government School which operated from 1922 to 1933. Hutchings School came into existence in 1928 after the Free School relocated to newer premises in Green Lane and the old premises in Farquhar Street was converted into the primary school. Then there was Francis Light School which was established two years later in 1930 and finally, Westlands School followed in 1935.

These non-missionary schools provided primary education in English from Standard Three onwards till Standard Six. So what about Standards One and Two? For these two years, a child would have to enrol in elementary schools such as the Hillview Government English School that was set up in 1924 (and which later became the Wellesley School in 1936).

When I was trying to get confirmation from a few people who were senior to me in age that this was their primary school experience in the 1950s, I learnt that they had indeed studied at Wellesley School for their first two years of education. After that, their parents had applied for them to continue with their primary school education, Standards Three to Six, at the Francis Light, Hutchings or Westlands Schools.

All this changed at the start of the school year in January 1957 as a result of the implementation of a new education policy. In May 1956, the Federal Legislative Council had debated and unanimously adopted a new 10-year education plan, called the Razak Report, which was proposed by the then Minister of Education, Abdul Razak Hussein. The following excerpt is extracted from The Straits Times of 17 May 1956:

“I ask the council to endorse the policy in this report so that with the dawning of merdeka we can provide a happy and glorious future for every child born in Malaya,” he said. “No member will blink the fact that our educational plan is ambitious, a challenge to the skill and resources of the Government machinery. The country is going through a period of political transition. Political freedom and full nationhood are round the corner. Therefore, as Malaya enters this new era in her history, let us give our children ideals and loyalties to which they can stretch their hands and which can promise them a happy and contented future. This report lays the foundation of a national system of education on which a united Malayan nation will be born and grow into a happy and stately manhood. I am grateful to the public for having received the report with understanding and support,” he added.

“Strangely enough,” he continued, “the little opposition there has been came from the Malays whom the report is intended to benefit. The Minister referred to a headline in a Malay newspaper which said: "The education report eliminates the Malay language. It gives statutory recognition to English and other languages...”

He commented: “Can a sane and sensible person honestly believe that this report has the effect of eliminating the Malay language when its main recommendation is to enlarge and enrich the Malay language and uphold and uplift Malay education? The report is centred on a policy to make Malay the national language of the country and to raise the standard and the status of the Malay language. In formulating the new education policy, the committee tried to meet the various viewpoints as far as it could. We could not meet fully all the viewpoints expressed (but we are under no delusion that we would have pleased everyone with this report. We would consider ourselves extremely lucky if we had pleased the majority of the people.”

Razak said that the committee had borne in mind the importance of bringing children of all races under a national system of education, and recommended that there should be a uniformity of conditions and a common content of syllabuses. “We strongly believe that one of the essential elements in the building of a united Malayan nation is that children of all races should learn the same things in the same way at school,” he said. “They may not initially learn them through the same language but so long as they learn the same things about Malaya we consider this country will have gone a long way towards establishing a national system of education. This as stated in our terms of reference, ‘would satisfy the need of the people and promote their cultural, social, economic and political development as a nation’.”

The report recommended that there should be a variety of primary schools falling into two broad types – standard primary schools with Malay, the national language, as the medium of instruction, and standard-type primary schools in which the medium of instruction may be Kuo Yu or Tamil or English. In the standard primary schools English will be a compulsory subject, and Kuo Yu or Tamil will be taught if there are 15 or more children whose parents want them to learn these languages. Malay and English will be compulsory in standard-type primary schools. There will be established one type of national secondary school where the pupils work towards a common syllabus and to the same final examination. Malay and English will be compulsory.

Razak said: “English is still essential for use, particularly for dealing with the outside world. Therefore, the report recommends that English should be compulsory.”

On the development of the Malay language, the Minister said: “As Malaya grows into a nation, it is desirable that there should be a national language which can serve as a medium of communication among the people of all races domiciled here. Having accepted Malay as the national language, it is the duty of the Government and the people of the country, not only Malays but of all races, to do all we can to develop, enrich and enlarge that language so that it will be able to give expressions to our thought and ideas on science, economics, philosophy and the like. I can assure this council and the country generally that there is a field of opportunities in this work. the establishment of a literature agency is well in hand. This agency will be entrusted with the main task of producing books of literature in Malay not only for schools but for the general public. The report recommends as a matter of urgency the establishment of a language institute which will, in the main, train teachers for teaching Malay.”

The Rahman Talib Report of 1960, which was incorporated into the Education Act 1961, went further to speed up the process of national integration and unity through education. This 1960 report fine-tuned the proposals made in the earlier Razak Report and among the recommendations made were to make the Malay language the main language in schools, the Government providing free primary school education and automatic promotion till Form Three, an emphasis on religious and moral education, stressing on Membaca, Menulis dan Mengira (reading, writing and arithmetic) as fundamental education skills, stressing on a Malayan curriculum, providing an opportunity to continue education from nine years to 11 years, and streaming upper secondary education into either academic or vocational depending on the pupil's aptitude,

A consequence of this 1960 report, approved by Parliament in August that year, was that there would be universal free primary education in all fully-assisted schools as from January 1962. I remember being told by the class teacher that school fees would no longer be collected at Westlands School. I also remember that when I was in Standard One, I had to bring $2.50 to school at the start of every month and the money was carefully tied up in the corner of a handkerchief so that I wouldn't lose it. Another result of the implementation of this report was that the “standard” and “standard-type” schools would henceforth be known as “national (kebangsaan)” and “national-type (jenis kebangsaan)” primary and secondary schools.

Abdul Rahman Talib was appointed Minister of Education in January 1960, taking over from Razak. One of his first tasks was to send a message to all schools calling on the pupils to study the National Language. This was in conjunction with the country's first National Language Week. A month later, he chaired the Education Review Committee that had been formed to consider, among other things, the financial implications of introducing free primary education in Malaya.

The committee’s report was published on 3 Aug 1960 and predictably faced objections from Chinese language educators in the country who charged that “Chinese secondary education would be eliminated and that denial of public examinations in Chinese amounted to ousting the Chinese language from the education system.” But in reality, for the first time in the country, free primary education in Chinese - and also in English and Tamil – was to be available to all who wanted it. There were specific provisions for the study of the Chinese language and literature at both primary and secondary levels in the fully-assisted schools. And there was nothing to prevent the establishment of independent schools teaching in whatever medium they chose. (The Straits Times, 8 Nov 1960)

As a footnote, I had also touched briefly on the Razak Report in Let the Aisles Proclaim:

In September 1955, the Government appointed the then Minister of Education, Dato’ Abdul Razak bin Hussain, to head a committee to examine the existing education policy in the Federation and recommend a new national education policy which would be acceptable to the people. The committee’s terms of reference were to “satisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic and political development as a nation, having regard to the intention to make Malay the national language of the country whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country.” Between September 1955 and April 1956, eight meetings were held before the Report of the Education Committee 1956 was released in May.

The main principle of this Razak Report, implemented by means of the Education Ordinance 1957, was not new. Education as the instrument of nation-building was already the basis of the Barnes Report and the Education Ordinance of 1952. But where the Razak Report differed was the elevation of the Malay language to the dominant position in the education system. Ultimately, the Malay language would be the main medium of instruction in schools but in the meantime, the report provided for Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil schools to continue at the primary school level, and Malay and English schools at the secondary school level. The Malay-medium schools would be known as “national schools” while the others were “national-type schools.” All schools would be funded by the Government and use a common national curriculum. Among the other recommendations in the report were that Malay and English should be compulsory subjects in all primary and secondary schools; instruction in Kuo-Yu and Tamil should be taught in all aided primary schools when needed; the Lower Certificate of Education and the Federation of Malaya Certificate of Education would be introduced for candidates from all secondary schools, and a Board of Governors would be established in schools.

Reference: Quah Seng Sun. Let the Aisles Proclaim, pp.200-201. Publisher: The Penang Free School Foundation (2016)

© Quah Seng Sun

Letter to Wan Azizah, Minister for Women and Community Development, on improving social care in Malaysia 2018

Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Dear Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah

As the Minister for Women and Community Development, I am writing to you as I wish to convey my observations and concerns regarding social work and the social care sector in our country. The main concern is on child protection and the protection of vulnerable adults.

I returned to Malaysia from the UK over 6 years ago and was very much hoping to contribute to the development of the professional social work service. I applied for my return through (and which was subsequently endorsed by) the Talent Corp “Returning Expert Programme.” 

My entire working career in the UK was in social work, particularly in London Local Authorities (20+ years) ending up as Chief Officer/Principal Advisor and a Director of Social Services. I was a CEO of a “mental health and supported housing” Charity in South East London. I was also a Judicial Member of the Care Services Tribunal, set up to protect children and vulnerable adults and was an External Examiner for Universities programme for social work education and qualifications. Prior to returning to Malaysia, my own Government-approved UK Company provided services to children/young people with special needs and challenging behaviour (including child refuges or unaccompanied minors). 

This letter is in some ways an appeal to you, to implement in my view, much overdue action towards the improvement of services for our fellow citizens, in particular those least able to care for themselves.

Perhaps you are aware that the Care Services sector (specialist day care and residential care) for children with disabilities/special needs and for “vulnerable” adults is variable in standards and quality and remains unrecognised and neglected. Apart from the few Government-run establishments, most of specialist provisions are within the private and the voluntary sector (NGOs). 

It is the case that social care and support services currently provided are not formally “registered or regulated” over the way it delivers its services. Without any proper safeguards, there is a real risk that service users may not be adequately protected. As reported in the media there have been instances over the years of abuse and institutional neglect of residents in many of the care services establishments. Therefore, this is a public safety issue.

There is a need in my view to introduce “regulation” in order to instil not only public confidence, but also promote good services. If clinics, hospitals and schools are regulated why are social care provider-establishments exempt?  

My next main concern is towards a professional service that is sadly (woefully) least understood and so far unrecognised in our country. I am referring to the current disappointing situation regarding mainstream professional “social workers”.

Social workers, although unqualified in this country are at best university degree-trained and at worst, untrained. This occupation involving “social care” needs to be accorded appropriate recognition by the country and this could come about through the draft Social Worker’s Act, currently going through its technical assessment process.

This proposed legislation sets up registration for those using the legal title of “social worker” and sets standards and competency for practice. To be called a social worker, one needs both the required academic qualification brought about through higher education and appropriate practice experience. In short, the country needs to professionalise the social work service, of which the Social Workers Act is only a necessary beginning.

In summary, a statutory agency, that is a “Care Services Commission” needs to be considered, whose regulatory duties embrace “fitness to practice (people) and fitness to operate (organisations)” criteria. We would benefit from enacting legislation to ensure there are suitably qualified and professionally trained social workers in this country. I hope therefore, that you are able to review the current draft legislation with the aim of expediting parliamentary approval. It has been delayed through endless bureaucracy for far too long.

In the longer term, the way which social work and welfare services are provided could benefit with further decentralisation and localisation “at the point of delivery” for greater accountability and transparency. This bold re-organisation could compliment PH’s longer term plans to restore local government elections and accordingly, give greater duties and powers to Local Authorities. In my view, local communities often know what they need and the best ways to provide for those needs. 

I have attached an Appendix (see below) which provides some background and context around my concerns. I am a member of the Malaysian Association of Social Workers, an organisation that has been campaigning on the issues above although this letter is written in a personal capacity.

Finally, I would be delighted to provide further clarification and details if necessary.

Yours sincerely

Jim Lim Teik Wah

Read more about Jim here.

APPENDIX: Social Workers’ Act and social care services regulation

Social workers, despite years of trying to “be heard” have been unsuccessful in securing the previous government’s commitment to the required legislation to professionalise their status and the consequent steps towards regulating the social care sector.

Social work is a professional activity recognised throughout the world but unfortunately, the roles and functions appear least understood in our country. In addition, social workers often deal with complex problems affecting individuals and families and those problems, or its resolution or treatment can carry considerable social stigma.

There are six universities in Malaysia running undergraduate degree programmes in social work and a shorter Diploma in Social Work programme at a further education college in KL commenced a year ago. 

In spite of this and despite international recognition for our local social work professionals, both in academia and in practice, there have been little progress achieved in terms of formal recognition or, in terms of “professionalising” the service, and with it, the standards, quality and regulation that follow.

What is the current state of play?

Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development) is the statutory agency for a range of generic welfare services dispensing services and, intervening into the lives of individuals and families, principally “to protect, to assist and provide”. In addition, there are numerous voluntary organisations (NGOs) providing a wide range of services and to a many sections of the community. Malaysians are fortunate to have the many voluntary and charitable services evolving from its diverse religious and temperate societies.

However, there is a need to improve overall service delivery and this concerns public safety. How is the public to understand or be assured of a service which at the moment does not subject itself to inspection or regulation? For some services there is minimal registration for administrative purposes only but not regulation in terms of service standards and quality. 

As social work services are often delivered by “people to people” directly, is it not reasonable that we understand the professional ethics which govern its practice and ensure there is appropriate regulation over their professional conduct and suitability or fitness for practice of the social work practitioner, in the same way of doctors, dentists, nurses and other Para-medical staff?

The draft Social Workers Act which I believe is currently undergoing its technical appraisal processes have been rigorously ‘peer-examined’ too. In my view, this important piece of legislation is long overdue. 

The Act essentially legalises the job title of “social worker” and sets out mandatory standards for qualification as well as practice competencies. In line with many developed countries, it is time Malaysia join the wider community of social work.

There are numerous areas for improvements and existing social policies covering vulnerable adults, the elderly and children and families can benefit for an updated review and assessment as to its take-up as well as effectiveness. Some may require “replacement legislation” to reflect and accommodate the rapid social changes.

What is essentially the concern for social workers?

To simply put it, “social work intervention and social work services” fall under 2 distinct categories, warranting action and service provision.

The first covers services “safeguarding and protection” and,

The second is concerned with “maintaining dignity and enriching lives”

Safeguarding and protection services would be particularly relevant for children who are abused, families under stress, living with disabilities as well as vulnerable adults with disabilities. 

Maintaining dignity and enriching lives would relate to people with severe handicaps, elderly people living with dementia and in some cases, marginalised communities.

At present, most social work intervention is effective when there is high quality practice or professionally competent services, supported by well managed teams and organisations. Social workers must be “competent” in undertaking assessments and formulating plans working with relevant multi-disciplinary agencies and client/user groups. Social workers can make a difference to people’s lives working in different settings, statutory (government, judicial, educational) and non-statutory (social, community, NGO).

The main concern of social workers throughout the country is formal recognition of the work they do or can do. They are operating without formal professional recognition and often, other public service agencies fail to appreciate their role. The public can be at risk if there is no formal register which bars those unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable people. The recent Sexual Offenders Act is a case in point although there has not been any evaluation published since.

The short-term: To urgently have the draft Social Workers Act passed by Parliament. Equal Consideration must be given to establishing the institutional resources to effectively fund and manage the implications and consequences arising from the Act. To introduce appropriate regulation to the social care sector to protect the public.

The longer-term: To reorganise current “institutional” welfare provision with the aim of decentralisation or localisation of services to the respective state level. 

• I presented a paper on “social services planning” with the theme of decentralising services to local level at an ASEAN conference on Child Protection in KL in November 2012. Read here.

The longer-term may also focus on further education and training matters and the setting up of a working framework for inspection and regulation of establishments, centres and homes as well as statutory mechanism for vetting and barring schemes on suitability. 

I know that this may appear a long wish list but as social work had been accorded scant attention in the past, the new Government must try to “catch up” in order to help raise standards and improve responses and services to all categories of vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens.

• There was a study by external consultants commissioned by Agensi Inovasi Malaysia with their findings report for consultation in March 2017, called Innovating Malaysia’s Social Sector. This study attempted to calculate financial costs in social interventions and services and my criticism is that it hardly mentioned social workers or to the many unsung heroes working in the social care sector. The results or outcomes of this study have so far not been shared.

A treasure I cherish

ROSELY AHMAD is someone we bumped into in the Down Memory Lane (DML) group on Facebook. Like our merry band of former schoolmates, he is a child of the 1960s. We were amazed by his fantastic recollection of a particularly memorable incident that occurred to him during his schooldays at Westlands School. He said we could use it in this blog and thus, here it is:

A TREASURE I CHERISH by Rosely Ahmad 

I got this when I won a “Pop Quiz”
contest in Primary 6 @ Westlands Primary School in Penang during the School Concert Day.

There were only four contestants representing the smartest from each class and Std 6 had four classes... A, B, C and D. I belonged to Std 6D. I wasn't the smartest kid in 6D however, but I was not the dumbest either (although I was among those few from my class running for that dreaded title). I was forced to enter the contest because the smartest kid in my class suddenly got food poisoning, and at that time I happened to be on stage.

There I was on stage with the other contestants and still wearing a “gown” (if you all remember, in those days girls loved to wear gowns. If you guys are wondering why I was wearing a “gown”, it was because we had just finished an act titled “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and I was that kid that couldn't play the part of any of the seven dwarfs. Westlands was an “only boys” school.) 

Each one of us was given a question to answer, failing which he would be eliminated and the question passed to the other kid.

The teacher might have thought I would be eliminated in the first round, and yet I managed to survive till only two of us were left (me and the smartest kid of class 6A). 

I still remember the winning question. The teacher asked that kid. “Cassius Clay (at that time he wasn't called Muhammad Ali yet) is well known for boxing. What is the Malay word for boxing?”. When the “smartest kid” of 6A couldn't answer, the “not so smart kid” of 6D created history 😁

Anyway I got that book as a prize and the One Dollar note was from my dad. It still looks brand new.