Let me lay out some realities for you:

If you think that just learning Chinese up to Standard 6 at SRJK© is going to equip you with sufficient proficiency in the language to be able to "have an advantage with foreign companies that invest in PRC", you are deluding yourself. While I do not deny that learning Chinese up to Standard 6 at SRJK© brings your ability in Chinese to a relatively good level, it is not enough for professional purposes. You will not even have sufficient vocabulary to make a boardroom presentation or engage clients, and you will find yourself code-switching with English and fumbling through Google Translate for every second or third word that you encounter. Would you say that "learning English until Standard 6 is sufficient to engage the English-speaking market and workforce"? If the answer is obviously "no", then why the double standards? I know people who have this same mindset - after their kids completed 6 years of SRJK©, off they went to international school. Guess what: Fast-forward 1-2 years later, and they could barely string a sentence together in Chinese. Even worse if the family does not speak Chinese at home.

If you want to learn Chinese to a usable level and retain it for life, then there are no two ways about it than to walk through the established systems: One is to continue learning it at government secondary school, preferably at an SMJK© where SPM Chinese is compulsory, or at an SMK that offers the subject (and even then the absolute minimum is to learn it to Form 3 before you decide you want to drop the subject), Otherwise, and even better, go to a Chinese Independent High School. Don't even start with me on international schools offering "Chinese elective classes in Year X or Year Y" - you will learn the same stuff that you learned in SRJK©, and you will retain nothing.

This post has been edited by MiniCooperS1275: Mar 7 2023, 09:59 PM

This point interests me, because I keep hearing comments about how "Malaysia's secondary school syllabus has been watered down", and I am actually wondering how true that statement really is.

I have been exposed to both the SPM and Cambridge GCE syllabuses before, having done my secondary school both in Malaysia and Singapore in the early-1990's:
1. I took Malaysia's Matematik Tambahan and Singapore's Additional Mathematics textbooks and past year papers (i.e. SPM vs. GCE 'O' Levels), and laid them side-by-side. The syllabus was almost exactly the same.
2. SPM Biology required students to study most of the bones in the human body. Singapore's G.C.E 'O' Level Biology covered only four (4) bones on the arm.
(I am aware that G.C.E. and IGCSE are not the same thing, but I am guessing that they should be at least comparable in standard.)

Does anyone have any concrete data and information to support or debunk the claim that Malaysia's secondary school syllabus has really been watered down, at least for Mathematics and Sciences? Note that I am referring to the syllabus content and level of difficulty, not the marking scheme (which is another big topic for debate) or the quality of teaching (which is highly-dependent on individual schools and teachers).


I agree with the first part about the optimum combination being SJK©+SMJK©. When I was doing my senior high school in Singapore, one of my schoolmates was ex-Catholic High School PJ. He was winning Chinese essay awards, trouncing his Singaporean classmates, and his English was strong enough to keep up with the Singapore standards.

On that basis, I personally believe that more SMJK©'s are required to meet the high demand (I saw two newspaper articles about Catholic High School appealing for a branch school to be established, as it is the only SMJK© in the whole of Petaling Jaya, and has to turn away a large number of applicants).

Per my above point, if it can be established that the national secondary school syllabus - again, purely in terms of content and level of difficulty - is not inferior to IGCSE and its equivalents - then to me, we can and should start by leveraging from the standard of teaching and execution by the good SMJK©'s. Taking a leaf from my senior high school experience in Singapore in the 1990's: Regardless of school, the syllabus is the same, and not so different from Malaysia (like I said, the same Additional Mathematics syllabus was taught on both sides of the Causeway). The reason why the standards in Singapore were much more consistent nationally, and generally higher than that of Malaysia, lay in the quality of execution. The teachers were dedicated and focussed. They spurred and inspired the students to try harder.

Outside of classes, extra-curricular activities were better-emphasised and executed. Let me put it this way: It's not as if the ECAs that I experienced in Singapore were far different from Malaysia. They have Scouts and Cadets in Singapore, but hey, so do we in Malaysia! But in Singapore, they really make uniformed groups a part of student lifestyle and pride.

This post has been edited by MiniCooperS1275: Mar 9 2023, 11:14 AM

That is precisely what I mean. The problem is not because the standard of the SRJK© syllabus and content is low, it's actually quite high. The problem is the effectiveness in execution and the quality of the teachers.

If we took the same syllabus content and level of difficulty, and improved the following:
1. Textbooks and Activity Books
2. Teaching quality and effectiveness
would it change the picture?

Which is why I asked the previous question, whether it is true that the standard of the SPM syllabus has actually gone down in the past 2-3 decades. And if it has gone down, where does it stand relative to GCE, IGCSE, etc. Again, take teaching quality out of the equation for now, and just appraise the syllabus in itself.

I took my GCE 'O' Levels in Singapore in 1991, the same year my ex-schoolmates in Malaysia took their SPM. I am the penultimate batch before the MoE introduced KBSM, and as we know, much has also changed since then. I was told that the current KBAT syllabus builds in advanced questions, still within the framework of the syllabus, but tests the students' understanding to a deeper level.

It's not that the parents are insisting on the dual-track UEC/SPM. It's the policy of the specific Chinese Independent High School, particularly the ones in KL - as far as I am aware, it's compulsory at Chong Hwa and Kuen Cheng, and optional at Confucian. The thing is, the UEC takes place in Senior High 3, while SPM takes place in Senior High 2, which means that if the student fails UEC, he/she will only know one (1) year after completing SPM, which means a full year would have been lost.

For this, and for a variety of reasons, I place the blame on the government. Why is it so difficult to grant approval to establish new SJK©'s and SMJK©'s, or establish branch schools for existing ones? As I mentioned in my post above, there was a Chinese newspaper article about Catholic High School - the only SMJK© in the whole of Petaling Jaya - appealing for approval to set up a branch school to accommodate the high demand. Does that not say something about the reputation of SMJK©'s and hence the need to set up more to cater to the educational demands?

As far as I am aware, most (if not all) the SMJK©'s continue to steadfastly adhere to the DLP, teaching Mathematics and Science in English. That said, not sure about the other SMJK©'s, but Catholic High School PJ issues a survey form requiring all parents of enrolling students to vote their choice of whether or not they want DLP - I believe it is a requirement to demonstrate a majority vote for each cohort, in order to get approval to maintain the DLP in the school. I really doubt any parent would vote "no".

We have an agreement on this point. So, coming full circle, assuming if:
1. There were more SMJK©'s available beyond the current 82
2. All the SMJK©'s are of a good teaching standard (and here I am nodding in the direction of shining stars like Penang's Chung Ling High School, Ipoh's Ave Maria Convent, etc.)
3. The DLP for STEM subjects is implemented in all SMJK©'s without exception
4. Greater transparency in the SPM marking schemes

I wager there would be somewhat less scrambling by parents (especially the Klang Valley ones) for International Schools.

This post has been edited by MiniCooperS1275: Mar 9 2023, 03:38 PM

Okay, let me put it this way: If the government schools (SK, SJK©, SJK(T), SMK, SMJK©) subscribed to and implemented some of your company's coding programmes, etc., would you have a different opinion about the country sinking ship? Assuming, of course, that the execution aspect of the current syllabus was improved.

Also, I don't think it is entirely fair to dismiss the traditional chalk-and-talk teaching method (other than perhaps to replace the chalk with marker pens), not everything is necessarily taught more effectively simply because there is an LCD screen and nice interactive videos. Call me old school, but I happen to think that in some instances, multimedia can actually be more of a distraction and reduces student focus, as compared to a physical teacher standing in front of the class, with a book and voice in tow. Yes, Covid and MCO really threw schooling out of whack for the better part of two (2) years, but we should also acknowledge that MCO was a once-off, probably once-in-a-lifetime event (the last such really global pandemic was the 1918 Spanish flu, and we didn't have the Internet back then), where the heavier-than-usual use of e-learning was more of a stop-gap rather than a preferred method of teaching.

This post has been edited by MiniCooperS1275: Mar 9 2023, 04:00 PM

I would like to enquire, is Chinese Literature still offered as a subject at Catholic High School? I read this Sin Chew article that they have a very good Chinese Literature teacher there:
https://www.sinchew.com.my/20220922/%E5%90%...96%87%E5%AD%A6/

Is Chinese Literature offered to all students in the school, or only to selected students/classes/streams?

I see Mdm. Chua turns 55 this year - my son will enter CHS in a week's time, and I hope he may be blessed to be part of her final cohort of Chinese Language and Chinese Literature students before she retires in 5-6 years' time. Looks like she also coaches the CHS Chinese Language Debating Team (who have been winning quite a number of the National Chinese Debating competitions, even beating the Chinese Independent High Schools!).