==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

The purpose of creating MARA Junior Science Colleges was clear, to screen the “best and brightest” among Malay children to undergo privileged training in science- and mathematics-based education. The vision was to create intellectual elites able to build the nation which was then in the process of modernizing.

A REPUBLIC OF VIRTUE

ON THE HISTORY OF MALAYSIA’S GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE MRSM (MAKTAB RENDAH SAINS MARA/MARA JUNIOR SCIENCE COLLEGE) SYSTEM -- BRIEF NOTES AND SELECTIONS

(Originally written as part of a proposal to the Stanford University School of Education, 1997)

A nation’s greatest asset is its intellectual resource cultivated through the process of education. From the times of Plato to the post-modernist revolution in cognitive psychology, the emphasis burdened onto the enterprise of education is to create individuals able to function intellectually and productively in society. Key to this ongoing cultural and social struggle is the development of thinking skills and personality traits “desirable” and socially apt in the process of educating or “drawing out the best out of the child” so that he/she will be able to be holistic in thinking. This enterprise has been approached in many ways depending on the times and the socio-economic and political climate prevalent. One of the most remarkable and landmark studies which has emerged in the field of assertaining human potential is that done by Prof. Lewis Terman of Stanford University. For 34 years and one which continued after his death, Terman spent his life, beginning as a graduate student, closely following the intellectual development of over 1500 children he defined as gifted and talented through the Stanford-Binet test (Sisk, 1987:7). Terman and Oden (1959:2) described the purpose of the study entitled Genetic Studies of Genius.

In 1921 a generous grant from the Commonwealth Fund of New York City made possible the realization of this ambition. The project as outlined called for the shifting of a school population of a quarter-million in order to locate a thousand or more of highest IQ. The subjects selected were to be given a variety of psychological, physical and scholastic tests and were then to be followed as far as possible into adult life.

Terman was working within the paradigm of intelligent testing based upon the Stanford-Binet IQ concept; a time wherein the structural-functionalist and empirical approach to ascertaining intelligence was flowering. Seventy years hence has passed and countless criticisms were leveled against IQ testing-based selection and determining of the concept of giftedness. Numerous instruments have since been developed to give a “fairer” approach to defining intellectual ability. Albeit the above-mentioned summary of the controversies which has plagued intelligence testing up to this day, Terman’s classic study remained much revered as an attempt to comprehensively and longitudinally analyze the life events which has shaped and sustained the “giftedness and talentedness of his subjects”. Terman (1959:) was specifically attempting to find out the following:

(1) what intellectually superior children are like as children; (2) how well they turn out; and (3) what are some of the factors that influence their later achievement. (page 2) The history of gifted and talented education has not recorded any attempts by others into follow-up studies of such magnitude. Sisk (1987) in analyzing early education efforts on behalf of gifted children concluded that “[i]n reviewing the early educational efforts on behalf of the gifted, the genius of Terman cannot be ignored. He was a major catalyst for education for the gifted and devoted his life to bright and quick students”. (page 7)

It is within this backdrop of literature on the history of giftedness and talentedness that the foregoing discussions leading to the stating of problem statement and hypothesis need to be set. Whilst the American experimentation on the selection and identification of children designated be academically gifted began with the Terman study in 1921, more than 50 years after that, Malaysia as a developing country emerging out of the shockles of colonialism and undergoing a process of nation-building through education, began a similar experiment.

A study into the process of systematic filtration of children designated as academically gifted and placing them in special schools for the academically superior was documented in a doctoral dissertation by (Sulaiman, 1975). A nationwide search was made for the “best and the brightest” to be screened and admitted in a newly established group of three schools named MARA Junior Science Colleges (in Seremban, Kota Baru and Kuantan). Sulaiman’s study focused on the 1974-75 selection process and stated that:

... a total of 2,070 candidates were eligible to participate in the selection process. Out of these, only 818 managed to qualify for the interviewing stage. And out 880 interviewed candidates, only 330 were finally selected based on the cumulative results of the MJSC tests, which formed 60% of the total, the socio-economic considerations which formed 20% and the interview criteria which form another 20%. (page 144)

If there are similarities in the manner Terman selected his subject, it is in the manner IQ testing is used which focused primarily on the logical-mathematics and linquistic abilities of those tested and selected. Sulaiman (1975) stated that “[t]he MARA test comprised an IQ test, an English test, a Science test, and a math test, each having a total of 60 points making a total score of 240 points for all four subjects.” (page 145) Having been tested and succeeded, thus began MJSCs’ experiment’ in “enriching the lives of the children through a differentiated curriculum modeled after The Bronx School for the Gifted in Science. A historical survey into the development of Terman’s study as well as MJSC’s experimentation and its mission and vision will certainly be dealt with in the section of literature review. The above discussions, albeit at length for a section on problem statement and hypothesis, nonetheless is necessary to arrive at a jucture to understand a parallel experiment which was done at two different times.

Although Terman’s study began in 1921 and Sulaiman’s analysis of the selection process was described critically and analytically in 1975, one must content with the chronological difference in the transplantation of ideas from a developed country to that of a developing one. Sections in the review of literature will deal with the Center-Periphery Concept of transplantation of educational ideas looked at within the context of Dependency theory. Pertinent to this study nonetheless is the replication of Terman’s study (with minor adaptations) to the products (in the vulgar sense of education/terminology) of the MJSC experiement out of which is based upon the intelligence testing championed by Terman himself.

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ON THE HISTORY OF GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

The history of defining the concept of “giftedness” is one characterized by shifting paradigms of what constitutes intelligence and creativity in the context of a particular society’s ideological, political economic, socio-economic, cultural structure and history. It is also that of a constant flux and controversies in one’s definition of concepts such as “egalitarianism”, “equality” and “equal opportunity” as an art and science of “drawing out the best in every human being” (Kline, 1988)”. As society, in the context of historical materialism, moves towards progressing complexity, the need to delineate the “junior members of the society” borrowing educational philosopher John Dewey’s term (Dewey, 1938) becomes more pressing; the “best and the brightest” need to be systematically groomed particularly into “intellectual elites”.

These elites should then be socially engineered, through the human capital revolution process called “schooling”, to become cadres’ of capitalism able to sustain, evolutionize or even revolutionize the make up of the nation’s ideological structure. As such, the process of creating intellectual elites is not without precedence. Education for the gifted and talented is one such enterprise spawning historically from the days of Plato’s insistence that “philosophers” should be kings (Plato ). Modern-day history of gifted and talented education must be seen within the historical perspective of education in the United States Tannenbaum (1988) chronicled the American effort in educating the gifted; describing the historical evolution of gifted and talented education. From the days of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Quotience (IQ) testing in the early 1960s up till the move towards holistic definition and perspectives on the selection process in the 1980s, it is argued that the paradigms of perceiving giftedness have continually shifted, signalling the “maturity” of the concept (Tannenbaum, 1988).

The 1990s is characterized by the definition of giftedness based on brain-laterality and hemispheric models, signalling another paradigm shift which moves into the arena of educational belief that giftedness is a “concept for all” and that “egalitarianism” in defining whether one is gifted or not is essentially a moral-educational obligation, and that what should be looked at and into is the concept of “the genius in each and every human being” (Kline, 1988; Deporter; 1992 Gardner; 1985 Levine, 1991). The discussions and brief mentioning supra of the historical trends in gifted educational conceptual perspective suggests, as stated in the first paragraph of this section, the “shifting paradigms of what constitutes intelligence and its means of “perceiving it”. The following paragraphs briefly outline the review of literature pertaining to the history of gifted and talented education:

Philosophers par excellence of the Hellenistic tradition, notably Socrates and Plato were the first to contribute to the idea that intelligence need to be nurtured in order for society to sustain its cutting edge and competitive advantage in civilization (Nettleship, 1966). Whilst Socrates called for the early identification of individuals’ talent so that more of the gifted can be nurtured, Plato believed that a society can maintain its prominence and intellectual sustenance through the election of gifted and talented individuals to the ruling class. Plato, in essence and in the leit motif of his age, insisted that “philosophers should be king” believed that the giftedness can be defined as the ability to grasp knowledge at the various levels classified and be able to also be highly competent at those various levels.

The Hellenistic tradition, with its primary of classical philosophy as its force majeur, gave birth to the enterprise of scientific inquiry; familiar the maxim that “philosophy is the mother of knowledge.” Scientific inquiry, the soul of rationalistic throught of that philosophical genre transferred the concept of giftedness and intelligence, from a somewhat vague, fuzzy and non-scientific conception based on Platonic idea of the human mental innerworkings, to a more “constructed” one; that intelligence is a fixed human characteristic. One such attempt to search into the fixatedness of this concept of intelligence which later gave rise to the genetic investigations into giftedness is the work of Sir Charles Darwin, an English botanist.

Darwin’s (1868) investigation into the origin of species a “blasphemic and controversial” study on natural selection set the impetus for another researcher to look into the concept of the inheritability of human intelligence. Such was undertaken by the English biologist, Sir Francis Galton, who constructed the first intelligence test based on the data of his research findings. Galton (1869) developed the instrument based on his theory that the general intelligence of infants are related to their sensory acquity (Howley et. al., 1986). The quest for identification of human intelligence saw further development in the work of the Frenchman, Alfred Binet who developed a test to identify slow children. Binet’s work (1905) was focused on searching for measures to help these slow children to develop to their fullest potential.

Contrary to previous ideas put forth that intelligence is a fixated and inherited, Binet believed that human beings can develop their intelligence and that it can be done so through education. The history of gifted and talented education especially at this juncture saw the birth of the “nature-versus-nurture” controversy of intelligence which has up to this day kept emerging and reemerging, gaining prominence in the current “Murray” research published in 1995 (Murray, 1995). Following Binet’s work on the developmental and educable nature of intelligence and giftedness, the thesis was further developed into a revision of the original test by Lewis Terman, one of the most monumental figures in the history of gifted and talented education. Terman was then teaching at Stanford University and in 1916 developed the classic Stanford-Binet test (Binet, 1916). thus, the Stanford-Binet IQ test was born which gave, up to this day the popularity of the term IQ testing; an enterprise claimed by its proponents to be a holistic and scientific measurement of the fixatedness of human intelligence. Subsequent developments followed which saw the further refinement of the measurement of intelligence. Intelligence was then looked at from the perspective of one’s ability to perform certain tasks, depending on one’s general aptitude and unique factors. Spearman (1904) was the first to delineate “s” (specific) factors” in human intelligence.

These “s” factors were then further delineated by research done by Thurstone (1938) who specifically named seven mental abilities as primary to the definition of intelligence. They are namely, “numbers, verbal, space relations, memory, reasoning, word fluency and perceptual speed.” (Sisk, 1987: page 5) Whilst the historical development of intelligence testing is, at this point of discussion, centered around the belief that giftedness is a fixed construct, the work of Guilford (1959) who developed the model structure of intellect (SOI) marked a turning point in conceptualizing what intelligence is. Guilford’s factor-analytical model intelligence, the SOI, was based upon the idea that intelligence need to be looked at from three dimensions: operations, contents, and products. (Sisk (1987) stated:

According to Guilford’s definition, the operations are intellectual activities which involves the processing of information. Contents are the types of information on which operations are performed, and products are the outcomes of the different kinds of mental ability (pg. 5).

Jean Piaget’s monumental contribution to this historical review comes next in significance. Piaget (1952) theorized the stages of growth of human cognition; from the sensory-motor to pre-operational to concrete operational and lastly to formal operational. The human being progresses through these stages through his/her interaction with the environment a life process which is undergone with intensity. Accommodation and assimilation are the key features of the innerworkings of this interaction. Linguistic and thought development enriched or impoverished determines the level of cognition characteristic of the individual. Piaget looks at this development within the context of input-output of information in the process of developing the intellectual structure of the human being.

Since the times of Socrates and Plato to that of Jean Piaget, the history of defining intelligence and giftedness has undergone monumental paradigmatic shifts bringing forth newer perspectives in attempts to educate the human intellect. This brief historical survey would not be complete without the inclusion of contemporary findings in research on brain/mind which has begun to revolutionize the field of gifted education and one which has spawned new and unprecedented directions in this field. Sisk (1988) outlined the developments in cognitive psychology, an interdisciplinary field of the study of human potential and how this “new science” has brought promises in realizing “egalitariarism” in education. Sisk (1988) wrote:

Within the last generation, a new empirical discipline, cognitive science (a hybrid of psychology, computer science, psycholinguistics and several other fields) has developed. Cognitive science explores the interior universe - the mind and the processing of thought. This exploration bears examination by educators interested in building quality education. (page 289).

And thus, the history of gifted and talented education saw a watershed with a burgeoning literature to support the idea that giftedness and intelligence is not only concepts which are fixed and to be measured but can be developed multi-facetly, through multi-disciplinary means in order to create multi-dimensional human beings able to cognitively sustain their intellectualism in, a world of multitude complexities. Among those pioneering such a radical humanistic concept of human potential development are those such as Ivan Barzakov, Geogi Lozanov and Howard Gardner. Important works in the literature of brain/mind science of this genre abound and currently transforming education for the gifted and talented : (Lozanov, 1979; Gardner, 1985) a concept no longer to be tested on and discovered for the reserved few, but one to be developed and nurtured for the masses!

II. ON LEWIS TERMAN’S LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Significant to the intent of this research proposal is a brief discussion on Terman’s longitudinal study of which will be adaptatively replicated as a cross-sectional panel study of Malaysian gifted individuals identified in 1974. In Genetic Studies of Genius which remain up to this day, an unsurpassed and monumental research into giftedness, Terman documented research findings from 1925 to 1959, the year of his death. Sisk (1988) wrote of his work:

Terman’s project to study gifted students was founded in 1921 for $20,000. For 34 years, more than a quarter of a million dollars was raised to fund the study. As students were added, the size of the group studied grew to 1528 children. After Terman’s death in 1956, the study was continued by his associate Melita Oden, who conducted follow-up testing every five years. It is scheduled to continue until the death of the last Terman project participant in 21st Century and is financed primarily from Stanford-Binet test royalties. (page 7).

Sisk (1988) in her discussion of the emerging concept of giftedness summarized Terman’s findings as:

• The gifted differ among themselves in many ways and are not homogenous. • The stereotypes of the gifted child as puny, asocial, or prepsychotic, and of high intelligence as akin to insanity, are discounted. • To identify the most intelligent child in a class, one should consult the record book for the youngest. • Superiority in intelligence is maintained through adulthood. • Instructional acceleration at all levels is beneficial • Gifted students who did not attend college had the same intellectual level as PhD candidates. • Research on differences between the most and the least successful men in the gifted group indicate socio economic status and college education of the father as influencing factors, as well as force of character. • Mental age continues to increase into middle age. • There were many more high IQ persons than predicted by the normal curve of probability (Terman and Oden, 1947; Goven, 1977).

It is not the intention here to discuss the criticisms and contestations related to the findings made by Terman in the heydays of Stanford-Binet Intelligence testing. Rather, the purpose is to highlight the significance of Terman’s longitudinal study within the context of this proposal. What is to be studied in this Malaysian context has its parallelism with Terman’s work. The following review of the MARA Junior Science College experiment will throw some light to this parallelism.

III. ON THE MARA JUNIOR SCIENCE COLLEGE EXPERIMENT

The relationship between education and nation-building has extensively emerged in the literature of education particularly since nations in Latin America, Africa and Asia were released by their colonial masters from the shackles of domination (Bock,1971). Analyses of the role education play in these newly-independent nations have ranged from particularly two contending paradigms; structural functionalist and dependency or conflict (Paulston, 1977). Education, as part and parcel of superstructure inherited from colonialism has been seen as an enterprise which has its ideological base in the former colonial countries.(Walters, 1981). In Malaysia, British colonialism has had a major impact in the development of English schools which were instrumental in grooming political elites, predominantly, who would administer the country using ideological and political tools British in character.

Bock (1971) particularly analyses this relationship in his study of education and nation-building emphasizing on the uniqueness of multi-racialism of post independence. Bock stated the educational imperative as such:

... the range of problems which confront Malaysia are precisely those which require a direct attack on the attitudinal predispositions of its ethnically diverse citizenry. Recognition by the national elites that true unity between the ethnic communities in any cultural sense will take years, perhaps several generations to develop, has resulted in the short-run on attempting to attain some kind of accommodation between the communities so that they can live in peace while pursuing modernization. (page ) (1971)

Bock further stated that nation-building in post-colonial Malaysia has focused on the need to provide “crutches” to aid the Malays in their quest for economic and educational equality whilst at the same time to encourage “greater political participation by the non-Malays, particularly the Chinese population” (page 33). Out of this political economic obligation then efforts were made to systematically engineer special educational provisions for the Malays to enter “privileged” schools which attempt to groom bright and fast rural children to advance the ladder of social stratification. At the time the government was already embarking for several years in these special residential schools project, at the same MARA (Council for the Indigenous People’s Trust), a quasi-government body “ventured in a major educational program - The MARA Junior Science College (MJSC)”. (Sulaiman, 1975). These special residential schools were to encourage the development and interest of students especially in Science and Mathematics. Particularly relevant is the mention of the issue which surrounded the establishment of these school vis-a-vis the Government’s effort in attempting to do similarly. Sulaiman (1975) wrote:

The steps taken ... in setting up MJSC were received with mixed feelings. Some negated the necessity and justification set forth by the proponents of the project by claiming that if would ‘duplicate’ the government’s efforts aimed at basically the same objectives. That is, to help the poorer but bright intelligent students to excel in academic studies in science and mathematics. The counter claims by the MJSC proponents were that they were not interested in just producing academic ‘geniuses’ (robot-like and insensitive) who are unable to adjust to society’s needs. They claim that MJSC is also an attempt to inculcate ‘enterprising’, ‘creative’, ‘independent’ and ‘all-rounded’ attributes in all their students. (page 109 : underscore mine) Students were selected based on criteria such as good results in the Standard Five assessment exam, a series of tests and an interview. The tests, conducted by MARA “comprised an IQ test, an English test, a Science test, and a Math test each having a total of 60 points, making a total score of 240 points for all four subjects (pg. 146).

The purpose of creating MARA Junior Science Colleges was clear, to screen the “best and brightest” among Malay children to undergo privileged training in science- and mathematics-based education. The vision was to create intellectual elites able to build the nation which was then in the process of modernizing. The foregoing brief review of literature relating the MJSC experiment as it relate to post-colonial Malaysian education attempt to provide the context of this research proposal. It would be impossible to measure the contributions made by the individuals selected into MJSC in the early 1970s, to the development of the country.

REFERENCES (USED IN THE FULL-LENGTH VERSION OF THIS PAPER)

OUR USUAL REMINDER, FOLKS:

While the opinion in the article is mine,

the comments are yours;

present them rationally and ethically.

AND -- ABOLISH THE ISA -- NOW!

Comments (18)

...
written by NSTPravda, October 31, 2009 12:45:20

It would be impossible to measure the contributions made by the individuals selected into MJSC in the early 1970s, to the development of the country.??!! But we beg to differ - in more than 30 years the result is for all to see, we have more NEP and UMNO. The re$t is hi$tory! Ra$uah $ayang eh! $emua-nya OK?

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 73

...
written by Godflesh, October 31, 2009 14:01:45

The entire Malaysian education system from pre-school right up to post grad studies have produced nothing but dim-wits. Intelligent students in MRSM my foot. Bring on these so-called nerds and I'll tapau them one by one, heck my pet cockatoo will tapau them for me..... Malaysia is on its way to being a failed state - if not already there!

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 69

...
written by raven1958, October 31, 2009 14:29:49

Let me see...is this that program that MRSM coaches and spoon feeds students to achieve 15A1s an then send them to do medicine in Moscow, Prague, Cairo, Manipal,Samy Velu's AIMST or do accountancy in Jordan and Turkey....all because takut mau compete dengan Cina di University Malay...yep that's the program isnt it..

Tell me ..how can these MRSM chaps compete in th real wold when they cant beven compete with our local Malaysians.

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 78

...
written by sydput, October 31, 2009 14:54:43

POOR MALAY STUDENTS who were doing well at sekolah kebangsaan, suddenly was encouraged to enrol into various MRSM.
The trouble is, now, those poor folks have to fork out hundreds of ringgit a month in boarding and food, plus the compulsory PTA fees. And because the syllabus does not follow local ones, they also have to pay for their examination fees.
And very few MRSM graduates actually got into the ivy league colleges.And those who returned, they end up writing tender documents for govenrment/GLC purchases. very few end up doing r & D.

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 32

...
written by Hakim Joe, October 31, 2009 15:17:51

Whatever it is or whatever it was meant to do, producing Malay geniuses by the bucketloads, it is not.

The government paves the way specially for them, spoon feeds them, nurtures them, gives them all opportunity to excel...then they come into the real world environment and the majority of them get walloped left, right, centre, up, down, front and back by those that have graduated from the school of hard knocks. These "walloped" grads then gets promoted to become government officials (or work in Proton). Either those above or they join their local UMNO and try to be politicians.

Look, the entire bias education system is wrong. For Malaysia to prosper, it will need its citizens (regardless of race and religion) to help making it so. The concept of Malay-superiority as exhibited by MARA is where they compete against each other (Malays only) at college only to find that there is an almost level playing field when the join the workforce later. Then the scream that it is unfair!

If the Malaysian education system is that superior, why the hell does the rich Malays send their children to be educated elsewhere (except the Kebangsaan schools)?

If the Malaysian education system is that superior, why the hell is there a need for MARA to cater to the Malays only?

If the Malaysian education system is that superior, why he hell is the need for the government to force the GLCs and MNCs to hire Malays?

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 55

...
written by by2020, October 31, 2009 15:27:53

Please name five outstanding high achiever graduated from MRSM? Then we know the answer how successful the program is!

The Malaysian Astronaut, is he one? Good at taking a easy ride.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 35

...
written by justice seeker, October 31, 2009 16:10:13

A nation’s greatest asset is its intellectual resource cultivated through the process of education.

BUT FOR AMENO, DEGREES IN BEING SODOMISED, POST GRADUATES IN CORRUPTION, ESP
THOSE WITH HONOURS OF BEING CONVICTED ARE HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER AND WITH THE PAPER QUALIFICATION, IS AN INSTANT TICKET TO THE HIGHEST POSITIONS OF POWER, STATUS AND RICHES.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 15

...
written by citizenmy, October 31, 2009 16:22:25

I dont really know the current situation in MRSM. But about 20 years ago, MRSM definitely had best teachers and bright students, and the result had been excellent.
Currently overall Malaysian teachers quality is ..?????. I think this cancer definitely had spread into MRSM too. I dont have much expectation from them now.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 16

...
written by Beni, October 31, 2009 20:56:01

Unfortunately MRSM only take in bumiputra students, so its students have lost the opportunity to interact with students from other races. They are also deprived of the opportunity to learn and compete with students from other races. How does such a learning environment affects the social and psychological development of the students? Are they able to cope with the challenges of multicultural learning environment in overseas?

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 23

...
written by Steven Ong, October 31, 2009 21:08:05

What is this Single Stream School? And professor Khoo Kay Khim was asking whether the Indians and Chinese wants to be Malaysians or not? ( NTV7 8:00PM News 30/10/09) Professor Khoo, you are always short sighted. You seem to know what is good, but fail to see or mention the obstacle to unity as one nation. And our PM Najib is saying if the people dont want it, dont implement it. Who dont want it? Its again all talk and wayang-wayang.
The biggest obstacle to unity in Malaysia, are the current racist politicians and the divided education system, one for the Malays , one for the Chinese and one for the Indians. The elders practice and teach racism to their children. How can ther be unity when our leaders does not want to? True unity will happen only when all believed and see that all are equal as anak tanah Malaysia.

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 34

...
written by Ghifarix, November 01, 2009 08:49:51

Like all other institutions MARA became short sighted or vision-less due to cronyism via the political appointments which resulted in gerrymandering the pilih process at both candidature and employment roll; Lecturers and students. The Administration was just as bad. Every Wakil and not surprisingly Elite and rich "stingy" UMNO member leached the system. It was a straight case of banditry over the lower 'caste' ops class (Malays). Look at Europe's higher education system while we sit here and beg for exchange of technology; racism though subtle bears almost zero influence while National and ethnic differences remains checked. Just have a look at the rise in football (sports) standards even in Japan, one can't help notice the diversity after-all ain't no King or Queen privileges, allocation, interference or race priorities definitely not to the nation determent.

Every nation that is ahead of us saw the NEED to stamp out national and ethnic privileges from their selection process that needed to meet the challenges, quite rapidly by opening the doors and riding the system of institutionalized racism "nationalist" paranoia down-right hate and selfishness. With such, they realized that there is more to make and greater economic expansion.

France is one of the most racist entrenched cultural administrations in modern history but just look at its Medical Sanitary and sporting configuration. I sometimes laugh when they refer to Africans Arab an Caribbean peoples as French.

Can we Malay"sia" challenge this NATION, perhaps in the corruption index?

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 10

...
written by apanama, November 01, 2009 09:15:56

THE BEST BRAINS THEY EVER PRODUCED ARE A-LIST THAT INCLUDES

HALIM SAAD
TAJUDIN RAMLI
DAIM ZAINUDDIN
SAMSUDDIN ABU HASAN

AND THEY SCREWED YOU AND ME AND RAN OFF WITH THE LOOTS.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 31

...
written by educationist, November 01, 2009 14:57:02

"The vision was to create intellectual elites able to build the nation which was then in the process of modernizing. "- judging by the standings of our Malaysian public universities I will say any success in this field is nothing much to shout about.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 7

...
written by EYFF, November 01, 2009 21:53:49

ON THE HISTORY OF MALAYSIA’S GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE MRSM SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently a big flop! As could be shown by the products and the present situation i.e. the end result!

After 40 years, when compare to Singapore which is now a developed nation of per capita USD38,000 , Malaysia with a per capita of less than USD2600 to 8000 will never be a developed nation, in spite of what its politicians would want you to believe .

To think that both started off at USD1,000 over 45 years ago and with the same mix of people!

One is obsessed with elitism, racial privileges and supremacy and the other with hard work and honesty.

After 45 years the end result is telling!

The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 28

...
written by Msian Idol3, November 01, 2009 23:32:08

These so called elite school is just another a failed education system based on a racist agenda. Pupils from such schools never have a chance to integrate & compete with the best in the field & you expect them to be leaders !!! What a small minded education minister we had. Besides, if Mara is such a success how come our universities have such poor standards where even most non malays don't even send their kids. Yes, I have a malay professor friend who quit teaching in one of the local universities and he tells me 2 things -- the students he is getting are getting more bodoh and he have to pass them plus these students are corrupted with malay supremacies.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 7

...
written by cruzeiro, November 03, 2009 10:58:25

Azly,
Your repeated references to MRSM and its system like its one of par excellence, is a best, shameful if not demeaning to the intellect - that too, simply because you were the product of one.

When a teaching/learning system is rooted on a racist premise, it can never be what you call excellent. That is an insult to the intelligence- and in fact very word "excellent".

Please spare us the MRSM drivel - I've seen the general product of MRSM (I don't speak of exceptions), and their inability to string a decent sentence in English or even have decent discussion is hardly awe inspiring.
You can search the archives of this very comments section right here, to see proof of that, if you doubt what I say.

Thank you.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 6

...
written by minds, November 03, 2009 23:01:59

once for all our goverment the umno BN dont want the rakyat to be clever so that they can hold on to power as long as posible.
Why dont use english for all subjets and mother tongue for melayu,chinese,tamil and so on iban,kadazan ect.
That we call single stream educations and by then we are proud to be a malaysian.
Don’t become like our ex minister “election or ERECTION HA HA HA

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 6

...
written by jaz, November 04, 2009 09:08:13

Reminds me of math prodigy Sufiah Yusof.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 12