During question time last Thursday, I was shocked to hear the Deputy Education Minister, Datuk Khalid Yunus saying that there were over 2,000 schools in Malaysia without electricity supply, as this is more than the previous figures given by the Education Ministry with regard to schools without electricity supply.
In my supplementary question to Khalid Yunus in connection with the government’s programme to supply computers to schools, I had asked the Deputy Education Minister to give a progress report on providing power to the some 1,000 schools in the country without electricity.
Khalid corrected my supplementary question, which had asked for a progress report on providing power to the some 1,000 schools without electricity supply in the country, saying that he had previously given me figures about more than 2,000 schools in the country without electricity supply.
I have now checked the records. During the winding-up of the debate on the Royal Address in Parliament on 9th April 1996, I had raised the scandalous situation of schools given computers and fax machines but which have no electricity supply but Khalid Yunus, who was replying on behalf of the Education Minister, was unable there and then to give the figures as to how many schools in the country were without electricity supply.
Khalid promised to send me those figures, and to his credit, Khalid did fulfil his undertaking, informing me by letter that there were a total of 1,320 schools, comprising 25 secondary schools and 1,295 primary schools, in Malaysia which did not have electricity supply.
During the debate in Parliament on the Seventh Malaysia Plan on 6th May, 1996, I expressed my “shock” at the high figure of 25 secondary schools and 1,295 primary schools without electricity, and called for an emergency government programme to ensure that all the 25 secondary schools without electricity supply should be provided with electricity supply by the end of this year, whether through Tenaga Nasional connection or generators, and that all primary schools in the country would be provided with power supply within two years.
I wish to commend Khalid Yunus for his sense of responsibility, for when I further asked for a full list of the secondary and primary schools without electricity supply, he took his Ministerial duties most seriously and sent me a list.
The list however only showed 930 schools in Malaysia without electricity supply and their state-by-state breakdown is as follows:
Perlis - Penang - Kedah 2 Perak 29 Selangor 22 Fed. Terrt - N. Sembilan 3 Melaka 1 Johore 33 Pahang 27 Trengganu 9 Kelantan 50 Sabah 319 Sarawak 535 Total 930
I must confess to being befuddled by the Deputy Education Minister’s figures of over 2,000 schools without electricity last week, wondering whether why I had at first been given the figure of 1,320 schools, then 930 schools, and now over 2,000 schools in Malaysia without electricity supply. What are exactly the correct figures?
These latest figures raised the important question - what is the use of the Education Ministry announcing that it will supply all schools with computers by the year 2000, when it could not give a clear-cut undertaking that all schools will be supplied with electricity by the year 2000?
With some 25 per cent of the 8,500 schools in the country without electricity, how can Malaysia claim to be advancing towards an IT society?
In actual fact, the government computer plans for schools are already way behind those of other countries.
For instance, Khalid said in Parliament yesterday that the Education Ministry’s target for the year 2000 is to supply 40 computers to schools with more than 1,500 pupils. This works out to a ratio of 40:1 between students and computers.
In Denmark, the average number of pupils per up-to-date computer is 28, and its target by the year 2,000 is to reach a ratio of 5-10 pupils per up-to-date computer.
But all the Education Ministry’s modest computer plans when compared to those of other countries sound quite utopian and unrealistic when some 25 per cent of the schools in Malaysia do not even have electricity supply!
I call on the Education Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to take a very serious view of the high percentage of schools without electricity supply which must be regarded as an affront to Malaysia’s credentials as a modern state and a mockery of Malaysia’s grandiose plans for a Multimedia Super Corridor.
The Education Ministry should launch a two-year crash programme to ensure that all schools in Malaysia would be supplied with electricity by the end of 1998, and the DAP will support any additional supplementary vote for the Education Ministry for this purpose - which is crucial to ensure that the schools and schoolchildren in the rural areas are not left behind in the digital age to become the “information-disadvantaged” in Malaysia.
I am very disappointed that in his reply during the winding-up of the 1997 Budget debate, the Education Minister, Datuk Najib Tun Razak had failed to respond to my proposal for a three-point crash programme to ensure that the 250,000 teachers in the primary and secondary schools are computer-literate by the year 2,000, including a special loan scheme to encourage and provide an incentive to teachers to buy a personal computer and get special discount to get connected to the Internet.
The only concrete programme that has been announced so far is the news report two Sundays ago quoting the director of teachers education in the Education Ministry, Sa’ari Hasan, as saying in Kuantan that a total of 1,750 teachers would be trained as “principal instructors for Smart Schools” and that these teachers would attend courses at teachers’ training colleges in stages.
These teachers would be familiarised with the teaching methods of four subjects - Bahasa Malaysia, English, Mathematics and Science - under the Smart School concept to ensure that they can provide “top quality education”. After completing their courses, they will go back and impart the knowledge to other teachers in their respective areas.
This is a very unimpressive and even unprofessional way to achieve the target of ensuring that the 250,000 teachers in all primary and secondary schools are computer-literate by the year 2,000. I should ask a direct question: Has the Education Ministry any plans to make all the 250,000 teachers in the primary and secondary schools computer-literate by the year 2,000, and if so, can Parliament be informed of the details?
Recently, it has become very fashionable for the Minister for Education to talk about “smart schools, smart learning, smart assessment, smart teaching, smart use of technology and smart management”, but the use of the word “smart” does not by itself make anything really “smart”.
For instance, it should be fully realised that introducing Information Technology to schools is not merely a question of overcoming the technological issues of providing adequate computers and the necessary information infrastructure, but addressing far-reaching educational concerns and social issues as well, such as what kind of schools we want and do we give teachers the training and resources they need to use computers effectively.
Computers and networking are critical because they enhance the very skills necessary to survival in the Information Age in the 21st century. In 1850, it took about 50 years to double the world’s knowledge base. Today, it takes only a little more than a year. The work force the Digital Era needs are not “knowers” but “learners”.
The Education Ministry will find it easier to acquire computers than to help teachers how to use them creatively, for IT demands a new pedagogy.
Research in other countries suggest that when computers are used to reinforce traditional teaching practices, the result at best is only modest improvement in student achievment.
In the new IT pedagogy, teachers would no longer serve as repositories of all knowledge. Instead, students would be encouraged to define their own learning goals and then seek, sort, and analyze information to achieve them. Teachers would serve more as mentors, guides and facilitators.
Teachers will need considerable support if they are to make effective use of computers in their classrooms, as teachers may find such teaching using networked computers harder, at least initially. This is because the teachers are faced with the challenge of mastering the technology itself - which may be relatively easy compared to the challenge of helping students who are learning independently. When students are no longer expected to master a uniform body of knowledge conveyed by their teachers, but instead are expected to gather information themselves and take on projects that require more critical thinking, teachers actually must know more than ever about the content of their subjects.
Is the Education Ministry preparing the 250,000 teachers in the 8,500 primary and secondary schools to master both these challenges of the new IT pedagogy by the year 2,000?
Recently, voices have been raised about the need to check the decline in student interest in science and mathematics if the country’s economic growth is to be sustained.
If the Government is serious about the importance of mathematics, science and technology in our educational system and for our future, it should explain why Malaysia had been singled out for omission by the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), which is the largest international study of student achievement at the secondary level ever undertaken,covering 45 countries and half a million students.
In this international study, Singapore came out as the top-performing country in both mathematics and science, beating all other countries which included Japan, Korea, England, Australia, United States, Germany, etc.
Where would Malaysia stand in the international survey of academic attainments in mathematics and science in secondary schools?
It is a great pity that the Malaysian authorities had not ensured that Malaysia had been included in the TIMSS survey, although Malaysia had already been omitted in the first two International math and science studies.
In the Information Age, individuals are now the only source of sustainable competitive advantage, and this is why develoment of human resources is so vital to a country’s future prosperity.
In this connection, we should take note that Malaysia comes 34th in the world league of countries for the contribution its people make to competitiveness. This is according to the 1996 World Competitiveness Yearbook, a drop of four places when compared to 1992. In overall competitveness, Malaysia is placed No. 23, down from No. 14 in 1992. This should be a warning that Malaysia needs to become a better-skilled nation and the need for the government to set ambitious targets for education and training, especially in science, technology and information technology.
(26/11/96)