Journal of

Educational Educational
Administrati
on
development and
36,5 reformation in Malaysia:
462 past, present and future
Rahimah Haji Ahmad
Professor and Dean, Faculty of Education, University of
Malaya, Malaysia

Introducti
on
Educational development and refor m in Malaysia have always
be en characterized by the gover nment’s efforts to adapt
education to national development needs. The essence of
educational development and reformation, as in other developing
countries, has always be en (and is) cur riculum development,
to provide education for human resource development to meet the
needs of the social, economic and political development of the
country.
Moral and values education has always been recognized and
acknowledged in the Malaysian school curriculum. It dates back to the
time of the British colonial government, when missionary work was
one of the reasons for providing education for the people. The
curriculum had included Scripture as one of the subjects at the
secondary level, and ethics for the non-Christian pupils. Mukherjee (1986,
p. 151) states that there were “weekly slots on ‘ethics’ (given) to their
non- Christian pupils…with liberal extracts from the Bible accompanied
by frequent exhortations to ‘be good’”. Following the English school
tradition then, the National School System included Islamic Religious
Education, then known as Agama (Religion) in the curriculum for the
Muslim pupils. For the non-Muslim students, some form of moral
education was given in place ofAgama. More fervor is given to values
education in the present curriculum. The Kurikulum Baru Sekolah
Rendah (KBSR), that is the New Primary School Curriculum, and the
Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM), or the Integrated
Secondary School Curriculum, which have completed their frst cycle
recently, emphasize the teaching of values in order to enhance quality
individual development, as well as creating Malaysian citizens of the
future, through education.
This paper will briefly outline educational development from the
time of independence, followed by a discussion on the current
educational reforms beginning in 1980s. Highlights will be made
on the development of values education in the curriculum,
particularly the importance given to it in the new curriculum being
implemented.

Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 36 No. 5, 1998, pp. 462-475,
© MCB University Press, 0957-
8234
This paper is an adapted and improved version of a paper, “Educational
development in Malaysia: the dilemma of values education”, presented in the 8th
International Intervisitation Program (IIEP 94), held at OISE Toronto, and SUNY Buffalo,
15-27 May 1994.
Educational and curriculum development: Reformation
independence to 1990 in
The National Education System of Malaysia, as mentioned
earlier, was inherited from the British colonial government. However, Malaysi
the policy outlined in the Education Act of 1961, was a result of clearly a
thought out strategies aimed at revamping the fragmented education
system of the British colonial era, with the main objective of
achieving national unity and development through education.
The Education Act was to be implemented in stages, to ensure a 463
gradual transition. It was this gradual implementation of the
Education Act, which characterized educational development and
curriculum changes in the early decades after independence. In
essence, it was a gradual change from the British (English
School) type of education to a Malaysian education system, with a
Malaysian outlook and Malaysian oriented curriculum.
Curriculum planning and development was (and is) done at the
federal level and the national education system is centrally
administered. Education was and is a federal matter. Curriculum
changes mainly took the form of adapting the curriculum to the
changing needs of the nation, specifcally adapting the syllabus,
that is content of subjects to be taught, to fulfl the development needs
of the country. The main objective of education was still national
unity, but changes during this time have also shifted the emphasis
from national unity to national unity and human resource development
for a developing nation.
At the end of the 1970s, after undergoing changes in the
curriculum and system as a whole, all schools used Bahasa
Malaysia as the medium of instruction (except at primary level
which was provided for in the Education Act) and comprehensive
education was provided for nine years. The changing emphasis
during this period reflected the importance given to science and
technology, in the light of economic development of the times. The
system of education then can be described as providing basic
education at the elementary level, general comprehensive education at
the lower secondary level, and semi- specialized at the upper
secondary level. Specialization as preparation for university was
done in Grades 12 and 13, or the pre-university level, at the end of
which students sit for the Malaysian Higher School Certifcate of
Education Examination.
Societal and economic changes during the period, reflected in an
increasing emphasis on science and technology in general, also
saw the changing importance given to technical and vocational
education as part of the “science stream” in schooling. As a result,
technical and vocational education gained recognition and
popularity, due to the demand for technically oriented
individuals in the labor market. By the end of the 1970s, there were 68
technical and vocational schools in Malaysia, with more than 30,200
students enrolled, in addition to 1,200 normal “academic” schools in the
country.
At the end of the 1970s, the gover nment felt that it was time
to review whether the system’s evolution was me eting the ne
eds of a prog ressive Malaysian nation. Once again an Education
Review Committee was set up under the then Honorable Minister of
Education, Dr Mahathir Mohammed (now
Journal of the Prime Minister). The report, released in 1979, now popularly known
Educational as the Cabinet Committee Report, was a result of a very
Administrati comprehensive study of the education system as spelt out by the
on Education Act of 1961.
The Cabinet Committee Report (1979), is in essence in line with what is
36,5
later declared by the Prime Minister as Vision 2020 (Mahathis, 1991).
Although the Cabinet Committee Report did not delineate a new
464 education policy, the emphasis shifted towards building a truly
Malaysian society of the future. To that effect, it emphasizes at all
levels of schooling, a holistic (intellectual, spiritual, physical and
emotional) approach to quality human development to ensure
development from all domains – cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.
As stated in the National Educational Philosophy:
Education in Malaysia is an ongoing effort towards further development of the
potential of individuals in a holistic and integ rated manner, so as to produce
individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically
balanced and harmonious based on a fr m belief in God. Such an effort is
destined to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable, who possess
high moral standards, and who are responsible and capable of achieving a high
level of personal well being as well as able to contribute to the harmony and
betterment of the nation at large (Ministry of Education, 1993).
In attempting to revamp the curriculum, the KBSR and KBSM take on a
whole new approach. Specifc teaching strategies, which are
child centered, characterized with student participation, are
incorporated into the teaching learning activities, (which include
both classroom activities as well as co- curricular activities outside
the classroom), combined with a holistic approach to human
development. This is the essence of the current movement.
The KBSR is a back to basics movement, aimed at reducing the
previously heavily content-oriented curriculum, to concentrate on
the three Rs. The orientation clearly specifes a child-centered
approach, which requires more student participation and focuses
on individual differences of students. Teaching activities are
designed to especially encourage participation and verbal
communication through verbal skills (aural and oral) as well as reading
and understanding, experiential based writing and practical
application of mathematical concepts such as additions,
subtractions, multiplication and divisions. Learning is to be
gained through a variety of experiences, such as group learning
(class, small groups, or diads) or as individuals, depending on the
skills, interests and ability of the students. The teaching and
learning process should, as far as possible, be improved
through the use of local prototype materials and orientations to
reflect a truly Malaysian curriculum.
KBSM is a continuation of the KBSR, to provide general education
until the
11th year of schooling, through the offering of core subjects, and
elective subjects to enable them to make choices in selecting subjects of
their interest. At the lower secondary level, KBSM retains the
structure and subject offerings, except that the choice of electives
of prevocational subjects is eliminated. Instead a new subject, “Life
skills” is introduced as part of the core, taken by all. The contents
comprise some basic elements of Industrial arts, Home economics,
Commerce and Agricultural science, to enable students to acquire Reformation
manipulative skills in coping with their day-to-day lives. in
Major changes occurred at the upper secondary level. The KBSM
aims to continue providing general education (implying that Malaysi
specialization is to be deferred to the pre-university level, which is a
beyond what is covered by the KBSM). In this way, the eleven years of
schooling (six years elementary and five years secondary) at one and
the same time, prepares students for the work market as well as to
further their education to higher levels. Students are thus no more 465
streamed into specialized areas, (“Arts”, “Science“, “Technical” or
“Vocational” streams), although there is room for them to have
subject concentration through their choice of elective subjects.
The upper secondary curriculum consists of core subjects required of
all students (general education), and four groups of subjects from four
areas (Humanities, Science, Technical and Vocational, and Islamic
Education). Students are allowed to choose their electives from
two of the four areas. This may also mean paving the way for the
ultimate abolishment of the technical and vocational schools.
Pre-university education consists of two years of
specialization in preparation for students to enter university,
although in essence students treat it as another step in education. For
some, pre-university education is in the form of matriculation classes of
particular universities. In some cases students enter the universities for
integrated programs which allow them to graduate with Diplomas
(in the Malaysian context diplomas are one step lower than full
fledged degrees), or be converted into the degree programs, which
ultimately enable them to graduate with bachelor’s degrees. For
those preparing to enter foreign universities, they sit for the A-
levels, Associate American Degree Programs , or Australian
Matriculation Programs.
It is pertinent to mention here that private education in Malaysia is a
fairly recent phenomenon. During the early stages of educational
development, when the country saw the consolidation of the education
system, private schools were unheard of. During the developing
years, when the importance of education was strongly linked to
social mobility, and the formal education system was rather élitist,
private schools were established as charity organizations to assist
school dropouts and examination failures by giving them a second
chance to sit for the public examinations in order to reenter the
mainstream. This was to complement government efforts of
giving further education classes to school dropouts or adult
learners to enable them to sit for the public examinations. When
the schooling system became more democratized, and education
was assured for at least nine years (now 11 years), the need for such
organizations diminished. Private schools, then took on another
character, that of providing alternative education. Today, this is the
mainstay of private schools. Many of them cater for both the
elementary and secondary and a few until the pre- university
level. Private schools, however, also follow the national curriculum,
since their main function is to prepare students for the same
examinations.
Journal of The development of values education
Educational curriculum
Administrati Values education in one form or another has been a part of the
on Malaysian educational curriculum in at least some schools since the
British colonial era. In English schools, be it government or the
36,5 missionary schools, it was Christian ethics. In the gover nment Malay
schools, there were also doses of values education in the teaching
466 of hygiene and “ethics” similar to those of the English schools. In
Arabic or Koranic schools, Islamic ethics were the core, taught in the
context of teaching Islam as a way of life. It can be assumed that
some form of values education, no matter how informal, was given in
the other schools, since all education is in fact moral education, as
“…all the experiences that pupils have in schools have a morally
educative effect” (Downey and Kelly, 1986, p. 168).
The post independence era saw the establishment of the
National school system (and the abolishment of the different strands
of schools systems) and following the British tradition – religion
(in this case Islamic Studies) was taught in place of Scripture.
Agama, as the subject was then known, was heavily content
based, and doctrinaire in approach, but nevertheless had an
important section devoted to akhlak (Islamic ethics).
Agama, however, was only for the Muslim students. The
constitution ensures freedom of worship for all, and taking the
sensitivities of the different ethnic groups as being important for
national unity, Agama could not be forced onto non-Muslim students,
nor Islamic ethics be infused into their teaching. Steps had to be
taken to ensure that all students were exposed to some form of values
education, in direct instruction. In the early 1970s, Civics as a
subject was introduced as a mandatory subject for all non-Muslim
students; but the subject was non-examinable. It was soon found to
be ineffective, and schools put little signifcance to its implementation
as the school system was (and still is) very examination oriented.
Islamic education, on the other hand, was (and is) an examination
subject.
During this phase too, Agama like the other subjects underwent
changes and adaptations parallel with the changing times and
needs. Although teaching was still heavily content based, there were
efforts to make it more applicable to everyday life and expand the
curriculum to reflect teaching of Islam as a way of life. Co-curricular
activities were also designed to strengthen the classroom teaching.
The name was changed to Pendidikan Islam (Islamic Education), to
reflect the scope.
At the end of the 1970s, the need for the teaching of values was
formally acknowledged. The Cabinet Committee Report recommended
that the Ministry of Education drew up a curriculum for the teaching
of values in the form of moral education (as a subject) for the non-
Muslim students, and for it to be made mandatory as well as
examinable. It was to be taught at the same time when the Muslim
students are taught Islamic Education.
In implementing the recommendations, the Curriculum Development
Center set up a machinery to draw up a syllabus for moral
education. In doing this, much care was taken to include values that
reflect Malaysian society, which are acceptable to all and do not offend
any one religious group. A committee was set
up to work on the syllabus, the members of which include the Reformation
curriculum offcers, representatives from all religious groups, as well
as consultants from the universities. in
It was also at this time that Malaysians got involved in a series Malaysi
of Asian workshops sponsored by the National Institute of Education a
(NIER) Tokyo and Unesco which undertook to discuss and identify
core values universally accepted (Mukherjee, 1986). Values adopted
by the workshops are taken into consideration in developing the
moral education syllabus. Finally, a total of 16 core values (which
can again be detailed as the core content of the moral education
467
and approved for implementation in the KBSR and KBSM. The list of
values is in the Appendix.
These values are derived from religions, traditions and
customs of the people, while taking into consideration the universal
aspects. They relate to human relationships in everyday life,
particularly relevant to relationships with the family, peer group, society
as well as organization.
The syllabus, however, does not put them in a hierarchy, or
serialize them. Instead all 16 values are to be taught at all levels, to
enable the students to be continuously and consistently infused with
them. Nevertheless the scope and depth of approach were to be
different for every level. The issues are to be presented in an
increasingly diffcult and complex manner, to be in line with the
student’s maturity and ability to think. Teaching strategies should
be in the realm of daily living, and every day occurrences in the life of
the student. Hence the values are to be presented as of equal
importance, and to be treated in relation to one another.
The syllabus of moral education, which can be applied to values
education as a whole, as delineated in the moral education
syllabus (1988) the Sukatan pelajaran Pendidikan moral 1988, was
to mould individuals of good character possessing good moral
values through the nurturing of, and internalizing as well as applying
moral values relevant to the Malaysian society. It is expected then to
help produce good citizens, who can make decisions and are
responsible members of the society, and able to cope with moral
issues in the modern world.

Issues in curriculum implementation: the

dilemma of values education
Although values education in one form or another has from the
beginning been acknowledged as relevant in the school
curriculum, the current curriculum clearly pays special attention to
the teaching of values as a means of achieving the objectives of
providing quality education for qualitative individual
development of the future Malaysian generation as discussed in the
previous sections. It is considered to be the most important strategy
of the KBSM and at the same time the most radical movement in the
current curriculum reform movement.
The main thrust is the adherence to the principle of holistic
development of individuals through education, which is frmly based on
values centered around the belief in God. To achieve this, the KBSR and
KBSM encompass the teaching
Journal of of values in a more fervent manner. The government had made a bold
Educational statement that quality individual (human) development is to be
Administrati frmly founded in the teaching of values education, which in turn is
on based on a “frm belief in God”. No excuse is made for the inclusion of
religion in the curriculum, and no issue is made of whose values to
36,5 teach. Acknowledgement is made to the existence of different beliefs
and religions, but the underlying philosophy is that all religions profess
468 the same things as good and evil, and more importance is given
to similarities between different people rather than their differences.
To this effect too, the teaching of values is emphasized in the
curriculum, not only through the direct teaching of the subject
(Islamic Education and Moral Education), but also to be integrated into
the teaching of other subjects (values across the curriculum), as well
as indirect infusion through the teacher as the role model. It is this
bold move which is the crux of the dilemma in values education as
discussed in this paper.
This paper will now address the dilemma of values education as the
dilemma of teaching values in the context of the KBSM
implementation. No attempt will be made on the issue of values
clarifcation or values development per se, which have been
extensively deliberated on by well-known scholars. This paper will be
limited to the Malaysian case in terms of the dilemma of
implementing values education and coping with KBSM
implementation.
Discussions will revolve around the reflection of issues in the
context of values education in Malaysia, namely values
education in the holistic curriculum of the KBSM, values
education and the hidden curriculum and classroom based values
curriculum development.
It is clear that Malaysia has taken the stand that values education
should be an integral part of the school curriculum and that values are
to be frmly based on religious values. Malaysia believes that all
education is values education oriented. Specifcally, the importance put
on values education reflects the notion that for individuals to be truly
developed it has to be balanced in terms of the intellect, spiritual,
physical as well as emotional, which are based on values.
A total of 16 values have been adopted as the content of moral
education, which are also the values to be integrated into their
teaching. The point of concern here is whether the teaching of
values as in moral education and Islamic education, as well as the
infusion of values in teaching through values across the curriculum
achieve their objectives.
Direct teaching of values education is actualized in Islamic
Education and Moral Education. The teaching of moral values, as can
be attested by anyone who has been involved in it, is a very
complex process. We know that moral guidance does not have to,
and should not be (especially in a multi ethnic and multi religious
society) an imposition of any one’s values on all children. It should
be offered in a spirit and in a manner that will ensure that in the end the
students will be able to think for themselves, to reach their
own moral conclusions on issues, not contradicting their own
religious beliefs.
This is indeed a tall order, when we talk about all teachers. The
end result can very well be confusing to students. We must also
remember that the intent
is for teachers to reinforce each other in the teaching of values but one Reformation
wonders whether the other teachers can reinforce what has been dealt
with in the Islamic education or moral education classes. in
It is assumed that Islamic education and moral education Malaysi
teachers are trained in the methodology of teaching values. The a
moral education syllabus clearly states that teaching it needs to use
the problem solving method, and as far as possible there should not
be moral imposition. However, that being a complex and sometimes
personal process, they may be in a dilemma. The end result might as
well be teaching values by teaching content which again raises the
469
issue which is often debated whether knowledge about the content
of the subject (in Malaysian case they are Islamic education and moral
education) may mean that they are morally mature.
Another point of concern is the integration of values across the
curriculum approach. It is clear that the moral education syllabus
consists of values, which are not in contradiction with any religion. It
may also be true that values or ethics education transmitted through
Islamic education may not be the same as that which is obtained
through moral education, even though the curriculum is planned for
the two subjects to be complementary. Hence, the KBSM
emphasizes values across the curriculum, which should ensure that
all students get the same dosages from all teachers. In effect then
all teachers are moral education teachers, underlying the belief that
teachers are key fgures in the way in which values education is
taught in schools.
Here another dilemma emerges. How far are teachers serious and
successful in inculcating values in their different subjects? How far can
they integrate the
16 core values without reference to subsidiary beliefs, particularly those
specifc to their own personal religious beliefs?
To avoid sensitivities, teachers once again may take the easy way
out, that is, only referring to, or mentioning the 16 values as listed. This
may in the end be a futile exercise of reciting the values. Informal
surveys done by the writer have shown that, at least at the initial
stages, teachers were “lost” and hardly knew what was expected of
them. The end result is that teachers mention what values they want to
integrate, which neither interest the students nor leave a lasting
impression. This is very clearly demonstrated when we observe
traine e teachers implementing it. More often than not, they write
down the values in their lesson plans, but they hardly integrated
them into the teaching, and sometimes they do not even know what
activities or strategies can be done to integrate the values into their
teaching. A lot of care and special training may be needed for
teachers to infuse values in their teaching effectively.
And then again, the syllabus identifes 16 co re values. The
list is not exhaustive, and teachers are encouraged to be innovative
and creative. It is then left to the initiative of the teacher to look for
and use them to good advantage. According to Leo (1993), in the
geography syllabus alone there are at least 36 values, other than
those identifed in the curriculum, which can be extracted. It is then left
to the individual teacher, whether he/she can utilize those apparent. On
the other hand, there is the dilemma that teachers in their enthusiasm,
and
Journal of influenced by their different personal beliefs, promote values which
Educational may even contradict what other teachers do.
Administrati When talking about integrating values in teaching, we also
on know that teaching values is a complex process, which involves
several phases of understanding, acceptance, and fnally inter
36,5 nalizing. We also know that teachers are individuals each with
their own beliefs, attitudes, and values, which differ from one
470 person to another. In integ rating values into their teaching, they
will then inevitably be influenced by their own beliefs and will not
give the same emphasis to values identifed.
An important consideration especially pertinent to the teaching of
values is the hidden curriculum. Values are transmitted a lot by
behavior and nonverbal messages. A teacher is always a role model in
the school, and yet teachers are individuals, with different values. If
these can influence them in their direct teaching, these are more
important in the infusion of values through the hidden curriculum. Even
when the teacher consciously tries to be neutral, he or she can still
transmit the value that he/she does not intend to. This can be a
dilemma in itself because teachers fnd it diffcult and unnatural to
control themselves so as not to transmit values which are at times at a
tangent with those listed in the syllabus.

Current developments, reforms

and issues
Current reforms in Malaysian education are a continuation of the
efforts which began in 1980s, but now encompass more than the
school system. The reforms of the 1990s culminated with the
introduction of the Education Act 1996. This act outlines specifc
policies that reiterates the Education Act of 1961, strengthening
it to include all levels of education, including preschool and post
secondary education, which was not covered in the Education
Act 1961. (Previously, higher education was covered by the Universities
and Colleges Act,
1971.
)
The impact of the 1990s on the school system is also acute in
terms of the invasion of the computer and information age. At the
point of writing, things are in a most interesting state of affairs with
the government initiative for schools to be in line with the Malaysian
super corridor (MSC) project. One of the flag carriers of this effort is the
Smart School which centers around the concept of teaching through
integrated usage of modern technology in teaching. There is as yet no
real overhaul of the school curriculum.
We are given to understand, however, that the curriculum for
the Smart School is ready for implementation as a pilot project in
January 1999, to be followed nation wide the year after. What is
clear is that the subject content remains the same, but the
implementation of the curriculum will have to accommodate
current development, particularly the advent of technology in
schools. The Ministry of Education has indeed fallen in love with the
computer!
Nevertheless we know that the Smart School is not about having
computers and technology assisted teaching only; it is about teaching
the right things with the assistance of technology and the focus is
on making students resource
based learners. This is to ensure that students will undo the phenomena Reformation
which has developed over the years, the result of success
being measured by performance in public examinations,
in
specifcally the increasing problem of developing children to be rote Malaysi
learners, and less as thinking individuals. Smart Schools seek to ensure a
that the Malaysian school children will be young adults who will be
learners working together with the teacher and other materials
which are accessible and at their disposal, responsible for their own
learning. 471
This flurry of changes and policy implementation is also raising
more dilemmas in the teaching of values at all levels. The dilemma of
teaching values in schools is now added with that opening up of
the skies, and a whole new scenario of retraining teachers. We are
as yet not tested on the success of the values across the curriculum,
as teachers are thoroughly confused as to how to integrate values in
the real sense. With the advent of the computer and the inevitable
invasion of the Internet into the classrooms, other dilemmas emerge.
The fact that Malaysian schools cannot ignore world developments
cannot be refuted, and in fact the government has taken the bold
and brave move in moving ahead and trying to be ahead of
world developments, by adapting modern technology and
strategies, in the Smart Schools concept. However, Malaysia is
making sure that developments are in line with our stated
philosophy and goals. This looks like a bigger dilemma. It was already
diffcult enough to infuse Malaysian values by making all teachers
“values education” teachers with the “values across the curriculum
strategy”. In the Smart Schools teachers are being asked to meet
this challenge even as they use alternative media, particularly from
the World Wide Web! Much is to be done to ensure that the Malaysian
schools can successfully ensure positive effects of the so called
“opening up of the skies” and keep the children frmly rooted in the
Malaysian context and inculcate the Malaysian values, even though
the so-called values are universal.
What stands out in the current spate of events is the emphasis on
tertiary and higher, particularly private tertiary, education and private
education in general There is as yet no overhaul of the school
curriculum, except to adjust to new needs and global changes, and
the demand of technology. This of course has hastened a flurry of
private tertiary education institutions and the response from the public
tertiary institutions to complement or compete with the private sector.
As the government is still controlling the establishment of private
universities, numerous institutions are twinning with or offering
preparatory programs for the overseas institutions. The Education Act
of 1966 also allows for the establishment of branch campuses, which
promises the mushrooming of the big stakeholders from the USA,
the UK and Australia to have branches in Malaysia. It is
interesting to observe the developments in the next couple of years.
These will bring certain dilemmas for Malaysian society should there
be a real invasion of foreign “curriculum” in the branch campuses, and
an influx of foreign students in the country. To date it has been
announced that private tertiary colleges are allowed to twin with
foreign institutions and grant degrees on their behalf.
Journal of Conclusion: future trends and
Educational issues
Administrati The development of the times in the last few years has made it
on impossible for the government not to allow the mushrooming private
tertiary institutions to flourish. The Education Act 1996 has endorsed
36,5 the existence and function of private education, especially private
tertiary institutions to complement that of the public higher education
472 institutions. The Act outlines policies in order to impose some
form of control on the quality of higher education, suc h as
provision for the establishment of the Lembaga Akreditasi Negara
(National Accreditation Board), as well as content which imposes the
Malaysian context. It also has the underlying objective of making
Malaysia the center of educational excellence in the region without
compromising the development of the Malaysian citizenry with
Malaysian values. The latest announcement is that all higher
institutions of education, including private institutions, are to include
Islamic and Asian Civilization into the curriculum, besides Malaysian
studies which was identifed earlier.
The Education Act 1996, the establishment of private tertiary
education and the dawn of private higher education and the dilemma of
values education have also affected tertiary and higher education, if
we are to adhere to the Malaysian educational philosophy at all levels.
The infusion of Malaysian values into tertiary and higher
education, both public and private, is doubly diffcult as compared
to the process in schools. Furthermore, the opening of private
branch campuses of foreign universities brings to us another issue of
infusing Malaysian values to the Malaysians. The objective of making
Malaysia the center of educational excellence in the region is another.
We have to tackle the problem of providing world education in the
Malaysian context, and to suit both Malaysians and foreigners, with a
foreign curriculum is something we have to resolve and at the same
time not to forget education for a Malaysian citizenry for the future.
Referenc
es
Downey, M. and Kelly, A.V. (1986), “Personal, social and moral education”, in Theory
and Practice of Education: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Harper Education Series, London.
Leo A.M. (1993), “Integrating values into the geography curriculum”, paper
presented at the
Seminar of the 30th Anniversary Celebration of Faculty of Education, University of
Malaya,
3-5 November 1993.
Mahathir, M. (1991), “Malaysia: the way forward (Vision 2020)”, paper presented by
the Prime
Minister, in a Conference of the Malaysian Business Council, 28 February 1991.
Ministry of Education (1993), Education in Malaysia, Educational Planning and
Research
Division, Kuala Lumpur.
Mukherjee, H. (1986), “Moral education in a developing society: the Malaysian
case”, in The Revival of Values Education in Asia and the West, Comparative and
Education Series, Vol. 7, Ch. V, pp. 147-62.

Further
reading
Asiah, A.S. (1979), “Curriculum development in Malaysia: context, approach and
concerns”, paper presented at an Unesco Seminar on Curriculum Design,
Canberra, Australia, 10-22
September 1979.
 Azizah, A.R. (1983), “Studying the unstructured curriculum”, paper presented at a
Seminar on
Reformation
Education and Development organized by Penang Consumers Association, 18-22 in
November, Malaysi
1983.
Azizah, A.R. (1990), “The odds against the school-based curriculum development:
a
implications for future actions”, paper presented at the Fourth Annual
Conference of the Singapore Educational Research Association, Singapore, 20-21
October 1990.
Brooks, B.D. and Kann, M.E. (1993), “What makes character education work?”,
Educational 473
Leadership, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 19-21.
Chang, L.H. (1993), “Pengajaran nilai dalam mata pelajaran perdagangan” (The
teaching of values in the subject Commerce), in Pendidikan di Malaysia:Arah dan
Tujuan (Education in Malaysia: Direction and challenges), Special publication in
commensuration with the 30th Anniversary Celebrations of the Faculty of
Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti
Malaya, pp. 5-14.
Huffman, H.A. (1993), “Character education without turmoil”, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 24-6.
Hussain, A. (1990), “Gearing education toward the needs of the nineties”, Suara
Pendidik,
(Educators’ Voice), The Malaysian Society for Education, Kuala Lumpur.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, (1979), Laporan Jawatankuasa Kabinet Menkaji
Pelaksanaan Dasar Pelarjarn (Report of the Cabinet Committee Reviewing the
Implementation of the Educational Policy), Kuala Lumpur, Kementerian Pelajaran
Malaysia (Otherwise known as Cabinet Committee Report, 1979).
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, (1989), Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah
Menengah (The integrated Secondary School Curriculum), Kuala Lumpur:Pusat
Perkembangan Kuriklum. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, (1990), Kurikulum Baru
Sekolah Rendah (The New Primary
School Curriculum), Pusat Perkembangan Kuriklum, Kuala Lumpur.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, (1990), Pendidikan di Malaysia (Education in
Malaysia), Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kementerian
Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Leming, J.S. (1993), “In search of effective character education”, Educational
Leadership, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 63-71.
Lickoni, T. (1993), “The return of character education”, Educational Leadership, Vol.
53 No. 3, pp. 6-11.
Lockwood, A.L. (1993), “A letter to character educators”, Educational Leadership, Vol.
53 No. 3, pp. 72-5.
Rahimah, H.A. (1993), “Perkembangan dan reformasi pendidikan:Dilema
pelaksanaan nilai” (“Educational development and reformation: the dilemma of
implementing values”), paper presented at the 30th Anniversary Seminar of the
Faculty of Education, University of Malaya,
3-5 November 1993.
Rahimah, H.A. (1993), “Pendidikan di Malaysia:Perkembanngan dan reformasi ke
arah masa depan” (“Education in Malaysia: development and reformation for the
future”), in Pendidikan di Malaysia: Arah dan Cabaran (Education in Malaysia:
Directions and Challenges), Special publication to commensurate the 30th
Anniversary of the Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Fakulti Pendidikan,
Kuala Lumpur, pp. 224-34.
Rahimah, H.A. and Chang, L.H. ( 1996), “Pendidikan moral dan nilai adalah martabat
profesion kegur uan” (“Moral and values education is the soul of the teaching
profession”) Paper presented at Konvensyen Pendidikan Mo ral dan Nilai
dalam Pembangunan Negara (Convention of Moral and Values Education in
Human Development), at National University of Malaysia, Bangi, 26-30 November,
1996.
Ryan, K. (1993), “Minding the values in the curriculum”, Educational Leadership, Vol.
53 No. 3, pp. 16-18.
Journal of Spiecker, B. and Straughan, R. (1988), Philosophical Issues in Moral Education and
Development,
Educational Open University Press, Milton
Administrati Keynes.
on Wan Hasmah Wan Mamat (1993), Pelaksanaan kurikulum Pendidikan Moral di
Sekolah:Arah dan cabaran bagi guru-guru (Implementing the Moral Education
36,5 curriculum in schools: Direction and challenges for teachers), in Pendidikan di
Malaysia: Arah dan cabaran, (Education in Malaysia: Direction and Challenges),
474 Special publication to commensurate 30th Anniversary of the Faculty of Education,
University of Malaya, 15-20.

Appendix. Sixteen core values integrated into the curriculum

(1) Cleanliness of body and
mind:
• personal cleanliness;
• cleanliness of the
environment. (2) Compassion and
tolerance:
• compassionate;
• generous;
• charitable;
• tolerance;
• considerate;
• hospitable;
•

patience. (3)
Cooperation:
• mutual responsibility;
• fraternity.
(4) Courage:
• courage as opposed to
foolhardiness. (5) Moderation:
• moderation in thought;
• moderation in speech;
• moderation in
action. (6) Diligence:
• industriousness;
• hardworking;
• perseverance;
•

dedication. (7)
Freedom:
• freedom within the law;
• freedom to choose;
• freedom from
slavery. (8) Gratitude:
• gratefulness;
• thankfulness;
•

appreciation. (9)
Honesty:
• truthfulness;
• trustworthiness;
• faithfulness;
• sincerity.
 (10) Humility and
modesty:
Reformation
• as opposed to showing off; in
• as opposed to arrogance; Malaysi
• admission of one’s a
fault. (11) Justice:
• a sense of fair play;
• concept of reward and
punishment. (12) Rationality:
• flexibility of thought; 475
• weighing of
alternatives. (13) Self reliance:
• responsibility;
• independence;
•

autonomy. (14)
Love:
• love for the environment;
• love for life and humanity;
• love for the nation, patriotism;
• love for peace and
harmony. (15) Respect:
• respect for rules, law and authority;
• respect for time and punctuality;
• respect for institutions;
• respect for exemplary behaviour;
• respect for parents;
• respect for elders, teachers, and
leaders;
• respect for another’s beliefs and
customs;
• respect for knowledge and
wisdom. (16) Public spiritedness:
• Spirit of gotong royong (working
together);
• Sensitiveness towards societal needs.