I read Ahmad Ibrahim’s article, “The A in SPM, the F in PISA: Why Our Exam Miracle Doesn’t Add Up” in Sinar Daily, with great interest.
Many of the questions he raises deserve serious attention, particularly the gap between domestic examination performance and the capacity for application and reasoning measured through PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment).
Yet while his analysis is engaging, it remains overly simplistic, somewhat romanticised in its view of educational elitism, and ultimately fails to confront the deeper structural roots of Malaysia’s education crisis.
First, we must be cautious of the convenient narrative that improvements in SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia)results are merely the consequence of “lowered standards”. Such arguments may sound persuasive in public discourse, but they are not sufficiently rigorous from an empirical standpoint.
Malaysia’s education system today is far more inclusive than it was in previous decades. Access to secondary education, supplementary classes, learning technologies, revision materialsand parental support has expanded significantly over the past twenty years.
Therefore, the increase in the number of students obtaining A grades cannot automatically be interpreted as evidence of declining standards.
The real issue is not simply grade inflation, but the misalignment between what is taught, what is tested, and what is actually required in the real world.
For far too long, we have constructed an education system rooted in compliance with answer schemes rather than in the intellectual courage to challenge ideas. In other words, we are producing students who know how to answer examinations, but not necessarily how to think deeply.
Here lies what I consider the central weakness in Ahmad Ibrahim’s argument. He appears to place the blame almost entirely on examination culture, whereas that culture itself is shaped by the country’s broader economic and social structures. In a society where social mobility depends heavily upon academic certification, examinations become a form of survival currency. For B40 families in rural areas, SPM results are not merely academic credentials; they are tickets out of poverty. The obsession with A grades, therefore, does not emerge solely from teachers or parents, but from university admissions systems, labour market biases, and a bureaucratic culture excessively dependent on paper qualifications.
This was precisely the rationale behind my proposal, during my tenure at the Ministry of Education, to develop a national Big Data system that would enable a more holistic data-based assessment and recognition of every student’s strengths and potential in a more scientific method. The philosophy and details of this approach are discussed extensively in my book, Memories, Not Memoirs (回忆不是回忆录).
Secondly, I am less persuaded by the romanticisation of MCKK as a national model for educational reform. Certainly, elite boarding schools such as Malay College Kuala Kangsar have succeeded in cultivating confidence, leadership, and social networks. Yet we must honestly acknowledge that much of this advantage stems from social capital rather than pedagogy alone. Students admitted into elite institutions often already possess socioeconomic, cultural, and networking advantages. Thus, when many of their alumni become national leaders, we cannot simplistically conclude that the school itself represents a magical formula for nation-building.
If we are not careful, such arguments risk glorifying colonial educational elitism and inadvertently pulling us back towards the captive mentality that the late Professor Syed Hussein Alatas warned against. We begin to assume that only certain elite schools, or particular educational streams, are capable of producing leaders, while the overwhelming majority of Malaysians are educated in ordinary national schools. The real challenge is how to cultivate leadership, critical thinking, and character throughout the entire national education system for all Malaysians, rather than merely celebrating a handful of prestigious institutions.
Thirdly, debates surrounding PISA must also be approached with greater honesty and balance. PISA measures specific competencies such as reasoning, mathematical literacy, and problem-solving. These are important, but they are not the sole indicators of a successful education system. If we become overly obsessed with chasing PISA rankings, we risk repeating the same mistake, teaching students merely to pass yet another form of international examination. Even countries such as Finland have begun questioning the global obsession with educational standardisation because it can ultimately undermine teacher creativity and local educational contexts.
Indeed, part of this concern is addressed in my forthcoming book on education reform, which examines the tension between global benchmarking and the broader purposes of education.
What is perhaps more worrying is the gradual loss of the very meaning of education itself. Schools today are increasingly viewed as factories for producing results rather than spaces for nurturing human beings. Teachers, meanwhile, are burdened with excessive bureaucracy, endless documentation, and KPI-driven pressures that ultimately sacrifice time for meaningful teaching and learning. Under such circumstances, we cannot simply blame teachers when they resort to teaching examination techniques.
We must also have the courage to address an issue that is too often avoided, “educational inequality!”. Urban-rural disparities, the digital divide, shortages of specialist teachers, dilapidated schools, and child poverty all directly affect learning outcomes. Students who are hungry, emotionally distressed, or deprived of a conducive learning environment will not suddenly become creative thinkers merely because the syllabus has changed.
For this reason, educational reform cannot remain cosmetic, confined to changing examination formats or introducing slogans such as “KBAT”. What we require is comprehensive transformation:
1. Reducing the culture of high-stakes centralised examinations.
2. Empowering greater autonomy for teachers and schools.
3. Dismantling the culture of fear within classrooms.
4. Integrating character education, civic consciousness, and leadership in an authentic manner.
5. Ensuring equitable access to quality education regardless of background.
6. Reforming university admissions and labour market systems so that they are not excessively dependent on the number of A grades.
Ultimately, the real question is not whether our students are obtaining too many A grades or too few. The larger question is: “Are we producing citizens who are capable of thinking independently, courageous enough to argue with reason, grounded in social empathy, and prepared to lead a complex and plural society?”
If the answer remains unclear, then Malaysia’s educational problem runs far deeper than the gap between SPM and PISA. Nor can it be resolved by glorifying any single institution or embracing a one-size-fits-all solution.
Dr Maszlee Malik is chairman of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia and a former education minister.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.