Educational and curriculum development: independence to 1990 Reformation inThe National Education System of Malaysia, as mentioned earlier, was Malaysiainherited from the British colonial government. However, the policy outlined inthe Education Act of 1961, was a result of clearly thought out strategies aimedat revamping the fragmented education system of the British colonial era, withthe main objective of achieving national unity and development througheducation. 463 The Education Act was to be implemented in stages, to ensure a gradualtransition. It was this gradual implementation of the Education Act, whichcharacterized educational development and curriculum changes in the earlydecades after independence. In essence, it was a gradual change from theBritish (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 leveland the national education system is centrally administered. Education was andis a federal matter. Curriculum changes mainly took the form of adapting thecurriculum to the changing needs of the nation, specifically adapting thesyllabus, that is content of subjects to be taught, to fulfil the development needsof the country. The main objective of education was still national unity, butchanges during this time have also shifted the emphasis from national unity tonational unity and human resource development for a developing nation. At the end of the 1970s, after undergoing changes in the curriculum andsystem as a whole, all schools used Bahasa Malaysia as the medium ofinstruction (except at primary level which was provided for in the EducationAct) and comprehensive education was provided for nine years. The changingemphasis during this period reflected the importance given to science andtechnology, in the light of economic development of the times. The system ofeducation then can be described as providing basic education at the elementarylevel, general comprehensive education at the lower secondary level, and semi-specialized at the upper secondary level. Specialization as preparation foruniversity was done in Grades 12 and 13, or the pre-university level, at the endof which students sit for the Malaysian Higher School Certificate of EducationExamination. Societal and economic changes during the period, reflected in an increasingemphasis on science and technology in general, also saw the changingimportance given to technical and vocational education as part of the “sciencestream” in schooling. As a result, technical and vocational education gainedrecognition and popularity, due to the demand for technically orientedindividuals in the labor market. By the end of the 1970s, there were 68 technicaland vocational schools in Malaysia, with more than 30,200 students enrolled, inaddition to 1,200 normal “academic” schools in the country. At the end of the 1970s, the government felt that it was time to reviewwhether the system’s evolution was meeting the needs of a progressiveMalaysian nation. Once again an Education Review Committee was set upunder the then Honorable Minister of Education, Dr Mahathir Mohammed (now
Journal of the Prime Minister). The report, released in 1979, now popularly known as theEducational Cabinet Committee Report, was a result of a very comprehensive study of theAdministration education system as spelt out by the Education Act of 1961. The Cabinet Committee Report (1979), is in essence in line with what is later36,5 declared by the Prime Minister as Vision 2020 (Mahathis, 1991). Although the Cabinet Committee Report did not delineate a new education policy, the464 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 integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious based on a firm 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. Specific 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 specifies 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 manipulative Reformation inskills in coping with their day-to-day lives. Malaysia Major changes occurred at the upper secondary level. The KBSM aims tocontinue providing general education (implying that specialization is to bedeferred to the pre-university level, which is beyond what is covered by theKBSM). In this way, the eleven years of schooling (six years elementary and fiveyears secondary) at one and the same time, prepares students for the work 465market as well as to further their education to higher levels. Students are thusno more streamed into specialized areas, (“Arts”, “Science“, “Technical” or“Vocational” streams), although there is room for them to have subjectconcentration through their choice of elective subjects. The upper secondarycurriculum consists of core subjects required of all students (general education),and four groups of subjects from four areas (Humanities, Science, Technical andVocational, and Islamic Education). Students are allowed to choose theirelectives from two of the four areas. This may also mean paving the way for theultimate abolishment of the technical and vocational schools. Pre-university education consists of two years of specialization inpreparation for students to enter university, although in essence students treatit as another step in education. For some, pre-university education is in the formof matriculation classes of particular universities. In some cases students enterthe universities for integrated programs which allow them to graduate withDiplomas (in the Malaysian context diplomas are one step lower than fullfledged degrees), or be converted into the degree programs, which ultimatelyenable them to graduate with bachelor’s degrees. For those preparing to enterforeign universities, they sit for the A-levels, Associate American DegreePrograms , or Australian Matriculation Programs. It is pertinent to mention here that private education in Malaysia is a fairlyrecent phenomenon. During the early stages of educational development, whenthe country saw the consolidation of the education system, private schools wereunheard of. During the developing years, when the importance of educationwas strongly linked to social mobility, and the formal education system wasrather élitist, private schools were established as charity organizations to assistschool dropouts and examination failures by giving them a second chance to sitfor the public examinations in order to reenter the mainstream. This was tocomplement government efforts of giving further education classes to schooldropouts or adult learners to enable them to sit for the public examinations.When the schooling system became more democratized, and education wasassured for at least nine years (now 11 years), the need for such organizationsdiminished. Private schools, then took on another character, that of providingalternative education. Today, this is the mainstay of private schools. Many ofthem 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 curriculumEducational Values education in one form or another has been a part of the MalaysianAdministration educational curriculum in at least some schools since the British colonial era. In English schools, be it government or the missionary schools, it was Christian36,5 ethics. In the government Malay schools, there were also doses of values education in the teaching of hygiene and “ethics” similar to those of the English466 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 significance 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 curriculum Reformation inofficers, representatives from all religious groups, as well as consultants from Malaysiathe universities. It was also at this time that Malaysians got involved in a series of Asianworkshops sponsored by the National Institute of Education (NIER) Tokyo andUnesco which undertook to discuss and identify core values universallyaccepted (Mukherjee, 1986). Values adopted by the workshops are taken into 467consideration in developing the moral education syllabus. Finally, a total of 16core values (which can again be detailed as the core content of the moraleducation and approved for implementation in the KBSR and KBSM. The list ofvalues is in the Appendix. These values are derived from religions, traditions and customs of thepeople, while taking into consideration the universal aspects. They relate tohuman relationships in everyday life, particularly relevant to relationships withthe 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 becontinuously and consistently infused with them. Nevertheless the scope anddepth of approach were to be different for every level. The issues are to bepresented in an increasingly difficult and complex manner, to be in line with thestudent’s maturity and ability to think. Teaching strategies should be in therealm of daily living, and every day occurrences in the life of the student. Hencethe values are to be presented as of equal importance, and to be treated inrelation to one another. The syllabus of moral education, which can be applied to values education asa whole, as delineated in the moral education syllabus (1988) the Sukatanpelajaran Pendidikan moral 1988, was to mould individuals of good characterpossessing good moral values through the nurturing of, and internalizing aswell as applying moral values relevant to the Malaysian society. It is expectedthen to help produce good citizens, who can make decisions and are responsiblemembers of the society, and able to cope with moral issues in the modern world.Issues in curriculum implementation: the dilemma of valueseducationAlthough values education in one form or another has from the beginning beenacknowledged as relevant in the school curriculum, the current curriculumclearly pays special attention to the teaching of values as a means of achievingthe objectives of providing quality education for qualitative individualdevelopment of the future Malaysian generation as discussed in the previoussections. It is considered to be the most important strategy of the KBSM and atthe same time the most radical movement in the current curriculum reformmovement. The main thrust is the adherence to the principle of holistic development ofindividuals through education, which is firmly based on values centered aroundthe 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 statementEducational that quality individual (human) development is to be firmly founded in theAdministration teaching of values education, which in turn is based on a “firm belief in God”. No excuse is made for the inclusion of religion in the curriculum, and no issue is36,5 made of whose values to teach. Acknowledgement is made to the existence of different beliefs and religions, but the underlying philosophy is that all religions468 profess 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 clarification 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 firmly based on religious values. Malaysia believes that all education is values education oriented. Specifically, 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 wonders Reformation inwhether the other teachers can reinforce what has been dealt with in the Islamic Malaysiaeducation or moral education classes. It is assumed that Islamic education and moral education teachers aretrained in the methodology of teaching values. The moral education syllabusclearly states that teaching it needs to use the problem solving method, and asfar as possible there should not be moral imposition. However, that being a 469complex and sometimes personal process, they may be in a dilemma. The endresult might as well be teaching values by teaching content which again raisesthe issue which is often debated whether knowledge about the content of thesubject (in Malaysian case they are Islamic education and moral education) maymean that they are morally mature. Another point of concern is the integration of values across the curriculumapproach. It is clear that the moral education syllabus consists of values, whichare not in contradiction with any religion. It may also be true that values orethics education transmitted through Islamic education may not be the same asthat which is obtained through moral education, even though the curriculum isplanned for the two subjects to be complementary. Hence, the KBSMemphasizes values across the curriculum, which should ensure that all studentsget the same dosages from all teachers. In effect then all teachers are moraleducation teachers, underlying the belief that teachers are key figures in theway in which values education is taught in schools. Here another dilemma emerges. How far are teachers serious and successfulin inculcating values in their different subjects? How far can they integrate the16 core values without reference to subsidiary beliefs, particularly those specificto 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 bea futile exercise of reciting the values. Informal surveys done by the writer haveshown that, at least at the initial stages, teachers were “lost” and hardly knewwhat was expected of them. The end result is that teachers mention what valuesthey want to integrate, which neither interest the students nor leave a lastingimpression. This is very clearly demonstrated when we observe traineeteachers implementing it. More often than not, they write down the values intheir lesson plans, but they hardly integrated them into the teaching, andsometimes they do not even know what activities or strategies can be done tointegrate the values into their teaching. A lot of care and special training maybe needed for teachers to infuse values in their teaching effectively. And then again, the syllabus identifies 16 core values. The list is notexhaustive, and teachers are encouraged to be innovative and creative. It is thenleft 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 36values, other than those identified in the curriculum, which can be extracted. Itis 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 may evenEducational contradict what other teachers do.Administration When talking about integrating values in teaching, we also know that teaching values is a complex process, which involves several phases of36,5 understanding, acceptance, and finally internalizing. We also know that teachers are individuals each with their own beliefs, attitudes, and values,470 which differ from one person to another. In integrating values into their teaching, they will then inevitably be influenced by their own beliefs and will not give the same emphasis to values identified. 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 find it difficult 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 specific 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 which Reformation inhas developed over the years, the result of success being measured by Malaysiaperformance in public examinations, specifically the increasing problem ofdeveloping children to be rote learners, and less as thinking individuals. SmartSchools seek to ensure that the Malaysian school children will be young adultswho will be learners working together with the teacher and other materialswhich are accessible and at their disposal, responsible for their own learning. 471 This flurry of changes and policy implementation is also raising moredilemmas in the teaching of values at all levels. The dilemma of teaching valuesin schools is now added with that opening up of the skies, and a whole newscenario of retraining teachers. We are as yet not tested on the success of thevalues across the curriculum, as teachers are thoroughly confused as to how tointegrate values in the real sense. With the advent of the computer and theinevitable invasion of the Internet into the classrooms, other dilemmas emerge.The fact that Malaysian schools cannot ignore world developments cannot berefuted, and in fact the government has taken the bold and brave move inmoving ahead and trying to be ahead of world developments, by adaptingmodern technology and strategies, in the Smart Schools concept. However,Malaysia is making sure that developments are in line with our statedphilosophy and goals. This looks like a bigger dilemma. It was already difficultenough to infuse Malaysian values by making all teachers “values education”teachers with the “values across the curriculum strategy”. In the Smart Schoolsteachers are being asked to meet this challenge even as they use alternativemedia, particularly from the World Wide Web! Much is to be done to ensure thatthe Malaysian schools can successfully ensure positive effects of the so called“opening up of the skies” and keep the children firmly rooted in the Malaysiancontext and inculcate the Malaysian values, even though the so-called valuesare universal. What stands out in the current spate of events is the emphasis on tertiary andhigher, particularly private tertiary, education and private education in generalThere is as yet no overhaul of the school curriculum, except to adjust to newneeds and global changes, and the demand of technology. This of course hashastened a flurry of private tertiary education institutions and the response fromthe 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 theoverseas institutions. The Education Act of 1966 also allows for the establishmentof branch campuses, which promises the mushrooming of the big stakeholdersfrom the USA, the UK and Australia to have branches in Malaysia. It isinteresting to observe the developments in the next couple of years. These willbring certain dilemmas for Malaysian society should there be a real invasion offoreign “curriculum” in the branch campuses, and an influx of foreign students inthe country. To date it has been announced that private tertiary colleges areallowed to twin with foreign institutions and grant degrees on their behalf.
Journal of Conclusion: future trends and issuesEducational The development of the times in the last few years has made it impossible forAdministration the government not to allow the mushrooming private tertiary institutions to flourish. The Education Act 1996 has endorsed the existence and function of36,5 private education, especially private tertiary institutions to complement that of the public higher education institutions. The Act outlines policies in order to472 impose some form of control on the quality of higher education, such 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 identified 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 difficult 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. References 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 in Education and Development organized by Penang Consumers Association, 18-22 November, 1983. MalaysiaAzizah, A.R. (1990), “The odds against the school-based curriculum development: 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 Leadership, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 19-21. 473Chang, 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 keguruan” (“Moral and values education is the soul of the teaching profession”) Paper presented at Konvensyen Pendidikan Moral 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, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.Educational Wan Hasmah Wan Mamat (1993), Pelaksanaan kurikulum Pendidikan Moral di Sekolah:ArahAdministration dan cabaran bagi guru-guru (Implementing the Moral Education curriculum in schools:36,5 Direction and challenges for teachers), in Pendidikan di Malaysia: Arah dan cabaran, (Education in Malaysia: Direction and Challenges), Special publication to commensurate 30th Anniversary of the Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, 15-20.474 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 in • as opposed to showing off; Malaysia • as opposed to arrogance; • admission of one’s fault.(11) Justice: • a sense of fair play; • concept of reward and punishment. 475(12) Rationality: • flexibility of thought; • 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.