Whilst international schools around us reap the benefits of implementing wondrous teaching techniques such as the Montessori method, government schools are still bound by legacy policies as recommended by the Rahman Talib Report, Razak Report, Fenn-Wu Report, and the Cabinet Committee Report.

After years of research and discussion the (then) education minister Najib Abdul Razak introduced the Education Act 1996 which is still enforced without much review until this day. The biggest flaw in this act is the unfair and unwise distribution of subject time especially in primary schools.

Level one Bahasa Malaysia teachers are to conduct twelve periods (minimum) of teaching per class. That’s a total of six hours per class. The main arguments for this policy is to reduce illiteracy at an early stage as well as to protect the sovereignty of the national language. Both arguments are flawed by today’s standard.

First, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing contact hours can indeed reduce illiteracy. Some children are slow learners and others have destructive behaviour. Second, childhood development should not be skewed heavily towards the linguistic intelligence side. Other intelligence such as mathematical, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intra-personal, kinesthetical and naturalist play a pivotal role in the development of a well-balanced individual.

Third, dominating the school timetable with Bahasa Malaysia is not a good indicator that the National Language is being ‘daulat-ed’. All it manages to do is to pile up unnecessary work for the Bahasa teacher. In school, English should be equally important as Bahasa. Please make them level.

Two periods each for ‘Civics and Citizenship’ and ‘Local Research’ are taught in Level Two. These are dodgy subjects with no explicitly beneficial objectives. An early attempt to form the political mindset of children. Some, if not most of the contents, overlap with those of ‘Moral Studies’. I suggest the ministry to do away with these subjects. It can be assimilated easily and more effectively in the uniformed movements such as the Scouts, the Red Crescent Society, Tunas Puteri, and Puteri Islam. So no more of these subjects.

In fact, the four periods are better off replaced by co-curricular activities such as uniformed movements, clubs and societies.

Only one period of ‘Physical Education’ is taught per class. The most popular subject in primary schools. The only subject that develops kinesthetical intelligence. For many years, the government failed to look into this seriously. The potential of creating a pool of kinesthetically talented children in Malaysian schools is great.

In fact, top athletes such as Tiger Woods, Wayne Rooney, and even Nicol David began training at a very young age. I suggest two periods of ‘Physical Education’ per class. One specifically for athletic skills and the other one for games. There are so many skills to cover. Sad but true even most teachers do not see the potential of this subject. All they do is put a ball in the field, watch the pupils play football and blow the whistle when time is up.

‘Visual Art Studies’ is also not taken seriously. The only subject that incorporates spatial, interpersonal, and intra-personal intelligence. Young children enjoy this subject. There should be three periods per class instead of two. More moral values are put to practice in one hour of ‘Visual Arts Studies’ as compared to three hours of ‘Moral Studies’.

In this subject you teach the children about patience (a work of art needs patience), diligence (attention to detail), appreciation (‘Class, this one is beautiful!’), cooperation and cleanliness (work together to clean-up the class afterwards).

Furthermore, no other subject enhances the right brain’s creativity and imagination more than ‘Visual Arts Studies’. Three periods of this subject is just right. In my state, this is the default subject for headmasters and senior assistants. Sadly, many of them do not even bother entering the classroom.

Music, of course, enhances musical intelligence. Two periods of this subject is fine. As for the contents I suggest one period for Malay children’s songs and the other for English ones. Rural school children are not familiar with many English children’s songs. Part of the reason why they lack the vocabulary at an early stage. Pick any Felda child who scored an ‘A’ in English. I bet you he can’t put three sentences together in a real life conversation.

Having said all this, I also hope that the ministry reviews the UPSR examination. The ugly truth in primary school education is that there is an obsession with exams. Each Malaysian state (or territory) wants to outperform the other. The first victims are the teachers because they are pressured to meet with the state education department’s expectations.

Second are the pupils because they are ‘engineered’ to answer exam papers instead of gaining real knowledge and developing holistically. Who is the first stakeholder of educational policies anyway? The ‘pengarah pelajaran negeri’? The parents? Our national education philosophy never mentions excellence in examinations. Yet there is an annual celebration of well-doers in the newspapers.

I admit there is some need to measure the command of KBSR prior to entering secondary school. But if it is limited to four core subjects only, then better don’t bother with the national exam at all. Please emulate a good model from another country.

A cousin of mine once argued that the only way to develop this country is through business. I beg to differ. I think the best way to develop this country is through sound education policies so much so that even a Sekolah Kebangsaan Reban Ayam can be the alma mater for an Olympic gold medallist, Nobel prize winner, or even a Fortune Global 500 businessperson.

The main stakeholder for education policies are the children themselves and not any other party. So don’t let them be the victims of legacy policies. The Education Act 1996 is thorough but not without flaws. Time to review it. I may not be an education policy-maker but my opinion matters more than any politician’s whether deceased or still alive. I’m a teacher.