NST Leader: Reducing SPM dropouts requires intervention, not enforcement
The first category can be due to all sorts of travails that can derail a young life, such as working to support families, a death in the family, unstable home environments, or illness or health complications.
It is the second category that is the most disturbing: students influenced by peers that further education is of little value.
This perception is aggravated by the obsession to become social media influencers, anything to avoid slogging for higher education. There is also a third category: those eschewing the national system to be privately educated.
Alarmed by the dropouts, the Education Ministry is taking action by mobilising home visits, providing counselling and monitoring absenteeism. But still, the decision to take the examination or drop out ultimately lies with the student.
The ministry was somewhat successful under the Education Development Plan (2013-2025) in getting dropouts to return to school.
As alarming as last year's 11,412 SPM dropouts were, it was an improvement from the 19,311 in 2020.
These efforts are slow, but a faster, more punitive proposal is in the works: making secondary school education compulsory, with dropouts liable to a RM5,000 fine or six months' imprisonment.
These measures in the Education (Amendment) Bill 2025 just tabled in Parliament, if adopted, should shrink dropout rates as parents are forced to ensure their children stay in school. The government views the bill as a way to improve literacy and skills, and reduce youth unemployment, narrow income gap and improve socioeconomic status.
However, a word of caution: there may be a mutinous lot who will still opt out despite knowing the consequences.
Perhaps the government should continue focusing on slow but positive intervention, rather than punitive measures.
Dragging unrelenting parents or students to court or penalising them are terrible optics that'll whip up public backlash, besides further exposing a failed education system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
RGT3 to be built in Lumut, says Saarani
IPOH: The country's third regasification terminal (RGT3) will be constructed in Lumut Maritime Industrial City (LuMIC), says Datuk Seri Saarani Mohamad. The Perak Mentri Besar stated that the project is expected to begin in LuMIC 2, one of seven key industrial zones there. "We believe it will start early next year. They need about 3,000 skilled workers in welding, and we are trying to find them," he said. Saarani said this at a press conference after attending a talk on the challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the syariah framework on Thursday (Aug 7). Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in his speech when tabling the 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) in Parliament on July 31, mentioned that RGT3 would be built in Lumut. The move aims to strengthen the security of energy supply in the country. It is believed that the capacity of RGT3 will be similar to the two existing RGTs in Sungai Udang, Melaka, and Pengerang, Johor. Saarani said the state could not provide further information about the project, as it falls under Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas), which needs to announce it in Bursa Malaysia first. "As to how much the investment will be, it will be announced by them (Petronas) and we thank them (for investing in Perak). "Our aim is to prepare as many jobs as we can in the state," he said, adding that the project could be a catalyst for growth in Lumut. Regarding the 13MP, Saarani expressed hope that more initiatives planned under the Perak Sejahtera 2030 development plan would be included. "We hope the Federal Government can continue to support the state, making Perak prosper, which would then benefit the people," he added.
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Wee defends call to reform tax appeals system
Ayer Hitam MP Wee Ka Siong yesterday called for the LHDN to be made an independent statutory body that reports to Parliament. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : MCA president Wee Ka Siong has defended his call for the tax appeals system to be reformed, which led to a call for him to be referred to Parliament's rights and privileges committee. The Ayer Hitam MP had cited the legal dispute between Tenaga Nasional Bhd and the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) yesterday when calling for LHDN to be made an independent statutory body reporting to Parliament. He said such an approach would be a key reform to ensure LHDN was free from political interests or pressure. TNB is facing a RM5.05 billion tax bill following a Federal Court ruling that it is not eligible to claim reinvestment allowance. The apex court had earlier overturned a Court of Appeal ruling that found TNB to be in the business of manufacturing electricity. The Federal Court said TNB should actually have been considered a utility company under Schedule 7B of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). The dispute arose when LHDN disallowed TNB's claim under Schedule 7A of the ITA on the basis that the generation, distribution and transmission of electricity was not manufacturing of electricity. In a statement today, Wee said that no one was disputing the court's ruling that TNB should have applied under Schedule 7B, nor was it about the company's status as a utility or manufacturer. 'The real issue is the fate of RM5 billion in rakyat's savings,' he said. He said what DAP's Chong Zhemin 'conveniently ignores' was that TNB was majority-owned by public savings funds through Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd, EPF, the Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Haji and others. If the government, via LHDN, enforced the court ruling, the RM5 billion would go into its coffers, he said. He said the law clearly gave the finance minister absolute power to approve TNB's appeal and re-application under Section 7B to waive the disputed amount. Yesterday, Wee and Chong, who is the Kampar MP, traded bards in the lower house when Wee claimed that it would be 'daylight robbery' if the government decided to enforce the ruling. This led to Chong claiming that the 'daylight robbery' remark was inaccurate, and accused Wee of misleading the house. Chong also demanded Wee retract the claim and threatened to refer him to the rights and privileges committee.
Malaysiakini
an hour ago
- Malaysiakini
Do migrant workers deserve the same benefits as locals?
YOURSAY | 'Dignity at work is not a privilege, it is a right for everyone.' Guan Eng: No need minimum wage, EPF for existing migrant workers IndigoGoat3056: Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng made a troubling statement in Parliament on Aug 6, asserting that there is no need to mandate the RM1,700 minimum wage or Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions for existing migrant workers, arguing that Malaysia is not bound by certain International Labour Organisation conventions. He further cited Singapore's exclusion of Central Provident Fund contributions for migrant workers as justification. This is a deeply disappointing position. The DAP MP, in this case, is operating from a narrow capitalist mindset that clearly contradicts the spirit of the Federal Constitution, fundamental human rights principles, and the values of social justice. Lim's statement reflects an economic ideology that prioritises employer profits over fairness for all workers, particularly migrant workers, who are often among the most exploited. Legally, morally, and constitutionally, this reasoning is flawed. Malaysia's Federal Constitution, under Article 8, guarantees that 'all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.' This does not limit protection to citizens. It includes all persons, including non-citizens. Migrant workers who are lawfully present and employed in Malaysia are entitled to this equal protection. Any policy that denies them basic rights, such as minimum wage or EPF, is discriminatory. The Court of Appeal in Tak Tek Seng further clarified that the right to life under Article 5 includes the right to livelihood. Denying migrant workers fair wages and social protection is a denial of that livelihood - and a denial of dignity. In Kathiravelu Ganesan v Kojasa Holdings Bhd, the Court of Appeal held that a migrant worker qualifies as a 'workman' under Malaysian labour law and can bring claims for unfair dismissal under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. If the law recognises their right to challenge unfair dismissal, it must also uphold their right to minimum standards of compensation and retirement protection. Article 6 prohibits all forms of forced labour, regardless of nationality. Paying migrant workers below the wage floor and denying EPF contributions - while demanding full output - amounts to economic exploitation, in breach of the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 10 allows migrant workers to be members of trade unions, affirming their recognised role in the national workforce. Article 155 also provides reciprocal rights for Commonwealth citizens - a reminder that migrant workers are not to be treated as second-class. The idea that existing migrant workers - many of whom have served this country for years - can be excluded from protections just because they were hired earlier is not justifiable. It rewards employers for locking in unfair contracts and punishes workers who have already contributed significantly to Malaysia's economy. Malaysia does not need to wait for international treaties to act justly. Our own Constitution, courts, and conscience demand it. Migrant workers deserve minimum wage, EPF contributions, and equal labour rights - regardless of when they were hired or where they came from. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right for everyone. TMataz: Agree. The minimum wage ruling should apply only to Malaysian citizens. Applying the same ruling to migrants only distracts from the more urgent focus on alleviating the living wage of our fellow Malaysians. An average Singaporean's income is SG$6,000 a month. Sadly, the average income for Malaysians is RM6,000 a month. I believe Malaysia should strive for at least half of that figure, due to our Malaysian equivalent educational literacy and the lower cost of living, which is why the average Malaysian should be earning RM9,900 per month. To progressively push the employer to improve their business productivity and retool their operations to meet today's technological demands, and to be better able to alleviate their Malaysian employees' income. It's not fair to put unfair constraints on local businesses and to force them to pay unreasonably high wages for menial jobs done by migrants. Thus, if we remove migrants from the national minimum wage ruling, then we are able to fast-track wages for our Malaysian citizen workers to double the current minimum. If there is a need to placate international labour rules, just do a separate minimum wage requirement for migrants. Coward: Our ex-finance minister is not showing any knowledge of the market. Minimum wage and EPF contributions for migrant workers are not there to protect them. Both are there to prevent them from undercutting locals. If employers don't have to respect them, then they are cheaper than locals from the employer's viewpoint. When that's the case, who will they employ? In most countries where employers contribute to pension funds, they are required to give migrant workers what they would have contributed to the funds for locals if they didn't have to open the same pension fund account for migrant workers. The people of Selangor: Who came up with the idea of EPF and minimum wages for migrant workers? How will such a policy or ruling benefit our country? What is the purpose of it? Do we want to encourage more migrant workers to come here? What we see is more illegal workers coming here instead. We should suggest better policies for local workers instead of migrant workers; these policies will only burden our employers or businesses and increase our cost of living. BlueGecko7216: Without equal minimum wages for migrants, it will lead to an influx of migrant workers, which is detrimental to local workers. There will also be an improvement in productivity in general. The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now. These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
