They Called Top Scorers "EGGHEADS"

Top Scorers are called EGGHEADS!

So, EGGHEADS, please take note:

The Education Ministry had again shifted their goalpost.

This time, it's the scorecard system again.

Those who scored straight As and had a CGPA of 4.0 may be demoted to CGPA of 3.6.



Under the new scoring system, a student will only get a maximum of 90% marks for academic grades. His co-curriculum grade will amount to the balance 10%.

But what puzzles me is the counting system!!!

The Ministry gave an example:

A CGPA of 4.0 is worth 90 marks, while a CGPA of 3.0 is worth 67.5 marks!!!

How did they calculate? Why is it 3.00 x 0.25 x 90 ?

It must be CGPA of 4.00 = 3.6

CGPA of 3.00 = 2.7 (at 90% marks)

Confused? Not Yet!

It further gave another example:

Those who get CGPA of 4.00 (but gets zero for co-curriculum) will lose out to those who get CGPA of 3.6.

But how is it?

4.00 CGPA with zero co-curriculum will still get 3.6 CGPA. and those with 3.6 CGPA and had full marks for co-curriculum will only get a maximum of 3.6 CGPA; nothing more!

How is it that it was calculated that those with 3.6 CGPA can beat those with 4.00? It should be equal marks; that's the scoring system.

Once a scoring system is set, it is the Key Performance Indicator and you can't give another reason otherwise. Then, what's the purpose of KPI? The whole rationale and purpose of KPI is about an objective measurement system, and no more allowed be any subjective elements.

However, it seems the ministry wants an objective system which include a right to add subjective discretion wide enough for them to act in accordance with their whims and fancies and of which would provide them an avenue to justify wrong decisions or intentional decisions.


Now, 35,000 students will not get a place in public U.

The question is: who are these 35,000?


Is anyone your son or daughter?

If so, do you have money to send them to private U or overseas U?

If you do not, then what are you going to do and how is your children's moral?

Didn't we elect these people to make such decision so as to make us suffer? We have to thank ourselves!

I am not against the government. But it is the government's duty to solve the needs and aspirations of the rakyat. It is their utmost fiduciary duty to see to it that the rakyat do not suffer because of system dysfunction and incapacity.

The government is suppose to be the government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

They cannot gave reason of their shortcomings.

I am aware of the limitations of the system and that it is almost impossible to address everyones need.

But, the government must be fully responsible for their actions and promise. If they say, the qualifying marks is 3.00 CGPA for public universities, they had to stick to their words as the children are innocent and pure. They work towards the grade and when they did reach there and acquired the grade, they can't be disappointed and morally crushed by being told that it wasnt good enough; or in another word, "Sorry, we can't keep our promise because we have no means to do so."

The government had to set up a system that could justify their acts and words. They had to plan and be capable to forecast the needs of the rakyat in the not too distant future. They had to plan 20 years ahead of what is coming and implement those plans well before reality sets in.

But the sad point is, we built road and bridges when the traffic jam is incurable and insurmountable. We built schools in areas where no children wants to go. We built schools without the availability of facilities and amenities and resources.

And we cry and fight because there was suppose to be a crooked bridge and renamed scenic bridge.

Another key issue was brought up by Tan Sri Arshad Ayub who is the first director of then Institute Teknologi Mara, now the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM).

According to Arshad: "We are so concerned with expanding enrolment at our institutions of higher learning and we fail to ask whether some of these students are ready to pursue degrees.

"Shouldn't they be pursuing diplomas instead?" Arshad asked.

"I think a quarter or even half of the existing number of students pursuing degrees should be doing diplomas. Perhaps, this is why we now have a problem of unemployable graduates."

Oh, Tan Sri, how absolute true it is; but unfortunately, who in the ministry, including the minister himself, could or would think like you do? We elect morons to manage us, so we had to accept oxymoronic decisions.