Different Paths, Same Destination: A Case Study of the 2002 Amendment to the Education Act for Chinese Minorities in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the effects and implications of the 2002 Amendment to the Education Act for the ethnic Chinese community, through exploring the challenges that the policy pose for Chinese school and education, as well as investigating the responses of the different stakeholders in Chinese community toward the change in policy. A case study approach was adopted for this study. Surveys (of students and parents), discussions with educators, and document analysis of textbooks and newspapers were carried out. Findings indicated that this policy had negative implications for mother tongue education in Malaysia, resulting in a huge overhaul of the Chinese primary school and educational system. This assimilatory policy seeks to undermine the maintenance of ethnic Chinese minority’s heritage and identity. Cet article décrit les effets et les implications soulevés par l’amendement de la Loi Educative en 2002 pour la communauté chinoise. Il explore de ce fait les défis que cette loi pose aux écoles et à l’éducation chinoise en général, et explique les solutions que les différents acteurs de la communauté chinoise ont adoptées afin de répondre aux changements que cette loi implique. La recherche repose sur une étude de cas, raison pour laquelle l’auteure a effectué des sondages auprès des étudiants et des parents, a mené des discussions avec les professeurs et a analysé des livres de cours et quelques journaux. Ses recherches ont démontré que cette loi avait des implications négatives pour l’éducation en langue native en Malaisie, ce qui a mené à une restructuration importante non seulement de l’école primaire chinoise mais également du système éducatif dans son ensemble. Cette politique d’assimilation cherche à affaiblir la présence des minorités ethniques chinoises et leur identité.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".