Monthly Archives: August 2012

MQA allows MMU’s Senate to be a judge of its own cause

—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Cc: tam@bpa.jpm.my; sidek@pmo.gov.my; anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:27:30 PM Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Yg berbahagia Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein,
Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim “Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi.” (the emphasis is mine)

1. Berdasarkan kenyataan di atas, adalah pelik pihak senat sendiri yang menyiasat sama ada terdapat unsur manipulasi, sedangkan salah laku dilakukan oleh fakulti di bawah seliaan senat sendiri.

2. Does the senate play the roles as the judge, jury and the investigator at the same time, whereas its own credibility is being challenged and indicted as well? Dr Goh said to me, Prof Chua and the senate will not approve your marks!”

3. Where is the check and balance?

4. Dr Goh yang tidak berkelulusan undang-undang menukar markah mengikut formula ekonomi ciptaannya sendiri tanpa melihat langsung kertas peperiksaan. Siasatan jenis apakah yang dilakukan oleh senat sedangkan saya sendiri sebagai saksi yang melihat sendiri Dr Goh menukar markah, tidak dipanggil langsung oleh senat atau MQA sendiri?

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”
Soalan saya sebelum ini yang berkenaan ialah:
“24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.”

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”, amalan MMU menetapkan compulsory rule presribing the maximum number of students who fail {20%] and the average marks to be from 60% to 70%, adalah dianggap wajar oleh MQA. Jadi keputusan peperiksaan telah ditetapkan lebih awal oleh IPT tersebut and does not reflect the actual performance of the students. Kalau macam tu, buat apa ada peperiksaan, bagi aja kelulusan percuma!!!!! Kalau ada peperiksaan pun, pensyarah dikekang oleh kuota markah.Sekiranya ada 100 pelajar, pensyarah wajib luluskan 80 orang, dan hanya boleh gagalkan 20 orang pelajar. Dah Kuota macam itu. Kalau macam ni, pensyarah dihalang berlaku jujur dalam melakukan penilaian dan pemarkahan!

Saya terkejut dalam dunia akademik terdapat sistem kuota berapa orang pelajar wajib diluluskan. Jadi para pelajar tak perlulah baca buku, senat sudah tetapkan siang-siang hanya 20 peratus pelajar sahaja dalam satu kursus yang boleh gagal. Jadi kalau ada 200 orang yang ambil satu kursus, 160 orang pelajar WAJIB DILULUSKAN ,hanya 40 orang boleh gagal!!! 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah amalan ini dinamakan “guaranteed pass”?Adakah ini sama dengan “jual degree”?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah cara di atas, iaitu IPT menetapkan peratusan jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN, contoh baik IPT bertaraf  world class?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah Universiti Malaya, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA:Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah universiti Harvard, universiti Cambridge, Universiti Columbia, Universiti Princeton, universiti Oxford mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

Since the marks are predetermined, if there are 100 students all of them need not study hard because they know 80 students are guaranteed to pass and only 20 of them are allowed to fail according to the quota set by the senate.

Based on the above, lecturers cannot exercise their academic freedom as they are forced to mark the papers according to the quota set by the senate.

I believe that the integrity of the lecturers are being undermined.
I also believe that the practice guaranteeing passes above is a corruption and debasement of knowledge.
The above practice guaranteeing passes  does not reflect the real quality of the students.
Sebelum mengundur diri saya dapati Tuan tidak menjawab soalan saya yang saya ajukan kepada Tuan sebelum ini:
“Further questions I now raise to MQA are:
3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?
4. Are the papers of high quality?
5. Was the grading a fair one?”
Saya memohon jasa baik Tuan menjawab soalan saya pada kadar yang segera.
Yang benar
Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari
Jawapan dariANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada aduan yang dikemukakan oleh puan pada 30hb Januari 2009 mengenai ‘Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)’.

Semakan Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualification Agency-MQA) mendapati siasatan telah dibuat dan jawapan telah diberi kepada puan pada 5hb Februari  2009 melalui email yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com. (salinan disertakan)

Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.

Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi (Jawapan sebelum ini kepada puan pada 5hb Februari 2009 berkaitan).

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.jpm.my Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24:37 AM Subject:Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.
—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 12:44:27 AM Subject:Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Assalamualaikum Dato Tn Syed
The email from Anwar Halim Nor Hashim from Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia refers. Referring to my first email to Professor Zita (forwarded here), Questions 23 and 23 state the following:
23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Therefore does MQA approve:
1. Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
2. A compulsory rule which MMU imposed on lecturer presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Further questions I now raise to MQA are:
3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?
4. Are the papers of high quality?
5. Was the grading a fair one?
Kindly answer the queries above as soon as possible.
Thank you very much. 07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> Subject: Enquiry : Private & Confidential To: zita@lan.gov.my Cc: rose@lan.gov.my Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 1:45 PM

Assalamualaikum Prof
1. I am Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari, a lecturer of Law School Multimedia University.
2. Last Semester (March-May 2007) I taught Legal Language II (BLM 1024).
3. I also met Dr Chong, a LAN officer in a meeting last semester. Dr Chong expressed her concern over the local graduates’ poor command of the English language.
4.I took seriously Dr Chong’s concern and emphasized to my students that they have to improve their command of the English language.
5. Professor, I found that the students answered poorly in the mid semester and final examinations. Their answers do not reflect maturity and cogency. Their poor command of English is evident and glaring.
6. When I released the mid-semester marks, the students were angry as 90% failed.
7. They complained to the President of MMU and alleged that I am an incompetent lecturer and raised their high failure rate as their grievance.
8. After the students complained to the President, the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Dr Goh Pek Chen, started to micromanage me. She followed and attended my classes and tutorials on the ground that the students were afraid of me.
9. She forced me to preserve/reinstate an assignment given out by the former lecturer. I took out the assignment as I found out the students’ focus did not conform with the course notes prepared by the previous lecturer.
10. Dr Goh saw the mid term marks [with 90% failure rate] and commented that the marks were too low. Her remark and harassment/micromanagment forced me to adjust the mid-term marks.
11. I did not prepare the final exam questions. The questions were kept by the faculty’s assistant manager. Dr Goh forced me to go to the assistant manager’s room to look at the exam questions and to help the students by giving them tips on the questions coming out in the final exam. She forced me to ensure that the students can answer well.
12. She forced me to give exam tips to the students and also forced me to show to the students “How I mark an exam question”.
13. Dr Goh forced me to provide the details in the answer scheme which the previous lecturer did not provide within the span of 3 hours only.
14. Dr Goh forced me to mark the answer scripts in detail regardless of my protest that a law essay answer is a subjective answer and it is impossible to provide minute details of the marks awarded for every point accepted. She refused to accept my explanation and forced me to mark the exam papers in detail.
15. Upon marking the exam scripts, I discovered that only 22 students out of 142 passed Legal Language II (BLM1024). the average marks is 42.28 and the standard deviation is 7.61.
16. Upon perusing the marks, Dr Goh said that the Senate would not approve my marks. She also said that she had to adjust the marks. I told her that I do not want to be involved in her act [adjusting the marks] as the students’ answer were of low quality. I have given them tips on how to answer the exam and I have guided them more than what I should do because Dr Goh forced me.
17. Dr Goh adjusted the marks.
18. Dr Goh made her adjustment of marks in order to gain the Senate’s approval and to achieve the following:
The average marks is: 60-70%,
Failure rate: maximum is 20%,
Standard deviation: From 8-15.
19. Dr Goh forced me to key in the new marks she “cooked up/invented”. She also forced me to endorse the “Exam Results Report for Verification Generated by Exam Unit”.
20. After 2 sleepless nights, I informed Dr Goh that I retract the endorsement as I signed it against my will out of fear of losing my job.
21. After my retraction, Dr Goh suspended me from teaching Company Law 1 and Legal Language II this semester.
22. There is a shortage of lecturers at the Law School. Nobody is teaching “Contract II” and “Cyber Law”. Instead of asking me to teach those subjects, Dr Goh asked those lecturers who reached their maximum teaching hours, to apply to teach those subjects as part-timers.
23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Prof, please reply my email/registered letter RD316361464MY (the same content as this email) as I believe I am wronged, my academic integrity being condemned, my career at stake.
Prof please reply via email and also to this address 18 Jln Bukit Beruang Utama 1/9, Taman Bukit Beruang Utama Seksyen 1, 75450 Melaka.
My HP no is : 0162657415.
Thank You Prof.
Yours Sincerely
Yasmin Norhazleena
—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.gov.my; anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my; minister@mohe.gov.my Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:21:11 PM Subject:Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Yg berbahagia Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein,
Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim “Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi.” (the emphasis is mine)

1. Berdasarkan kenyataan di atas, adalah pelik pihak senat sendiri yang menyiasat sama ada terdapat unsur manipulasi, sedangkan salah laku dilakukan oleh fakulti di bawah seliaan senat sendiri.

2. Does the senate play the roles as the judge, jury and the investigator at the same time, whereas its own credibility is being challenged and indicted as well? Dr Goh said to me, Prof Chua and the senate will not approve your marks!”

3. Where is the check and balance?

4. Dr Goh yang tidak berkelulusan undang-undang menukar markah mengikut formula ekonomi ciptaannya sendiri tanpa melihat langsung kertas peperiksaan. Siasatan jenis apakah yang dilakukan oleh senat sedangkan saya sendiri sebagai saksi yang melihat sendiri Dr Goh menukar markah, tidak dipanggil langsung oleh senat atau MQA sendiri?

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”
Soalan saya sebelum ini yang berkenaan ialah:
“24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.”

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”, amalan MMU menetapkan compulsory rule presribing the maximum number of students who fail {20%] and the average marks to be from 60% to 70%, adalah dianggap wajar oleh MQA. Jadi keputusan peperiksaan telah ditetapkan lebih awal oleh IPT tersebut and does not reflect the actual performance of the students. Kalau macam tu, buat apa ada peperiksaan bagi aja kelulusan percuma!!!!! Kalau ada peperiksaan pun, pensyarah dikekang oleh kuota markah.Sekiranya ada 100 pelajar, pensyarah wajib luluskan 80 orang, dan hanya boleh gagalkan 20 orang pelajar. Dah Kuota macam itu. Kalau macam ni, pensyarah dihalang berlaku jujur dalam melakukan penilaian dan pemarkahan!

Saya terkejut dalam dunia akademik terdapat sistem kuota berapa orang pelajar wajib diluluskan. Jadi para pelajar tak perlulah baca buku, senat sudah tetapkan siang-siang hanya 20 peratus pelajar sahaja dalam satu kursus yang boleh gagal. Jadi kalau ada 200 orang yang ambil satu kursus, 160 orang pelajar WAJIB LULUS ,hanya 40 orang boleh gagal!!! 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah amalan ini dinamakan “guaranteed pass”?Adakah ini sama dengan “jual degree”?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah cara di atas, iaitu IPT menetapkan peratusan jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN, contoh baik IPT bertaraf  world class?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah Universiti Malaya, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA:Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah universiti Harvard, universiti Cambridge, Universiti Columbia, Universiti Princeton, universiti Oxford mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

Since the marks are predetermined, if there are 100 students all of them need not study hard because they know 80 students are guaranteed to pass and only 20 of them are allowed to fail according to the quota set by the senate.

Based on the above, lecturers cannot exercise their academic freedom as they are forced to mark according to the quota set by the senate.

I believe that the integrity of the lecturers are being undermined.
I also believe that the practice guaranteeing passes above is a corruption and debasement of knowledge.
The above practice guaranteeing passes  does not reflect the real quality of the students.
Sebelum mengundur diri saya dapati Tuan tidak menjawab soalan saya yang saya ajukan kepada Tuan sebelum ini:
“Further questions I now raise to MQA are:
3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?
4. Are the papers of high quality?
5. Was the grading a fair one?”
Saya memohon jasa baik Tuan menjawab soalan saya dengan jujur dan amanah pada kadar yang segera.
Yang benar
Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari
Jawapan dariANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada aduan yang dikemukakan oleh puan pada 30hb Januari 2009 mengenai ‘Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)’.

Semakan Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualification Agency-MQA) mendapati siasatan telah dibuat dan jawapan telah diberi kepada puan pada 5hb Februari  2009 melalui email yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com. (salinan disertakan)

Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.

Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi (Jawapan sebelum ini kepada puan pada 5hb Februari 2009 berkaitan).

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.jpm.my Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24:37 AM Subject:Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.
—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 12:44:27 AM Subject:Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Assalamualaikum Dato Tn Syed
The email from Anwar Halim Nor Hashim from Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia refers. Referring to my first email to Professor Zita (forwarded here), Questions 23 and 23 state the following:
23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Therefore does MQA approve:
1. Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
2. A compulsory rule which MMU imposed on lecturer presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Further questions I now raise to MQA are:
3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?
4. Are the papers of high quality?
5. Was the grading a fair one?
Kindly answer the queries above as soon as possible.
Thank you very much. 07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> Subject: Enquiry : Private & Confidential To: zita@lan.gov.my Cc: rose@lan.gov.my Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 1:45 PM

Assalamualaikum Prof
1. I am Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari, a lecturer of Law School Multimedia University.
2. Last Semester (March-May 2007) I taught Legal Language II (BLM 1024).
3. I also met Dr Chong, a LAN officer in a meeting last semester. Dr Chong expressed her concern over the local graduates’ poor command of the English language.
4.I took seriously Dr Chong’s concern and emphasized to my students that they have to improve their command of the English language.
5. Professor, I found that the students answered poorly in the mid semester and final examinations. Their answers do not reflect maturity and cogency. Their poor command of English is evident and glaring.
6. When I released the mid-semester marks, the students were angry as 90% failed.
7. They complained to the President of MMU and alleged that I am an incompetent lecturer and raised their high failure rate as their grievance.
8. After the students complained to the President, the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Dr Goh Pek Chen, started to micromanage me. She followed and attended my classes and tutorials on the ground that the students were afraid of me.
9. She forced me to preserve/reinstate an assignment given out by the former lecturer. I took out the assignment as I found out the students’ focus did not conform with the course notes prepared by the previous lecturer.
10. Dr Goh saw the mid term marks [with 90% failure rate] and commented that the marks were too low. Her remark and harassment/micromanagment forced me to adjust the mid-term marks.
11. I did not prepare the final exam questions. The questions were kept by the faculty’s assistant manager. Dr Goh forced me to go to the assistant manager’s room to look at the exam questions and to help the students by giving them tips on the questions coming out in the final exam. She forced me to ensure that the students can answer well.
12. She forced me to give exam tips to the students and also forced me to show to the students “How I mark an exam question”.
13. Dr Goh forced me to provide the details in the answer scheme which the previous lecturer did not provide within the span of 3 hours only.
14. Dr Goh forced me to mark the answer scripts in detail regardless of my protest that a law essay answer is a subjective answer and it is impossible to provide minute details of the marks awarded for every point accepted. She refused to accept my explanation and forced me to mark the exam papers in detail.
15. Upon marking the exam scripts, I discovered that only 22 students out of 142 passed Legal Language II (BLM1024). the average marks is 42.28 and the standard deviation is 7.61.
16. Upon perusing the marks, Dr Goh said that the Senate would not approve my marks. She also said that she had to adjust the marks. I told her that I do not want to be involved in her act [adjusting the marks] as the students’ answer were of low quality. I have given them tips on how to answer the exam and I have guided them more than what I should do because Dr Goh forced me.
17. Dr Goh adjusted the marks.
18. Dr Goh made her adjustment of marks in order to gain the Senate’s approval and to achieve the following:
The average marks is: 60-70%,
Failure rate: maximum is 20%,
Standard deviation: From 8-15.
19. Dr Goh forced me to key in the new marks she “cooked up/invented”. She also forced me to endorse the “Exam Results Report for Verification Generated by Exam Unit”.
20. After 2 sleepless nights, I informed Dr Goh that I retract the endorsement as I signed it against my will out of fear of losing my job.
21. After my retraction, Dr Goh suspended me from teaching Company Law 1 and Legal Language II this semester.
22. There is a shortage of lecturers at the Law School. Nobody is teaching “Contract II” and “Cyber Law”. Instead of asking me to teach those subjects, Dr Goh asked those lecturers who reached their maximum teaching hours, to apply to teach those subjects as part-timers.
23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?
24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:
a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].
b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.
Prof, please reply my email/registered letter RD316361464MY (the same content as this email) as I believe I am wronged, my academic integrity being condemned, my career at stake.
Prof please reply via email and also to this address 18 Jln Bukit Beruang Utama 1/9, Taman Bukit Beruang Utama Seksyen 1, 75450 Melaka.
My HP no is : 0162657415.
Thank You Prof.
Yours Sincerely
Yasmin Norhazleena
Advertisements

we do not condone any kind of manipulation of marks if indeed that is what has occurred-Ambiga Sreevenasan

— On Mon, 7/23/07, Ambiga Sreenevasan <ambiga@sreenevasan.com> wrote:

From: Ambiga Sreenevasan <ambiga@sreenevasan.com>
Subject: RE: Urgent Enquiry
To: “‘yasmin noor'” <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2007, 9:28 AM–>

Dear Puan Yasmin,

Thank you for your e-mail

Point taken. Of course we do not condone any kind of manipulation of marks if indeed that is what has occurred.

I will forward your e-mail to the Qualifying Board on which I sit as a member and who is the body that determines issues as to qualifications.

Thank you,

Ambiga

—–Original Message—–
From: yasmin noor [

mailto:yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 6:48 PM
To: Ambiga Sreenevasan
Subject: RE: Urgent Enquiry

Dear Madam

Is the Bar Council concerned with the manipulation of marks as well a predetermined number of passes? These undergraduates will ultimately be admitted by the Malaysian Bar as Advocates & Solicitors. Is the Bar Council concerned with low quality low graduates?

With regard to my grievances towards my Employer, that’s not the reason why I wrote to you as the President of the Bar Council. I am concerned with marks manipulation, predetermined number of passes and low quality graduates.

I hope I can receive the Bar Council’s stance on the above matter and the matters I raised in my earlier email. Thank you.

Dear Puan Yasmin,

Thank you for your e-mail.

From what you say, it would appear that you have a grievance about the manner in which you have been treated by your employers and the manner in which the exam results were dealt with.

However what I believe you require is legal advice on the issues that you have raised. The Bar Council does not give such advice as it would require examination of the facts and the documents and research on the law as to your remedies if any. You will in all likelihood have to take this matter up through the proper channels at your University.

I am truly sorry that we cannot assist you further. I would strongly advise you to seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Regards,

Ambiga

—–Original Message—–
From: yasmin noor [

mailto:yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:06 PM
To: ambiga@sreenevasan.com
Cc: shali@malaysianbar.org.my; kenneth.goh@malaysianbar.org.my
Subject: Urgent Enquiry

Private & Confidential

Good Day Madam President of the Bar Council

1. I am Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari, a lecturer of Law School Multimedia University .

2. Last Semester (March-May 2007) I taught Legal Language II (BLM 1024).

3. I also met Dr Chong, a LAN officer in a meeting last semester. Dr Chong expressed her concern over the local graduates’ poor command of the English language.

4.I took seriously Dr Chong’s concern and emphasized to my students that they have to improve their command of the English language.

5. Madam, I found that the students answered poorly in the mid semester and final examinations. Their answers do not reflect maturity and cogency. Their poor command of English is evident and glaring.

6. When I released the mid-semester marks, the students were angry as 90% failed.

7. They complained to the President of MMU and alleged that I am an incompetent lecturer and raised their high failure rate as their grievance.

8. After the students complained to the President, the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Dr Goh Pek Chen, started to micromanage me. She followed and attended my classes and tutorials on the ground that the students were afraid of me.

9. She forced me to preserve/reinstate an assignment given out by the former lecturer. I took out the assignment as I found out the students’ focus did not conform with the course notes prepared by the previous lecturer.

10. Dr Goh saw the mid term marks [with 90% failure rate] and commented that the marks were too low. Her remark and harassment/micromanagment forced me to adjust the mid-term marks.

11. I did not prepare the final exam questions. The questions were kept by the faculty’s assistant manager. Dr Goh forced me to go to the assistant manager’s room to look at the exam questions and to help the students by giving them tips on the questions coming out in the final exam. She forced me to ensure that the students can answer well.

12. She forced me to give exam tips to the students and also forced me to show to the students “How I mark an exam question”.

13. Dr Goh forced me to provide the details in the answer scheme which the previous lecturer did not provide within the span of 3 hours only.

14. Dr Goh forced me to mark the answer scripts in detail regardless of my protest that a law essay answer is a subjective answer and it is impossible to provide minute details of the marks awarded for every point accepted. She refused to accept my explanation and forced me to mark the exam papers in detail.

15. Upon marking the exam scripts, I discovered that only 22 students out of 142 passed Legal Language II (BLM1024). the average marks is 42.28 and the standard deviation is 7.61.

16. Upon perusing the marks, Dr Goh said that the Senate would not approve my marks. She also said that she had to adjust the marks. I told her that I do not want to be involved in her act [adjusting the marks] as the students’ answer were of low quality. I have given them tips on how to answer the exam and I have guided them more than what I should do because Dr Goh forced me.

17. Dr Goh adjusted the marks.

18. Dr Goh made her adjustment of marks in order to gain the Senate’s approval and to achieve the following:

The average marks is: 60-70%,

Failure rate: maximum is 20%,

Standard deviation: From 8-15.

19. Dr Goh forced me to key in the new marks she “cooked up/invented”. She also forced me to endorse the “Exam Results Report for Verification Generated by Exam Unit”.

20. After 2 sleepless nights, I informed Dr Goh that I retract the endorsement as I signed it against my will out of fear of losing my job.

21. After my retraction, Dr Goh suspended me from teaching Company Law 1 and Legal Language II this semester.

22. There is a shortage of lecturers at the Law School . Nobody is teaching “Contract II” and “Cyber Law”. Instead of asking me to teach those subjects, Dr Goh asked those lecturers who reached their maximum teaching hours, to apply to teach those subjects as part-timers.

23. Madam, Does the Bar Council approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?

24. Madam, Does the Bar Council approve a compulsory rule presribing:

a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].

b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.

Madam, please reply my email as I believe I am wronged, my academic integrity being condemned, my career at stake.

Madam please reply via email .My HP no is : 0162657415.

Thank You Madam.

Yours Sincerely

Yasmin Norhazleena

Ambiga Sreevenasan raised my complaint on MMU’s manipulation of marks to the Qualifying Board

Ambiga Sreenevasan the then President of the Bar Council  raised my complaint on MMU’s manipulation of marks to the Qualifying Board. So, since the Qualifying Board recognised MMU’s law degree, I conclude that it did not think that there was any manipulation of marks. Wow, I saw Dr Goh Pek Chen, who specialised in Economics manipulated the marks by simply adjusting the marks according to her own formula without even looking at the answer scripts. Prior to that she demanded that I provide to her a detailed answer scheme which I strictly followed. Prior to that, in a meeting, one law lecturer refused to provide such answer scheme as she deemed it unsuitable for law papers. As far as I am concerned I have fulfilled my part, I marked the scripts carefully following the detailed answer scheme which I provided to DR Goh Pek Chen. She has no right to alter the marks as she is not even qualified in law in the very first place. She passsed the undergraduates who failed my paper to please her SUPERIORS, Ghost Jasmon and Professor Chua. MMU’s senate, the Qualifying Board and MQA condone her unethical practice. There is no integrity in MMU and the same goes for MQA and the Qualifying Board (They have no integrity as well).

— On Sat, 9/15/07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com>wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: All is not reasonably well To: “Ambiga Sreenevasan” <ambiga@sreenevasan.com> Date: Saturday, September 15, 2007, 10:11 AM

Dear Madam Ambiga
At this juncture, I cannot comment but I strongly believe that this case is worse that Khalid Yusof’s case, but of course in Malaysia, integrity is lost and elusive. Thanks.
Ambiga Sreenevasan <ambiga@sreenevasan.com> wrote:
Dear Puan Yasmin,
As promised, I raised your matter at the Q.B. meeting yesterday.
I understand you have spoken to a representative from LAN who will be looking into this matter and reporting back to us.
I hope all is reasonably well.
Regards,
Ambiga
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Partner
SREENEVASAN
Ground Floor, Block A
Kompleks Pejabat Damansara
Jalan Dungun
50490 DamansaraHeights
Kuala Lumpur
Tel No : 03-2095 2122
Fax No : 03-2095 1322

MMU and UUM-pilih kasih terhadap MMU

Recognition of UUM’s law degree was rather difficult but that was not the case for MMU, despite my complaint about MMU’s manipulation of marks to LAN/MQA and the Bar Council.

Why was that?

Money….Money …..Money and …………I shall leave you to think of other reasons, come on, you can come up with the reasons in a jiffy, it’s not rocket science 🙂

The good news is UUM’s law degree attained  the  long-sought recognition as if the recognition is given to only MMU  which commenced its law programme later than UUM, discrimination would be crystal clear.

Email from MQA previously known as LAN

—————————————————-
— On Thu, 2/5/09, Anwar Halim Nor Hashim <anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my>wrote:

From: Anwar Halim Nor Hashim <anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my> Subject: FW: Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU) To: yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com Cc: “Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein” <Syedahmad@mqa.gov.my>, “Zita Mohd Fahmi” <zita@mqa.gov.my>, “Balakrishnan Vassu” <bala@mqa.gov.my> Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 2:43 PM

Salam Cik Yasmin

 

Merujuk kepada email puan bertarikh 30 Januari 2009, satu lawatan siasatan bersama dengan panel penilai yang dilantik oleh Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN) ketika itu telah dijalankan. Hasilnya adalah seperti berikut:

 

Jawatankuasa Peperiksaan Fakulti telah ditubuhkan oleh pihak Multimedia University (MMU) untuk menyiasat isu permakahan terhadap kadar kegagalan pelajar yang tinggi di dalam mata pelajaran Legal Language II. Hasil siasatan tersebut dibawa ke Senat untuk keputusannya. Pihak Senat telah memutuskan bahawa tiada unsur manipulasi dari pihak fakulti di dalam hal ini.

 

Sekian terima kasih

 

 

Anwar Halim Nor Hashim

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

 

 

—–Original Message—– From: yasmin noor [mailto:yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 20098:55 AM To: Suhana Ramli; Suhana Ramli Cc: Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein Subject: Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)

 

Askm Puan

Berdasarkan email Puan di bawah, saya ingin memohon daripada Puan maklumat yang terkini daripada pihak puan berkenaan dengan Penyelewengan Di Multimedia University pada kadar yang segera.

Terima Kasih.

On Tue, 9/25/07, Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my> wrote:

From: Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my> Subject: RE: marks final To: “yasmin noor” <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 , 7:46 AM

Assalammualaikum w.b.t.h puan,

 

Untuk pengetahuanpuan, walaupunpihakkamitidakmempunyaikuasauntukmencampurisenattetapipihakkamisentiasamengambilperhatianterhadapaduanpihak yang dikemukakanolehpihakpuan. Untuk maklumat puan juga, setelah pihak kami mengadakan perbincangan berkaitan aduan puan, satu perancangan telah dibuat dimana kami akan mengadakan audit di MMU berdasarkan aduan yang dikemukakan. Pihak kami akan sentiasa memberikan maklumat yang terkini kepada pihak puan.

 

Diharap pihak puan dapat bersabar.

 

Sekian, terima kasih.

 

Yang menjalankan tugas;

SUHANA BINTI RAMLI

PENGURUS PERUNDANGAN DAN PENGUATKUASAAN

LEMBAGA AKREDITASI NEGARA

TKT 13B, MENARA PKNS-PJ

17, JALAN YONG SHOOK LIN

46050 PETALING JAYA

SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN

 

 

—–Original Message—– From: yasmin noor [mailto:yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 20075:13 PM To: Suhana Ramli Subject: RE: marks final

 

Wslm Puan

Jadi sekiranya saya maklumkan pada MMU maknanya mereka akan tahu bahawa saya telah report kepada Lan. Puan, MMU telah banyak menyusahkan hidup saya, lagipun berdasarkan jawapan Puan saya rasa Lan tidak menganggap perbuatan menipu markah oleh Senate tidak beretika kerana Puan menyatakan Lan tiada kuasa kerana Senate telah luluskan. Terima kasih banyak2 saya sudah hilang keyakinan terhadap integriti di Malaysia.
Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my> wrote:

Assalammualaikum puan,

Berkaitan dengan paper exam pelajar yang puan hendak berikan kepada pihak kami, kami sedia menerimanya. Namun begitu, minta puan maklumkan kepada MMU bahawa kertas jawapan pelajar itu puan akan serahkan kepada kami.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

SUHANA BINTI RAMLI

Email from  the BAR Council’s office bearers about MMU’s manipulation of marks

—————————————————————-

— On Sat, 9/15/07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com>wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: All is not reasonably well To: “Ambiga Sreenevasan” <ambiga@sreenevasan.com> Date: Saturday, September 15, 2007, 10:11 AM

Dear Madam Ambiga
At this juncture, I cannot comment but I strongly believe that this case is worse that Khalid Yusof’s case, but of course in Malaysia, integrity is lost and elusive. Thanks.
Ambiga Sreenevasan <ambiga@sreenevasan.com> wrote:
Dear Puan Yasmin,
As promised, I raised your matter at the Q.B. meeting yesterday.
I understand you have spoken to a representative from LAN who will be looking into this matter and reporting back to us.
I hope all is reasonably well.
Regards,
Ambiga
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Partner
SREENEVASAN
Ground Floor, Block A
Kompleks Pejabat Damansara
Jalan Dungun
50490 DamansaraHeights
Kuala Lumpur
Tel No : 03-2095 2122
Fax No : 03-2095 1322