[iCONADA Research Team] Why Is an A in SPM Chinese So Difficult? The Case for Greater Transparency in Assessment

The sharp decline in the proportion of students obtaining excellent grades in SPM Chinese deserves serious attention from Malaysia’s Ministry of Education. According to the figures available, the proportion of students achieving excellent results in Chinese fell from 23.2% in 2024 to only 15.1% in 2025. Rather than focusing on whether this is the lowest figure ever recorded, the more important educational question is: Why has it become so difficult for students to obtain an A in SPM Chinese?

The Ministry of Education has stated that Chinese is not an inherently difficult subject and that it is relatively accessible to students seeking a pass. This may well be true. However, passing a subject and achieving an A are two very different matters. The key issue is therefore not whether Chinese is “easy” or “difficult” in general, but whether the assessment system provides a fair, consistent and transparent pathway for students to demonstrate excellence.

An Unusual Gap in Excellent Grades

Since 2020, SPM Chinese has reportedly recorded one of the lowest excellent-grade rates among the major language subjects, including Malay, English, Arabic, Tamil, Iban and Kadazan-Dusun. While English and Iban have also experienced periods of relatively low excellent-grade rates, their rates have shown signs of recovery in recent years. Chinese, by contrast, has remained persistently low.

The change between 2024 and 2025 is particularly striking. Approximately 11,130 students reportedly obtained excellent grades in Chinese in 2024, compared with only about 6,950 in 2025—a reduction of roughly 4,180 students in a single year.

More importantly, the 2025 grade distribution appears unusual. About 73.7% of candidates reportedly received grades in the B and C range, whereas the corresponding proportion for several other major language subjects was between approximately 30% and 50%. Such a distribution naturally raises questions about the assessment process.

This does not necessarily mean that the examination standard is too high. A demanding academic standard is legitimate and, indeed, desirable. The concern is whether the standard is being applied consistently and whether students, teachers and the wider public can clearly understand how grades are determined.

The Real Question: How Are Grades Determined?

Discussion about examination results often becomes focused on the number of students who passed or failed. Yet educational assessment is fundamentally concerned with the relationship between student performance and achievement standards.

The use of grade boundaries, marking schemes and statistical procedures can significantly influence the final distribution of grades. If grade boundaries are established in a way that produces a substantially different distribution from comparable language subjects, the public deserves to know why.

This is especially important when students who request a review of their SPM results subsequently receive improved grades, in some cases reaching an excellent grade. Such cases alone cannot prove that the original marking process was flawed. Nevertheless, repeated reports of significant changes after rechecking can reasonably lead to questions about marking consistency and moderation.

The appropriate response is not speculation but transparency.

The Ministry and the examination authorities should therefore consider publishing clearer information about the assessment framework for SPM Chinese, including the principles used to establish grade boundaries, the marking criteria, moderation procedures and mechanisms for ensuring consistency among markers.

Transparency Does Not Mean Lowering Standards

Calls for greater transparency should not be interpreted as a demand to make Chinese easier or to lower academic standards.

On the contrary, a high standard can be maintained while making the assessment system clearer and more accountable. Students should know what constitutes excellent performance, teachers should understand how their students' work will be evaluated, and markers should receive consistent guidance on applying the marking scheme.

Several areas deserve greater attention.

First, examination specifications and assessment objectives should be clearly communicated. Second, marking schemes and representative answer samples could be provided to teachers to improve understanding of expected responses. Third, markers should receive systematic training and briefing so that assessment criteria are applied consistently. Finally, the process for determining grade boundaries should be governed by clearly articulated principles.

It would also be beneficial to ensure that subject specialists, experienced Chinese-language teachers and relevant educational stakeholders have an appropriate role in the development and review of the assessment system.

Curriculum and Teaching Conditions Matter

Assessment cannot be separated from the conditions under which students learn.

Chinese-language education in national secondary schools faces challenges including teacher shortages and relatively limited instructional time. Chinese may receive substantially fewer classroom hours than some other major language subjects, while students are nevertheless expected to meet rigorous examination requirements.

This creates a structural problem. If students have less opportunity for sustained language learning, reading, writing and examination practice, the assessment outcomes may reflect not only their individual ability but also differences in learning opportunities.

Teachers and students have also expressed concerns that certain examination requirements, content choices and marking expectations may not always correspond closely with students' actual learning experiences. This issue deserves empirical investigation rather than anecdotal debate.

For example, greater use of Malaysian Chinese literary works and locally relevant themes could make examination materials more meaningful to students without compromising academic rigour. Local contexts can provide rich opportunities to assess comprehension, critical thinking, language proficiency and cultural understanding.

Rebuilding Confidence in Chinese Education

The perception that Chinese is “difficult to score an A in” may have consequences far beyond the examination itself.

The number of students taking SPM Chinese reportedly declined from 60,521 in 2017 to 46,046 in 2025, a reduction of 14,475 candidates over eight years. If high-achieving students increasingly avoid Chinese because they fear that the subject may adversely affect their overall results, the long-term consequences could be significant.

A declining number of candidates may affect Chinese-language classes at pre-university level, university enrolment in Chinese-language programmes and, eventually, the supply of qualified Chinese-language teachers. In this sense, examination policy can influence the entire educational ecosystem.

For this reason, restoring confidence in the fairness and predictability of assessment is essential.

A Call for Evidence-Based Reform

Public concern over the decline in excellent grades should not be dismissed as a dispute over historical statistics. Nor should it be reduced to the question of whether Chinese is easy or difficult.

The central issue is how excellence is defined and measured.

The Ministry of Education should provide a clear explanation of the substantial year-to-year variation in SPM Chinese results and make the assessment framework sufficiently transparent for teachers, students and the public to understand. Where appropriate, independent reviews and comparative studies with other language subjects could help determine whether differences in grade distributions arise from genuine differences in achievement, examination design, teaching conditions or assessment practices.

The objective is not to guarantee that more students will receive As. It is to ensure that every student who demonstrates A-level performance has a fair opportunity to receive an A.

Educational standards should be high, but high standards must also be clear, consistent, evidence-based and fair. Reforming the assessment system is therefore not about lowering expectations. It is about strengthening the credibility of the examination itself.

For SPM Chinese to remain a meaningful and sustainable component of Malaysia's multilingual education system, the priority should be neither defending past figures nor arguing over perceptions. It should be building an assessment system in which students, teachers and society can have confidence that achievement—not uncertainty about the grading process—determines the final grade.

NOTE: Issues raised in his article is based on the report by Persatuan Kemajuan Bahasa Cina Malaysia，PKBCM