Pelangi Publishing, RM42.95, ISBN 978-629-498-130-0
Education, 2025
Okay, let me start with what I normally tell candidates for every dual language program subject that they will have to sit for in a government examination: sure, the paper is in Bahasa Melayu and English, so there is no problem… well, except if you look at the actual past year papers, some of the English translations were mangled by Google Translate gone wrong or even erroneously translated to the point that the question in Bahasa Melayu has a different meaning than the English translation.
Therefore, I always suggest reading the Bahasa Melayu questions first and always, as the questions are always designed in that language first and then translated to English. You can answer in English, but don’t trust the English translation of the question 100% or else you may get confused or, worse, misunderstand the instruction.
Now, let’s talk about Biology, the subject and hence the capital B. Biology reference books are always the thickest of all the Science subjects, so you may raise a brow when you see how thin Focus SPM: Biology is compared to those from other competing publishers. There is a reason for this, as I’ll get into later.
Authors
There are six authors here, four of them being textbook authors. For the 2025 edition, a new author joins the roster: Tang Siew Jin.
Design
Pretty standard design, but this publisher’s oh-so-typically Malaysian tendency to pack as much of everything into a single page (empty space is wasted space, as the thinking goes) can be detrimental.
You see, key images are small. For some instances, this isn’t a good thing.
One example is cell division. It’s standard practice to remember and draw out each stage of mitosis and meiosis, label them, and then describe the changes in each stage. This is something one does to better remember the entire process, and there is also a tendency for essay questions on this topic to ask candidates to describe these things and even draw accompanying illustrations in their answer.
Another common “should know how to draw” topic is amoeba as an example of simple unicellular organism versus paramecium as a more complex organism. It’s common to ask candidates to identify the structures within these organisms and even draw these organisms in essay questions.
These two examples and other topics (structures of the phloem versus xylem, etc) could do with large, clear illustrations for candidates to study and practice labelling as well as drawing… and here they are pretty small and not as clear as they should be. For the aforementioned cell division topic, for example, the structures and positions of the centrioles during each stage are barely visible, much less elaborated on.
Also, a bit more amount of white space would be nice, for candidates to jot extra notes here and there. This is Biology. Adding extra notes is something that can’t be avoided.
Content
Okay, the notes are clear and the illustrations for the most part are okay.
However, the notes are very basic. The level of detail is pretty much the same as that in any of the “quick and short revision notes” book available out there in the market. Therefore, you’ll have to decide whether it’s worth paying RM42.95 for this book when those “quick revision notes” books are far more affordable.
Also, the practice exercises feel incomplete. Some chapters don’t have practice long essays (section C of the Biology SPM paper 2). I can only wonder why. Are the authors so confident that certain topics will never be tested in the form of long essays? Again, you’ll have to consider that you may perhaps get something more for the value of your money if you buy a “quick revision notes” and one or two practice test workbooks, as the total cost of those books may still add up to be less than the cover price of this book.
Oh, and there is no model SPM test here. I check and I can’t find whether there is any QR code that can let one get a model SPM test online instead. Again, you’ll have to weigh the cost of this book versus what you can get from buying a combination of quick reference notes and practice test workbooks.
However, there is one nice plus to this book: the opening chapter that introduces answering techniques for the SPM Biology paper, complete with explanations of the common mistakes that candidates often do. I’m personally uncertain about that advice to use a table to differentiate this and that, however, as I’ve had received conflicting advice and tips myself. Some say using a table is fine, while others say a table doesn’t truly make the act of differentiation clear, and it’s better to use sentences instead, like “A is like this, while B is like that” or “C does this, while D does that”. Personally, I’m leaning towards the latter, as it doesn’t hurt to write a little bit more, as long as it covers enough ground to avoid giving trigger-happy examiners reasons to deduct my marks!
The KBAT or HOTS Dilemma
Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) or the English translation High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) is an inevitable component of any SPM paper, designed to test one’s analytical skills and knowledge outside of the textbook.
This means reference books in the market will incorporate HOTS questions into their practice exercises… or so they say.
The issue with Biology is that the field moves fast, very fast. However, the Biology SPM test paper is said to be based on the textbook, which hasn’t been updated in years.
On the other hand, if one looks at the real past year papers, one will notice that the Biology SPM test does touch on more recent developments or off-field topics not covered in more conventional classrooms.
One question shows a few illustrations of topiary and then asks the candidate to describe the benefits of pruning to the plant. If your Biology lore comes solely from this book, you won’t be able to answer that regular pruning of plants promotes new growth, improves distribution of nutrients, improves air circulation to leaves, reduces risk of infestations and infections by removing dead and diseased branches and leaves, improves exposure to sunlight, and strengthens the structure of plants by pruning the shape to be more stable.
Also, some of the textbook-based content is outdated. One main example is that this book is still using the old and outdated Malaysian Food Pyramid instead of the recently revised one, which sees the swapping of place of the lowest two levels. Now fruits and vegetables occupy the lowest level, because we are supposed to eat the most out of this food group now, as opposed to cereal and rice in the old pyramid. The big question now is that, should the Biology SPM paper decide to ask candidates about the Malaysian Food Pyramid, which version will be indicated in the answer scheme? Sadly, this is an answer that only someone in the know with the examination department of the Ministry of Education can provide, and I’m not such a person!
The outdated information as well as lack of inclusion of details outside the textbook can be problematic. Let me illustrate this by taking a question from the practice question sections of this book.
This one is from page 206.
Explain alternative treatments for kidney failure patients other than haemodialysis.
Yes, the question could be phrased better, but this is the better kind of English one would encounter in the actual SPM Biology paper. Let me remind everyone once again to read the Bahasa Melayu questions instead of the English translation, as things are already stressful in the examination hall without having to deal with weird and terrible English usage.
Anyway, the authors provide the following as the answer to this question:
An alternative to haemodialysis is kidney transplant. The operation involves placing the donour’s kidney low in the abdominal cavity, with its renal artery and vein connected to the recipient’s iliac artery and vein. The recipient’s diseased kidneys are usually removed.
Oh boy, where do I start?
- Kidney transplant is not a simple “swap out a kidney” procedure like taking something out of a box and putting something else in. The damaged or diseased kidney is only removed due to certain medical reasons, such as bad infections, very high blood pressure, or cancer is present. It is not right to give candidates the wrong impression, even if we are just trying to keep things simple at this level and saving the detailed stuff for when these candidates go to college. As for the rest, the surgeon would just place the donor’s kidney in the location and manner described—that part is on point.
- Also, typically only one kidney is involved, and even that is not always removed. So, the statement about diseased kidneys, plural, is imprecise and could cause deduction of marks by a trigger-happy examiner.
- The question asked for alternative treatments, plural. So, why is there only one treatment in the answer? By right, the answer should also include peritoneal dialysis, which tend to be far more common than kidney transplant anyway, given the abysmally few organ donations in this country!
One more example, this time from page 138.
Based on Figure 1.2, name the carbohydrates in rice and milk.
Figure 1.2 is just a plate of rice, a jar of honey, and a carton of milk, by the way.
The answer given by the authors is this:
Rice: starch
Milk: lactose
Firstly, the question itself is imprecise. “Carbohydrates” is plural, so should the candidate give a few examples each for rice and milk? The authors give only one for each, but how will the candidate know that this is the authors’ intention behind the wording of the question? Again, it is very important to craft precise and unambiguously worded questions even in practice exercises, so that the candidate won’t be confused, made to feel stupid when they are not, and demoralized.
Secondly, “rice”—what rice? If we are talking about refined rice, yes, starch is fine, as rice contains lots of amylopectin and amylose. On the other hand, brown rice also is rich in fiber—in fact, the presence of fiber is the very reason why brown rice is said to be a healthier choice than refined rice. If a candidate that is well-read outside of the textbook puts dietary fiber as the answer, will it be acceptable? I feel that the answer should also include that, as there is no harm for a candidate to be aware of why brown rice is such a big deal when it comes to nutrition.
Also, why is only lactose listed as the answer for milk? Sure, lactose is present in the most amounts, but milk also has glucose, galactose, and various oligosaccharides. If we are talking about processed milk sold in supermarkets, they likely have added sugars too, especially if the milk is flavored. Will these answers be acceptable?
Hence, I feel that the precision of the wording of the question is very important. If the authors want the candidates to state the primary carbohydrate of each food, then say so. Even then, they should state “white rice” instead of just “rice”, and “farm-fresh milk” instead of just “milk”. Otherwise, give a few answers for each food, instead of just one.
Why This Annoys Me
I know, it feels like overkill or just being overly nitpicky to hammer on the use of precise wording in questions, but I have been there before. I had my test answers marked wrong even when there were journals and even materials from WHO to show that I was right, because the teacher’s own knowledge was hopelessly outdated, or they were those “only whatever is in the textbook is correct” types.
This kind of incident is a very demoralizing experience, because it actively punishes candidates that go the extra mile to pursue additional knowledge in a subject out of interest. There is a contradiction in how candidates are expected to think outside the box, but the reference books such as this one instead push the candidates back and deeper into the box.
Conclusion
- Presentation and design – average, cluttered. Certain key diagrams that require the candidate to be very familiar with are small and/or lack details (the images for xylem and phloem are very rudimentary and missing key labels and dotting, for example), which isn’t helpful.
- Study notes are very basic, and some chapters are missing practice questions for Section C of Paper 2. No sample SPM test paper. Did some pages get left out during the layout stage of production? For a SPM Biology reference book, it is pretty slim, and now you know why.
- The rudimentary nature of the study notes will not be helpful for candidates hoping to shore up points for potential HOTS questions in the upcoming SPM Biology paper. Also, the questions often ask about things that are not present in the study notes, requiring candidates to make extra notes here and there… but there isn’t much white space to accommodate copious notes.
- Practice questions are imprecisely worded and will frustrate candidates that would normally do well in HOTS stuff. They are better off with a reference book or tuition teacher that actually respects their abilities to think outside of the textbook while steering them to navigate the more limiting constraints of the SPM paper.
During my time as a SPM candidate, the Biology reference book from this publisher was the cream of the crop. Of course, that was decades ago, and now, with new syllabus and a new crop of authors, things are different. Sadly, things are different in a decidedly more negative way, and a part of me can’t help feeling sad about this.
