The Malaysian Education Debate

Schools and Nation-building (Part 2)

2009-11-04T00:29:00.003+08:00

Part 2 of the article written in June 2007.

As pointed out in Schools and Nation-building, the primary education in Malaysia is by nature racially segregated, which comprised of national, vernacular Chinese and Tamil schools.

The segregated primary education was a compromise negotiated among the ethnic groups when Malaya gained its independence in 1957. After 50 years of independence, the national schools had became the point of criticism and the student enrolment were predominantly Malays while Chinese parents preferred to sent their children to Chinese primary schools. This resulted in a worsening situation of segregation among the ethnic groups.

In order for schools to play a greater role in nation-building and fostering racial harmony, thorough revamp of the education system seems to be an unavoidable initiatives. To the general understanding, Chinese and Indian students in the vernacular schools received their primary education in a mixture of their mother-tongue along with Malay and English. The students in the national schools were taught in Malay and English with the Muslim students being taught Arabian.

As all students were expected to master 3 languages, perhaps the revamp of the education system could integrate the primary education into a common schools. All students are required to learn Malay language and English language while the remaining subjects are conducted in English. In addition to that, Malay students should be taught Arabian as the third language while Chinese and Indians studied Chinese language and Tamil respectively. To further ensure greater objectivity in the evaluation of students' achievement, the third language should be given a lighter weightage as compared to Malay and English.

With a united education system, then primary and secondary schools could played a greater role in enhancing nation-building and racial harmony among the students. Then it could truly reflects that education is indeed an investment that will produce the next generation of Malaysians that are truly Bangsa Malaysia.

P/s: This article was reproduced without any correction or amendment. There are lots of grammatical mistake.

Schools and Nation-building (Part 1)

2009-11-04T00:21:00.005+08:00

A reproduction of an article written in June 2007 from my blog about single-stream education. This is the first part of the two-part article.

Racial integration among university graduates is said to be an alarming concern of racial harmony in Malaysia. It was indeed true that the segregation of students according to ethnic groups has been happening in public and private universities. The Minister of Higher Education has also highlighted the issue when he spoke about the "Khidmat Masyarakat" (Community Service) programme.
I would viewed that the severity of the issue at the tertiary institutions as merely the consequences of failure in the education system to address the nation-building and racial integration agenda. University students spent on average 12-13 years of education before stepping into universities. Therefore addressing the issue at tertiary level might not yield such an effective outcome as compared to tackling the issue from the root of it, which is the primary and secondary education.

Observing from the current scenario in the country seems to have swayed into a contradicting direction. The national schools were predominantly Malays while the Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools were almost exclusively Chinese and Indians respectively. Students from the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia do not seem to have the opportunity to interact and understand each other. Without doubt, the segregation of 12-13 years will eventually continue at the tertiary level. It would be a little over-optimistic if the integration could done within merely 3-4 years after so many years of segregation. Therefore, in long-run, the country as a whole will have to bear the consequences of racial segregation in the society.

If the country is serious in combating the problem, the major effort should be channelled to the primary and secondary education instead of tertiary to rectify the issue. Thorough revamp of the education system is much needed as the current primary education by nature is racially segregated. How could an education system driven by mother-tongues produced students with tolerance towards racial harmony? After all, education is said as an investment that will only yield its return from the subsequent generation.

P/S: This article is not against mother-tongue education. Further elaboration on the role of mother-tongues and national schools will followed in the subsequent article.

Shouldn't go to university?

2009-10-13T07:04:00.004+08:00

There was a recent article in the Times newspaper that argues why people shouldn't go to university. In response to the article, a friend shared the following:

"Recently my friend who is mechanical engineer at aircond factory at Bangi earning 3k decided to resign and open a supermarket back at his hometown, i am thinking, hmm... maybe he should work in supermarket after SPM instead..." (by Tim L.)

Briefly, the story was about a mechanical engineer who was earning an average monthly wage of a university graduate, decided to quit the job in the city and returned to his hometown to start a supermarket. My friend who shared the story, then, argues that it might be better for the "engineer" to venture into the supermarket business immediately after secondary school, instead of going to university.

To many of us, this story seems to be rather familiar. Many university graduates, especially in Malaysia, do not venture into the careers that are expected of them. More often during such discussion, issues such as graduate unemployment, graduate employability as well as the standard of our tertiary education will subsequently be raised.

However, this article attempts to look at this story from a slightly different perspective. While reading the story for the first time, a question immediately came to my mind.

"If this person is "destined" to venture into a supermarket business, how would university education makes a difference to his career?"

I guess, if we are to evaluate this question in relations to the story, our answer will likely to be guided by how we understand university education.

If we take the cost-benefit approach, certainly, the cost will exceed the benefit. The cost will not only include the tuition fees to pursue a degree, but also includes the opportunity costs, i.e. earnings that were foregone while studying and, the possible "experiences" and "opportunities" of working in the supermarket earlier; yet, the "tangible" benefits remain relatively unchanged.

If we assume university education as a form of credential that only leads into the related careers, expectedly, we are likely to argue that university education in such situation is unnecessary.

However, if we return to the basic idea of university education, which is a form of intellectual training and development, then confidently, we can argue that university education will indeed makes a different to the person as a whole.

University education is not only the certificate that one receives at the end of the course or the number of A's that one scores in exams, but rather, it is "the education and training" to become an intellectual person, which can be defined as a person who uses his/her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a professional capacity or for personal reasons. In the book titled "Knowledge and Decisions", intellectual was also used to mean an individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products or services. Briefly, university education could be regarded as a form of training to produce intellectuals, which are then expected to translate their intellectuality into all aspects of life.

It is clear that only through understanding the role of university education, as a form of intellectual training, we could convincingly argue that it remains worthwhile to pursue university education regardless of the career aspiration. This also explains why courses, such as philosophy, classics, literature, languages, history and theology, are relevant and remain as an essential part of the university, despite their practicalities and applicabilities are being challenged.

University Ranking

2009-10-08T23:58:00.006+08:00

Welcome back to the exciting month of university ranking again. Every year during this period, higher education institutions around the world capture headlines like never before. There will be joy for some institutions, setbacks for others and, worse still, these news and rankings might even cost some academics to lose their job. The stacks of university ranking are increasing tremendously. What does this means for the higher education sector?

Without doubt, university ranking has become an important component of higher education sector. Initially, these rankings were suppose to provide a comparative benchmark among higher education institutions as a way to ensure that quality is uphold. However, with all the publicity associated to these university rankings, it has become a rat-race among institutions to compete among one another for a better standing in the ranking. Today, institutions have to compete not only with institutions within the same country, but the competition has expanded both regionally and internationally. One might wonder, "is this truly a competition of quality" or merely, "a competition for competition's sake".

Owing to the different rankings, institutions are evaluated with a different set of criteria in each of the ranking. Some placed more importance on peer-evaluation, research funding, publication, international reputation, while others include other criteria such as staff-student ratio or graduate employment. Although most of these rankings measure different criteria, however, when it comes to reporting the findings to the public, all these differences are masked together with statistical weightages and indices to reflect the "quality" of the institutions. In other words, the public is made to believe that University A is better than University B, simply because A ranked higher than B in a ranking. However, many fail to ask, "what makes A ranked higher than B?"

This leads us to ask two more questions:
"What are the important criteria to measure quality in higher education?"
"Who should decide the components to be evaluated?"

Generally, a university has two major responsibilities: teaching and research. Does this means that quality of higher education institutions should be based solely on these responsibilities. This might not be the case. For example in the World University Ranking (THE-QS), the ranking is computed based on the following criteria: academic peer review (40%), staff-student ratio (20%), research excellence (20%), international faculty (10%), international students (10%) and employer review (10%). Is this the "correct" ratio to indicate quality?

On top of that, who actually determines that this is the "correct" ratio to measure quality? Are all the institutions being evaluated agreeable to the "ratio"? Furthermore, is this the appropriate ratio to measure higher education institutions around the world? Certainly, we cannot expect universities in US and UK to be evaluated on the exact same criteria as universities in the developing countries.

Evaluating further the components in the tabulation of these ranking, there are several "questionable" indicators that could challenge the reliability and validity of these rankings. For example in THE-QS ranking, the research excellence criterion (20%) is based on citations, which measures how many times an academic's published work is cited. We ought to take into consideration that in the academia, published work is a form of academic debate. Therefore, there might be a possibility that when someone's work is cited, it does not necessarily indicate that the work is excellence. On the contrary, some shabby and questionable research could also be cited (in a bad and negative way) and challenged. Sadly but true, both excellence and terrible research will be measured equally in tabulating the ranking.

Regarding the teaching quality of universities, the proxy measurement used is the staff-student ratio. In other words, the ideal ratio will be that a university has a large faculty base and small student population. Such a measure, expectedly, will favours the research-driven universities. Although theoretically, a low staff-student ratio is ideal, nevertheless, educational research about class size have not been able to proof the theory right. So in other words, having a low ratio does not necessary guarantee teaching quality. On the contrary, there has been many instances that teaching quality in research-driven universities are being questioned, whereby academics consider teaching as secondary or even, "unnecessary burden". After all, "opportunity cost" do not exist in economics for no reason.

Although the issue of university ranking has, today, become a publicity gimmick that captures the public's attention towards higher education, nonetheless, this once a year limelight provides a perfect opportunity for higher education institutions around the world to take a moment and ponder about the important question of quality. Academia should not be competing for the sake of competition, but rather, be committed to compete for the sake of upholding the true quality of higher education.

Is this Academic Bribery?

2009-09-18T00:10:00.005+08:00

One unique feature of the continuous assessment regime in higher education is to evaluate students not solely through their performance in the final exam, but also through other evaluation indicators throughout the course. Typically, the final exam will comprises of 30-70 percent of the final grade, while the remaining percentage are awarded to the students in the form of continuous assessment.

The common evaluation methods used as continuous assessment are certain percentages of the final grade to be allocated for the mid-term exams, tutorial exercises and assignments. However, in most cases, students' attendance will also be given a small percentage, such as 5 or 10 percent. In Malaysian universities, such practice of awarding a certain percentage for students' attendance is very common.

This is where the controversy begins. Is awarding students solely for their attendance a form of academic bribery?

The argument that supports for such allocation argues that students need to be incentivise to attend lectures and tutorials. Furthermore, it was also argued that with such incentive, students will come to lectures and tutorials more prepared and, lecturers are assured of an audience.

On the other hand, critics argue that by awarding students solely for their attendance is a form of bribery that helps student to score higher marks, without any contribution to the intellectual development of the students. (For more arguments, read report).

Is this a form of academic bribery? A point worth pondering.

Plagiarism

2009-09-17T00:22:00.003+08:00

Malaysian academics were once again in the news for the wrong reason. Two lecturers were caught plagiarising materials from the Internet to produce a guide book. The punishments for their action include a stern warning that would be included in their service records and they have to return any royalty received for the book. So far, only a politician, who was formerly a professor, has called for the lecturers to be sacked, citing that "plagiarism is the most serious crime in a university".

What exactly is plagiarism? It is defined as a practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. More specifically, plagiarism within academia is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud. No doubt, plagiarism is a serious crime, but what is surprising with this incident was the lack of response from fellow academicians in the country and the public in general.

Is the lack of response due to the fact that such act is common?

From my own experience studying in a Malaysian public university, plagiarism or "partial-plagiarism" is quite a common phenomena. I remembered a core course in my second-year, where the lecturer, a very senior academic and held influential position in the department, "suggests" that all students in the course to purchase the course textbook, which was in Malay. The price of the book was RM10, but was "photocopied" and bind into a book form. Upon reading the book, readers will realise that all diagrams and figures in the book was "copy-and-paste", as the diagrams are worded in English, while the description and the texts are in Malay. Out of curiosity, a fellow coursemate began to search all textbooks and found the original version. When compared, it was obvious that every sentence of the Malay textbook was "literarily" translated and the diagrams and figures were "copy-and-paste" directly from the English version. The "author" to the Malay textbook is the lecturer and no acknowledgement whatsoever could be found that indicate that the Malay textbook was translated or cited from the English textbook.

Is that not plagiarism? Sadly, this is just one of the many incidents that I came across.

On the other hand, as an undergraduate student, I have to admit that we were not given any training to avoid plagiarism, or simply informed what is it all about. There was only one module that taught us how to cite references and perfectly list the references in the bibliography. However, the essence of citation and how to avoid plagiarism remains much a mystery.

How I came to know about plagiarism? I was privilege to have a lecturer, who failed one of my assignments, but later, explained what went wrong and taught me the essence of plagiarism and what it meant by citation and references. If not for the "education" of this lecturer, I might have graduated with a university degree without any hint of what plagiarism is all about.

Clearly, as a way to tackle plagiarism, proper education needs to be given to the students, teaching them what exactly is plagiarism and how to avoid it. On the other hand, strict and stern action is needed to punish those who knows, but yet, plagiarise. After all, plagiarism is a "criminal" act in the academia, very much alike stealing as a criminal act in the society.

The Making of "Diploma Disease"

2009-09-07T23:17:00.009+08:00

The economy is in recession. As part of the stimulus package, tuition fees and research grants were offered to postgraduate students to pursue a PhD or Master's programme locally. Clearly, a strong push factor for graduates to pursue a postgraduate degree, at virtually zero monetary cost. The only cost is probably the opportunity cost of not working in the labour market.

On the other hand, among the many key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess and evaluate academic staffs in public universities, one of the KPI is the number of postgraduate students supervised. Such a KPI provides the necessary incentive for academic staffs to accept as many as possible postgraduate students. For the graduates, this is an indirect pull factor.

Along with the problem of graduate unemployment, these are perfect ingredients for the making of "Diploma Disease". Such phenomenon happens when the number of holders for a qualification increases, and thus, reduces the value of the qualification as an indicator of one's academic ability. As a result, there will be an increasing demand for higher levels of qualification.

We might need to ask that with these developments, will it happen that one day, Bachelor degrees are worthless in Malaysia, and the necessary university qualification is the Ph.D. We certainly hope the answer is no, but this is highly and likely.

Grade Inflation

2009-08-21T00:06:00.010+08:00

The UK A-levels examination results were released today; the best results in 60 years. 97.5 percent passed the examination while 26.7 percent were awarded an A grade.

For many candidates, indeed, it is a day of joy for the hard work they have put in to achieve this result. However, as a consequence of this grade inflation, many of them will eventually realise that the admission for university will be much more difficult. As a matter of fact, element of luck will play a greater role than their results, as university admissions will have difficulty distinguishing between the top students.

In response to the grade inflation, the Head of Exam Board has indicated that the Board is considering to include the student's percentage pass marks along with the grades, as a way to differentiate between the top students. Furthermore, there has also been suggestion to review the syllabus and make the examination more difficult.

In reflection to Malaysia, the SPM examination has also inflated greatly in terms of grading. I recalled that back in 1999 before the implementation of the "open paper", three of my schoolmates scored 10 A's with one of them scoring 10 A1's, made it to the front page of the national newspaper. Since implementing the "open paper" system in 2001, 10 A's is considered mediocre and students are striving for more than 20 A's in SPM examination.

The new Minister of Education recently announced introducing a "cap" to only 10 subjects for SPM. Indeed, a sensible initiative to reduce the inflating pressure on grade. However disappointingly, no further initiatives being considered.

In my frank view, besides limiting the number of subjects, there is also a need to:
1) review the syllabus for all the subjects;
2) consider the possibility of reducing the compulsory subjects; and more importantly
3) review the teaching and evaluation of subjects under the SPM examination.

These initiatives are much more important. Placing a "cap" will only reduce the inflationary pressure on the grades, but has no significant effect to enhance the value of examination as an evaluative tool in education.

Youth to Youth: For A Better Malaysia

2009-08-15T03:37:00.003+08:00

Just found out about this forum: Young? (at heart) Save Malaysia

At 330pm, there will be a panel on education/academics by Wong Chin Huat, Wan Ahmad Faysal and Nurulasyiqin Ikhwan Nasir.

Please visit the website for more info.

Agong Scholarship

2009-08-04T05:11:00.003+08:00

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong Scholarship 2009. For more information, visit Public Service Comission website. Closing date: 24 August 2009.

Chevening Scholarships 2010/11

2009-08-03T21:17:00.002+08:00

All,

Would like to inform you that the British High Commission KL is now recruiting for the Chevening Scholarships 2010/11 Programme. The award is for candidates to undertake a one-year Masters programme in a UK university of the candidate's own choosing. We are looking for future leaders in the following fields: climate change, sustainable development, rule of law and human rights, conflict prevention/ resolution , foreign & security policy, good governance, counter-terrorism and migration, business and Islamic finance.

Further information on the programme and how to apply is available at the following link: http://ukinmalaysia.fco.gov.uk/en/working-with-malaysia/chevening-scholarship-scheme/

Grateful if you could forward this email to your contacts and anyone who you feel may be interested in applying.

Feel free to contact me should you have any enquiries. Thanks

Best Regards,

Zatalini Zulkiply

Scholarships and Public Diplomacy Officer

British High Commission, Kuala Lumpur

Tel: (+60-3) 2170 2256 (Direct) (+60-3) 2170 2200

(General) Fax: (+60-3) 2170 2325

Email: Zatalini.Zulkiply@fco.gov.uk

Website: UKinMalaysia.fco.gov.uk

Childcare Services

2009-07-26T08:31:00.004+08:00

Is childcare services related to pre-school education? It seems more than a coincidence that a few days ago, the Minister of Education talked about pre-school and, now, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is talking about childcare services.

Although both issues seem unrelated, but in reality, both politicians are commenting on the exact same issue. Simply, the connection lies in private pre-school centres are also childcare services. They are 2-in-1. It is a trend, especially in urban areas, that these childcare centres also provide pre-school education.

Therefore, on the one hand, the Minister of Education suggested absorbing pre-school into the national education, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so; on the other hand, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is commenting about the different by-laws and regulation under different local authorities to administer and monitor childcare centres.

This is one sector of education that has a large proportion of private initiatives. In addition, pre-school education also involves at least three Federal ministries and other local authorities. So far, politicians in the two major ministries have proposed some changes and highlighted some problems. It seems to me, the Federal government is "eyeing" to "adopt" pre-school education fully into their jurisdiction.

However, the rationale and objective behind such a policy remain to be seen.

Graduate Employability

2009-08-02T14:10:00.007+08:00

An interview with Mark Disney about Malaysian graduates employability. Video courtesy of PopTeeVee

Education and Employment: Some random thoughts

2009-07-30T05:59:00.007+08:00

I'm doing some agriculture research lately and was reminded of a case study undertaken to probe on the counts, causes, and correlates of poverty in the poor country of Lesotho. But the salient point that struck me was this - while most women in the sample has had some access to education, their subsequent qualification was irrelevant when they want to get into the job market. For example, a case study of 3 women who initially received weaving training were subsequently forced to work in a farm as labourers as the cooperative venture plan to start a textile company failed due to the lack of mangerial capabilities.

While there is definitely more to education than just producing 'commodities' for the job market, we cannot deny the importance of integrating education to the needs of the market, especially in a developing country context. In Malaysia, industrialization has continued to dictate the shape and direction of our human capital formation. The bottleneck in skilled workers in science and technology has often been cited as an impediment to further technological upgrading in the industrial sector. In a paper by Henderson and Phillips, Malaysia only has 0.13% of its population as tertiary science and engineering students in 1998, the lowest compared to its NIE and ASEAN counterparts. Yet, we continue to hear stories of our science and engineering graduates going into sales or unrelated fields in droves.

What is wrong? I think someone should start compiling the profiles of our local graduates to analyze and further improve the education-employment integration in Malaysia. Or is someone already doing it?

Absorbing preschools?

2009-07-24T14:37:00.002+08:00

MoE has announced its intention of ‘absorbing preschools into the national education system’, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so.

To realize that education does not begin in schools (nor end in universities) is definitely a welcomed development but there are some lingering questions surrounding the latest decision.

Is this decision another reactionary gimmick by the government to appease critics of the recent PPSMI reversal that are concerned about the deteriorating level of English among Malaysian students? If not why let the improvement of English be the sole motivation behind the ‘absorption’ of preschools when the development of a child includes cognitive, emotive, and behavioral dimensions?

Also, what does it mean to ‘absorb preschools into the national education system’ when the Education Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain Awang was also quoted as saying that “The children need not necessarily attend the pre-school classes run by the ministry as there are private ones too.”

Does it mean that there will be government-run preschools alongside private ones? If so what exactly is being ‘absorbed’ into the national education system? Or does it mean that a standardized curriculum will be imposed on all preschools (with heavy emphasis on improving English)? Or preschools will be made mandatory for children of a certain age? Should it be made mandatory at all? What are the implications of all these on the present private preschools which are said to be flourishing?

I welcome this announcement if it is to generate public debate on the matter. But experience tells us that such announcement is usually done to silent critics and gain political mileage, without genuine consultation with the important players. It reeks of the government’s stench of prototyping children and their development, and demonstrates its orientation of formalizing everything that works into a standardized formula.

Perhaps the ministry might want to look into how it can best complement the existing system that works and invite more parties for roundtable discussions before jumping into another ambiguous policy decision that has grave ramifications for the future of our children.

In any case, throwing out safety floats piecemeal will not save a sinking ship. What is needed is a coherent and integrated education system from preschools to tertiary education that addresses the needs of a young nation. Only then the ship sails on… and sails with pride…

Mahasiswa, universiti kosong dan harapan tak bermakna

2009-07-11T00:37:00.006+08:00

Kedatangan ke universiti penuh bermakna dan harapan. Apatah lagi bagi mereka yang datang jauh daripada kampung dan juga merupakan anak sulung keluarga tercinta. Perjalanan masuk sebagai anak atau ahli keluarga pertama yang menjejak langkah ke menara gading semestinya mendatangkan kebanggaan dan harapan kepada ibu dan ayah serta keluarga.

Kedatangan ke universiti penuh bermakna dan harapan. Apatah lagi bagi mereka yang datang jauh daripada kampung dan juga merupakan anak sulung keluarga tercinta. Perjalanan masuk sebagai anak atau ahli keluarga pertama yang menjejak langkah ke menara gading semestinya mendatangkan kebanggaan dan harapan kepada ibu dan ayah serta keluarga.

Tapi apakah harapan ini? Apakah harapan yang ingin dikecapi? Agak menyedihkan ramai yang tidak mempunyai hala tuju dan hanya setakat statistik yang mengisi kekosongan senarai dalam kertas contengan di kementerian pengajian tinggi. Apa yang sepatutnya menjadi satu kebanggaan dan harapan kepada keluarga dan masyarakat dan lebih penting lagi pelajar itu sendiri kemudiannya hancur berkecai selepas beberapa minggu atau bulan pertama universiti.

Masa dihabiskan dengan menghadiri kelas tanpa sebarang hala tuju. Mungkin lebih ramai lagi yang mengambil peluang 3 atau 4 tahun ini setakat untuk mendapat sekeping sijil yang apabila keluar dari universiti nanti tidak sama sekali bernilai.

Mungkin ada yang tidak faham tetapi ini hakikatnya. Mereka yang masuk tanpa hala tuju akan keluar tanpa hala tuju. Mereka yang masuk kerana ingin perolehi sijil sahaja akan keluar dengan sijil sahaja. Tiada yang lebih tiada yag kurang.

Sebab yang penting hanya apa yang dapat dilihat, yang dapat dipegang, yang dapat dirasa. Pemahaman dan pemikiran kita terhadap dunia terlalu sempit dan lemah atau mungkin tiada langsung. Tiada pemahaman, tiada pemikiran. Sebagaimana cacing buta yang hidupnya dalam tanah beginilah mereka yang pergi ke kelas tiap-tiap hari ulang alik tanpa membawa kepala.

Dunia berkembang pesat, tetapi semangat manusia adalah lemah. Semangat orang muda lemah. Semangat mahasiswa lemah. Ditendang sana sini tanpa hala tuju. Di arah seperti lembu yang meragut rumput di padang tani. Apakah maknanya universiti? Universiti yang hanya kosong tanpa harapan. Di isi manusia tak bermaya. Di isi fikiran yang sepatutnya berguna, tetapi tidak berguna yang tidak diguna.

Hidup di universiti membawa erti bermulanya perjuangan untuk mencari makna, untuk mengenal diri. Adakah mereka yang bakal digelar mahasiswa bersedia untuk dan sanggup menghadapi perjuangan ini?

Stop banning UM students from driving to campus

2009-07-17T04:07:00.004+08:00

This is a letter written by my brother who is currently an undergraduate in UM. It speaks volume abt the campus environment of our supposedly premier university:

I am a second year student in Universiti Malaya. I am writing this to express my discontent over a prevailing issue with the university. I would narrate a recent experience to emphasise my point.

On Sunday evening, I was pulled over by the security guard at the Kuala Lumpur gate. I was told by the guard rudely that if I wanted to go to Petaling Jaya, I'd have to take a big round instead of passing through UM; even if I'm a student of the university.

Right up to here, everything seems fine and the guard seems perfectly justified. But what I'm puzzled over is how random and inconsistent these security checks are. I understand perfectly that 1st and 2nd year students are not allowed to bring their vehicles into campus in order to reduce the traffic.

However, this was never implemented with consistency and most of the time, everyone is allowed to pass through UM without as much as a question. The enactment of this policy was a wrong move to begin with; what more the failed implementation.

The UM adminstration should understand that they do not have enough places in their residential colleges for everyone to stay in campus. That is why three quarter of 2nd and 3rd year students have to live outside.

And not all students staying outside of campus have direct access to public transport to get to class. And so, some of these students enjoy the privilege of having their own cars as a mean of transport. However, now we face another problem.

If we're not allowed to bring our cars into the campus, how are we supposed to get to class? What with the high food and lodging costs of staying outside, now we have to take a taxi to the nearest bus or LRT station every single day to get to UM just because we're not allowed to bring our cars into campus even though we have one?

I strongly believe that the administration should have thought of this before enacting and implementing ineffective and half the time, inactive policies as such. And because of the inconsistency of the policy's implementation, students are often confused about the legitimacy of bringing their vehicles into campus. But we still do it anyway out of desperation, and most of the time, we do get away with it.

What I suggest here is the eradication of this policy so that students are no longer stopped randomly just because the security guard at the gate feels like it on that particular day or the security guard on shift is a hardworking one who doesn't slack in upholding the institution's policies.

I believe that UM students, most of the time with the only intent of attending lectures (even for the purpose of bypassing traffic), should be allowed to bring their vehicles into campus and utilise its roads.

With that in light, I also question UM's policy concerning the public's use of its gates. Is the public allowed to use the roads in UM or only people who have serious business in UM? I think everyone can agree that every day, a great number of road users utilise the compounds of UM to pass from PJ to KL or vice versa in order to avoid the traffic in Federal Highway.

But these people were never stopped; almost all time. Why weren't these people stopped by the security guard at the gate? Why wasn't the man driving a Mercedes Benz stopped while I, a student of UM, was stopped and questioned rudely like a criminal?

People with nice, collared shirt driving big, expensive cars are allowed to pass from KL to PJ through UM grounds while trendy-looking youths driving economical Peroduas have to be questioned and let through with a warning never to use the road again. Isn't this a display of double standards at its highest?

Therefore, I hope that the administration come up with a clear policy with effective implementation on these two issues: UM students bringing their vehicles into the campus and utilising its roads, and the public use of UM's roads.

One, either you stop and question every single person entering UM, allowing students or those with business in UM to pass through, or two, you open the roads for public use.

I believe the former would be a crazy idea to even be considered as we already have a major traffic jam at both the KL and PJ gates during peak hours in the evening. I hope that this seemingly little but important issue is brought to the attention of people who have the power to do something about it and resolved as soon as possible.

University Branding

2009-07-24T06:31:00.009+08:00

A recent article in the Times Higher Education discuss about university branding. I shall quickly list the advantages as well as criticisms discussed in the article:

The advantages:
1) Branding is essential for telling the world what a university stands for and values
2) Brands exist wherever there is a competition, they help people to choose
3) Branding provides a consistent point of contact throughout the whole process
4) Brand is the sum total of ideas, emotions and associations attached to a given institution; branding is the effective expression and management of them
5) Branding is about communication

The criticisms:
1) Branding is unethical because it is intrinsically deceptive, either superficial spin or hollow deception
2) Branding is wasteful indulgence, squandering resources better invested in the core business of learning and research
3) Branding is alien to the culture of higher education
4) Branding is merely cosmetic
5) Universities have reputation, and so have no need for brands

Now, take a moment to ponder, "Do Malaysian universities have branding?"

If yes, what are our brands? Are they portraying and communicating the right values about the institution?

If no, should we have one? What sort of branding should be "the ideal" brand for Malaysian universities, both public and private?

Aims of Education

2009-07-18T02:26:00.006+08:00

What are educational aims? What are the characteristics of a good educational aim?

According to John Dewey, the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education. He argues that an aim relates to results that implies an orderly and ordered sequence of activities. The results must be foreseeable and played a role in giving direction to the activities to reach the end. In other words, aim is a means of action.

More importantly, Dewey emphasises that educational aims should not be imposed externally. He argues that externally imposed aims are fixed and rigid, and they are not stimulus to intelligent, but merely dictating order to accomplish tasks. It was said that these externally imposed aims are responsible for the emphasis put upon the notion of preparation for a remote future and for rendering the work of both teacher and pupil mechanical and slavish.

Hence, do we have educational aims in Malaysian education system? (I guess schooling might be more appropriate word to substitute education). Almost the entire education system is externally dictated and without the flexiblity that enables individuals to be schooled at their own pace. It seems to me that the "aim" of the education system is strictly preparing students to sit for the various examinations, in which the results then indicate and reflect the "education" received.

This rigidity of educational aims is further complemented with the highly-structured curriculum, where teachers are expected to "deliver" to the pupils. Education is not about delivery, it is about educating. A Professor of Philosophy of Education that I knew, was extremely critical about this, where he argues that "deliver" or "delivery" are mechanical processes, like postman delivering letters, and education can never be delivered.

Therefore, the highly-structurised curriculum and examination-oriented education system, has not only restricts the flexibility of the teachers to teach, but indeed encourages the "delivery of education". I can't help but felt puzzled, "Where are the educational aims in the Malaysian education system?" or rather "Are there educational aims in Malaysian schooling system?"

Education and society

2009-07-17T03:25:00.003+08:00

Although we often use education and schools interchangeably, it must be remembered that education is a wider concept than the schools. In ancient Greece, people learned through Socratic dialogues in the Agora or the market-place. In medieval times, the Church helmed the role as the main proviso of religious and moral instructions. Education can take place within the schools but also without it.

In modern times, students spend a great amount of time in schools; perhaps on an average of 7 formal schooling hours a day in Malaysia. However, it does not preclude the fact that a great deal remaining is still spent outside of schools. And quite often, it is what takes place outside the schools which shapes the intellectual and moral character of our youths.

Perhaps it is not very constructive to over-attribute to PPSMI per se, or its absence, the debilitating state-of-affairs of English in our schools. Our ability to grasp and master a language depends a great deal on whether we actually make the effort to use the language in our daily lives, outside of formal schooling hours.

Most of the time, teachers failed to improve the standard of English of their students even though the subject was well taught and delivered simply because students retreat to their own language enclaves after school. They prefer to stick around friends of cultural familiarity and wax lyrical with those who can spew the same lingo, jargon and accent. They never take the trouble to read in English or blog in a language they are not too comfortable with.

Therefore, the English dilemma is not entirely independent of the issue of racial polarization in Malaysia. What is the point of employing the best English teachers in our schools if our wider social policies have fostered a culture of racial and language enclaves which do not encourage our youths to mix around but instead subject them to an environment of suspicion, fear and distrust? Does it really matter if Mathematics and Science is taught in English or BM if it merely reinforces our prejudice of the group that uses the other language?

What about the role of the family in the entire scheme of things? Parents play a vital role in nurturing their children, following-up what they have learned in schools, and complimenting the teachers in shaping children’s moral outlook and holistic paradigm of life. The better endowed can opt for homeschooling which requires a lot of commitment and responsibilities on the part of the parents.

Less than equitable economic policies coupled with the lack of union rights for employees to fight for better labour conditions have made both urban and rural living more difficult. Urban families almost cannot do without dual income sources these days to support a small family and parents have to work till ungodly hours to make ends meet. Yet, we applaud new liberalisation measures that privileged MNCs so unconditionally, without realizing the social impact it has on our children’s upbringing and education in the wider sense of the word.

In an age of digital information systems, we want our schools to accelerate the teaching of Mathematics, Science and Technology, but it slipped our mind that the internet is a double-edged sword. Schools can impart the skills and tools necessary to be ICT-literate, but it defeats the purpose when our youths excessively while their time away counter-striking virtual enemies, or surf pornographic sites instead of accessing the vast amount of illustrious literature available online. The lack of parental attention and nurturing is definitely not helping the matter.

Albert Einstein, who was a school drop-out himself, once said, ‘It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education’. Indeed, schools cannot be the be-all and end-all of education. In fact, schools can stifle and stunt the development of young minds. Good education, at the end of the day, must be understood within the context of a good society. Until then, our politicians and leaders bickering over PPSMI only continue to demonstrate their hypocrisy in championing for policies that are not cordial to the development of a good society.

Pendemokrasian Bahasa, Sastera Demokrasi dan Falsafah Pendidikan

2009-07-16T09:45:00.004+08:00

Kerap kali sebab yang digunakan untuk menjustifikasikan pengunaan jenis bahasa adalah kebolehan seseorang itu untuk menguasai sesuatu bahasa itu. Dalam hal ini bahasa yang selalunya dipakai dipilih daripada jenis yang dekat dengan individu itu atau yang lahir daripada kebudayaannya atau identitinya.

Dilihat perbahasan tentang PPSMI baru-baru ini etnik masing-masing pada dasarnya atau sekurang-kurang daripada luarannya perjuangkan untuk menggunakan bahasa yang berasal daripada identiti dan budaya masaing-masing, dengan MCA bahasa Cina dan UMNO bahasa melayu serta MIC Tamil.

Ini mungkin mempunyai kemunasabahannya tetapi harus difikir dengan kritis tujuan dan akibat daripada dasar-dasar sebegini.

Sesuatu bahasa itu tanpa ruang demokrasi tidak akan berkembang. Asas, kreativiti dan gaya sesuatu bahasa itu amat berkait rapat sekali dengan nilai demokrasi. Sekiranya sesuatu bahasa itu tidak dapat meluahkan nilai-nilai moral, estetika, sastera, etika, falsafah, dan akal fikiran, keberangkaliannya dinamika bahasa itu telah dibantutkan oleh korupsi kuasa dan pengecilan ruang demokrasi.

Dalam konteks Malaysia ini, ruang demokrasi ini dimonopoli dan diperkecilkan oleh kerajaan. Ruang wacana dan ruang demokrasi dibunuh dan dirogol kumpulan UMNO-Barisan Nasional. Jadi tidak hairan sekiranya bahasa melayu, cina dan tamil bukan sahaja tidak meluahkan nilai-nilai yang telah disebut di atas tetapi juga dikongkong tatabahasanya kerana keperluan untuk mematikan perbahasan intelektual dan pemikiran kritikal. Ini semestinya penting untuk mengekalkan pemerintahan kerajaan.

Bahasa yang dikongkong dan dikawal kemudiannya digunakan untuk mengajar anak-anak muda, murid-murid dan pelajar diseluruh Malaysia. Semestinya akan gagal untuk membuka minda dan melahirkan individu yang kritikal.

Sains dan matematik tidak seharusnya dilihat sebagai sains dan matematik sahaja.

Sains merupakan manifestasi penggunaan rasional dan akal fikiran untuk menjelaskan fenomena yang berada diluar metafisika, ontologi, theology dan epistemologi. Ia mengerakkan kemajuan dan perkembangan tamadun manusia dengan membolehkan manusia memahami serta menguasai dunia fizikal. Satu daripada cabang falsafah yang juga dikenali sebagai sains semula jadi atau ‘the natural sciences’.

Matematik merupakan manifestasi pemikiran logik dan teori yang diilhamkan dalam minda manusia.

Tanpa kedua-kedua ini, manusia tidak akan wujud kerana tiada idea, tiada akal, dan tiada rasional. ‘I think therefore I am’.

Selagi ruang demokrasi tidak dibuka, bahasa yang digunakan itu akan melahirkan anak muda yang tiada idea, akal dan rasional kerana fungsi bahasa dalam ruang yang tidak demokratik adalah bertujuan untuk melahirkan golongan pasif.

Bahasa yang difahami dan sinonim dengan budaya dan identiti sesuatu golongan adalah lebih baik lagi kerana proses pembodohan akan berlaku dengan lebih cepat dan senang. Pelajar-pelajar akan memahami kebodohan dan bertindak bodoh dengan lebih jelas dan tepat.

Bahasa melayu untuk perbodohkan orang melayu.

Bahasa cina untuk perbodohkan orang cina.

Bahasa tamil untuk perbodohkan orang india.

Bahasa yang sepatutnya dikembalikan dan dipelajari dahulu adalah sastera demokrasi. Tanpanya, bahasa, terutama bahasa yang sangat difahami oleh etnik masing-masing, hanya merupakan alat untuk perbodohkan rakyat Malaysia.

Pembebasan minda atau ‘liberation of the mind’ adalah konsep asas falsafah pendidikan. Dapatkah ini dicapai dengan bahasa melayu, bahasa cina dan bahasa tamil tanpa demokrasi?

What is next after PPSMI?

2009-07-13T09:29:00.006+08:00

The fiasco about Teaching Science and Mathematics in English (TSME, or perhaps more appropriate now to be called PPSMI) is finally over. Although opinions in the country remained divided over this issue, nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that a flip-flop will happen and it is safe to infer that TSME is now a part of history. So what is next for the Malaysian education system?

Certainly, from this recent fiasco, it is heartening to see the Minister of Education publicly recognising our weakness in the proficiency of the English Language. Is the government really serious about improving the English language, or merely, just to divert the criticisms of reverting TSME? Anyway, giving politicians the benefit of doubt, I shall presume that this is a genuine effort to tackle the problem.

As this is a long article, I will summarise it here for those who reads "efficiently":
First half - just critically "dissecting" some proposals;
Second half - constructively discussing other proposals.

The Minister of Education has outlined some proposals strengthen the learning and teaching of English language in schools. Among those initiatives were increasing time allocation for English, setting up laboratories for English, grammar will be emphasised, introducing the Contemporary English Literature Programme For Children (CELPFC), having English Day and summer camp during holidays. Are these initiatives going to improve our English proficiency?

First and foremost, grammar is always been part of the English curriculum. How are we going to "emphasised"? Doing more grammar exercise of filling-in the blanks? Shamefully, I am a living testimony that 13-years of grammar exercise and scoring distinction in all public exams, do not equate to having proper grammar knowledge. I'm sure one can easily identify this weakness in my writings.

Second, English Day has always been part of the school's calendar. My school used to have English Week, but my English proficiency remains terrible. What's more with just a day.

Third, what is the different between CELPFC and the current literature component in the secondary school English curriculum?

Fourth, I am terribly surprised by the idea of setting up laboratories for English. How is the laboratory going to improve English proficiency? The Language Laboratory in the University of Oxford Language Centre is merely a computer lab that is equipped with more advance technology for teaching and learning of languages. Is it really necessary to be building another laboratory in schools just for English language, where most schools in Malaysia already have a "big white elephant" in the form of a computer lab?

Last, increasing the time allocation for English language. Is it going to help? Is the declining proficiency due to constraint in the timetable? Without any significant improvement to the curriculum, teaching method and teaching quality, increasing the time allocation is just a waste of time.

Well, it's half time. Enough of being overly critical. From here onwards, I will attempt to look at the issue more constructively. Second Half

While discussing about the topic with a friend, he asked me this question, "If you are the Minister, what will be the best initiative to take to improve English proficiency?".

In fact, there is another initiative proposed by the Minister of Education that I have purposely kept to be discussed here. The Minister suggests of "importing" 1000 teachers from overseas, hiring 600 retired teachers and producing additional 12,333 teachers. To be fair, this initiative is the most logical of all the initiatives suggested, however, it is far from perfect.

Firstly, how did the figure 12,333 teachers come about? Is it another "guesstimation", like what the Deputy Minister did a few weeks ago? Nonetheless, regardless of the figures, the idea of producing additional teachers do not look like tackling the problem. We ought to remember that the problem at stake is quality, not a shortage of English teachers. The more we emphasise on the quantity, the more we are going to compromise on the quality. Therefore, what the education system needs is more competent and qualified English teachers.

Secondly, it does not seem possible to improve English proficiency with the current stock of "human resources" that the country possess. It is important to note that Malaysian education system has neglected the English language since mid-70s, which has been more than 30 years. Within this period, the quality of English language in our education system has continuously declined. Large majority of Malaysians, myself included, have been "taught English in Bahasa Malaysia" (a quote from RPK). Therefore, to produce more local teachers to teach proper English is a near-impossible task.

Similarly, even if we are to employ retired teachers, a large majority of them might not have the capability to restore the quality of English language, simply because, if they are capable of doing so, our standard would not have deteriorated over the years. To put it bluntly, Malaysia do not have the necessary resources to improve our English proficiency.

On the other hand, there are some positive from the initiative, which is acknowledging that we need external assistance. In answering to my friend's question, I felt that in order to impact the system throughout the country, the most practical initiative is hiring foreigners. Therefore, it left us with only one possible aspect of the Minister's initiative, which is to "import" English teachers.

However, three questions remain, "Who to employ?", "How many?" and "How long?" The most straight-forward answer to the first question is hiring teachers from countries where English is the native language - US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We might only be able to hire "a handful" of English teachers from these countries. However, the consideration here is English teachers for several thousand schools throughout the country. Perhaps hiring foreigners from countries like the Philippines or India may be more cost-efficient.

Therefore the next question is "how many?". For the strengthening to have impact nationally, at least one foreigner per level in a school is needed. Merely 1,000 foreigners as the Minister proposed, is not even sufficient to distribute them in every school. (What the Minister proposes is teachers; not trainers or instructors in teachers' training). It is way too small to impact the system. Moreover, this proposal should not be short-term. We need at least one whole cycle of students to have the slightest chance of improving the overall standard of English, that is at least 10 years. Again, short-term initiative is merely educational gimmick with no hope of success.

What other initiatives could we have?

My friend suggested to send all potential English teachers overseas to pursue a degree in English, as part of the teacher's training, after which bond these teachers for 10 years. The suggestion to send these teachers overseas is to enable them to immerse themselves with the culture to enhance their learning. This could be one possible ways of strengthening teaching and learning. In fact, to my understanding, there is already such a scheme within the Ministry of Education. Still, will it have sufficient impact to improve the entire system? The English language problem has become a national issue. Probably a five to ten-fold increment to the existing programme is needed.

Another possible suggestion is to enhance teachers' training and provide continuous professional development. This suggestion will work, provided there is a concurrent revamp to the assessment in the education system. Currently, teachers already have numerous trainings and workshops to enhance their professional development. However, after attending all the courses, who actually assess the teachers and ensure that what they learn are implemented in the classrooms?

The more we think about what could be done, the more pessimistic the situation seems to be; without even taking into account the expected costs.

Simply, all that is left in me after this long article is this question: "Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?" I am doubtful!

The "Expected" Outcome

2009-07-08T20:12:00.007+08:00

The long-awaited decision about Teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (TSME) has been announced. After implementing the policy for the past six years, the policy will be revert back to the usage of Malay language and vernacular languages respectively in teaching of Science and Mathematics. I share my observation about this "expected outcome" from several perspectives.

Firstly, the U-turn in the policy, without much doubt, has been driven largely by political influence. Retrospectively, TSME was one of the last legacy of the longest serving Prime Minister of Malaysia. The revert is certainly a way to dismantle that legacy, to make way for new legacies of the current government. On top of that, with the rating of the current government at an all-time low, it came as no surprise to adopt this decision, simply because the voices to abolish have been more vocal and even took to the streets in protest. Without much doubt, political influence has been one of the major forces to change.

Secondly, from policy implementation perspective, it seems to me there isn't much implemented for the past six years. Looking at the UPSR 2008 statistics, the policy has certainly failed in terms of implementation, especially in Chinese schools. No wonder, the Chinese educationalists have been advocating the abolishment of TSME, or rather, it seems like the policy has not been implemented at all.

The Minister of Education in explaining the decision to revert to the old system revealed that only 19.2% and 9.96% of secondary and primary teachers respectively who were sufficiently proficient in English. Again, this relevation came as no surprise, due to the fact that the implementation of TSME six years ago was carried out in a rather haphazard way. However, is this a good reason to revert?

Today we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in English and therefore we abolish TSME. What if tomorrow, we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in Mathematics? Will the government, then, propose to scrap Mathematics in the schools? To me, such reasoning should not be used as an excuse for poor implementation and abolishment of the policy, but rather look at the positiveness, that more initiatives should now be targetted towards the remaining 80% of teachers.

Thirdly, is it ethical that this change will only be implemented from 2012 onwards. In other words, another 3 batches of students will have to undergo this "flawed" policy. Isn't that unethical? If the government is so certain that TSME has failed, why not immediately revert the policy?

Fourthly, I strongly felt that the educational perspective in the policy has been severely neglected. Many quarters have been using the policy as a "proxy war" to fight for their respective interests, but sadly, the core educational issue in the policy has not been addressed accordingly. What have both governments, the one in 2002/3 and now, based their decision on? Were the decisions to implement or abolish TSME based on solid educational research or merely based on "pre-conceived" ideas and hearsay.

There is a huge amount of educational research, especially in the teaching of Science and Mathematics as well as linguistic application, both in Malaysia and overseas, that have vast potentials to inform policy-making. However, not much attention has been given to understand these research, or at least cite a few of them, in consideration of implementing or abolishing this education policy. Sadly, TSME is an educational policy that has no educational aim and inputs!

Lastly, a fellow colleague and Professor in Linguistics once told me, after the implementation of TSME in 2003, our neighbouring country, Indonesia, has been inviting Malaysian linguistic experts over to help with a similar initiative. Six years down the road, Indonesia's initiative is flourishing, but Malaysia has just abolished the policy.

Bottom-up Approach

2009-07-10T01:39:00.007+08:00

Subsequent to DAP's proposal of introducing flexibility for bottom-up approach in the debate about Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (TSME or PPSMI), could we try to stretch the argument a little further and relates that to the bigger question about quality in schools and education in Malaysia?

Basically what DAP suggests is to allow schools and parents to decide which is the best language for their students/children to learn Science and Mathematics. Such flexibility to the policy could be regarded as bottom-up approach.

Now, the Malaysian education system is not only facing the dilemma of choosing between English or Malay in teaching of Science and Mathematics (which Malay has already been chosen), but other more pressing and important problems, such as quality of education, teacher's quality, and the question about what it meant by educating our children. I would argue that a significant portion of Malaysia's educational problems have been due to the "one size fits all" approach in policy-making.

I will attempt to discuss only of them, teacher's quality and curriculum.

First, teachers in Malaysia are all assume to be homogeneous. When we have shortage of teachers, the policy dictates recruiting simply anyone who is interested to teach will become a teacher. However, as teachers are considered civil servant and employed by the government, it would be almost impossible to sack or terminate teachers who do not performed. Therefore, the system is stuck with the chicken-and-egg dilemma; choosing between quality or quantity.

In my sincere opinion, in order to get out of this dilemma, perhaps schools should be allow to make decision which is the best teacher to hire. In other words, government gives up their monopolistic rights as the sole employer and allows the teaching profession to function in a free market. As such, the role of the government is not to provide teachers for schools, but rather, takes a regulatory role to ensure the teaching market do not fail. In addition, the government would subsidise or allocate educational funding to schools according to the number of students, and if the government is serious about closing the disparity between urban and rural schools, this is the change to allocate more to the rural school where the additional could be regarded as developmental fund. Therefore, the schools will have incentive to do their best as a way to uphold their reputation and increase their students; at the same time, teachers will have more incentive to teach effectively, as their wage and salary will be more deterministic of their performance and workload. Certainly, not a "one size fits all" policy, and indeed very much needed one in Malaysia.

Second, our education system emphasises on delivering the education to students for them to score in examination. Our curriculum has been rigidly structured and examination questions focus on testing the facts and figures, rather then their ability to think and analyse. A recent education review in the UK, the Nuffield 14-19 Review, made 31 recommendations. In one of their recommendation about the curriculum, the Review suggests, "Curriculum should be developed cooperatively and locally between schools, colleges and other providers, albeit within a broad national framework". In other words, there should be room for flexibility in curriculum to adjust and accommodate teaching and learning to the local context. Again, we should not "one size fits all" for education policy.

The essential idea about education is fundamentally related to individuals. Hence, it is important to question whether is it possible for these "one size fits all" educational policies to achieve any education purposes and aims.

DAP's New Deal

2009-07-09T20:15:00.000+08:00

Opinions emanating from the online media show that the scrapping of PPSMI announced yesterday has continued to leave the country divided. The plurality of views on the matter is not surprising for two reasons.

First, there is a plurality of objectives involved – accelerating skill-formation in Science and Mathematics, improving English proficiency in a school environment where the global lingua-franca is appalling and deteriorating, developing the Malay language in Science and Mathematics, closing the gap between urban-rural areas, national unity and so on. Choosing either English or BM means that only some of the objectives will be met at the expense of the others.

Second, the Malaysian students themselves are a very diverse, plural lot. The urban, middle-class lot may be able to utilize English more optimally for learning compared to their rural counterparts. And parents who want the best for their children would no doubt side with the language they think is best for the future of their children.

Which is why I think the ‘New Deal’ coming from DAP’s camp has some merits to it. LKS wrote on his blog:

“This is why I suggested a flexible approach to the PPSMI problem which does not allow a “One Size Fits All” solution, by giving parents the choice to decide on the type of education they want for their children – including having classes or schools using English as medium of instruction for mathematics and science.”

Tony P also remarked in the Education Malaysia blog:

"My stand is that PIBG should have a say/choice in the language use, particularly in urban areas where competency in English is already fairly high and in demand. You/we should push for this.Rural areas can't help it, especially with teachers who can't even string a sentence together in English."

“DAP's position, for those who are interested, is that urban national primary and secondary schools should be given a choice by the parents on the language to be used.”

This is definitely a more progressive proposal that deserves further deliberation and debate by the Cabinet. It takes into consideration the plurality of objectives and student capacities that revolves around PPSMI. Information is more efficiently handled if flows bottom-up from ‘agents’ who know best.

On a macro-level, parties concerned about the possible polarization this will bring should take heed of a survey carried out by Merdeka Center in 2008. Of the 43% respondents who first identified themselves as Malaysians first, 52% attended Chinese School, 37% attended Tamil School, and 39% attended National School. Vernacular schools have outdone national schools in terms of inculcating national identity although on a general level, the percentage is still dismal. But suffice it to say, allowing plurality of language in our education system will not be the only determinant of national unity.