The following was the extract from my speech and presentation which even my own comrades said was boring but its importance could not be trade-off with any speech i ever made or any others for that matter. To present it in 30 minutes was itself a challenge as there were simply too many important historical and political theories to touch on with emphasis on facts and figures.
David Wong's speech and presentation on "Chinese Youth and Education" organized by the UCA's youth of Sibu on the 28th )ctober 2007.
First, I would like to congratulate the Youth Wing of the UCA, Sibu, for its 20th year formation. The 20 years would not been possible without the commitment and support of all its affiliate members and the Chinese community as a whole. The UCA youth has a paramount role to play as the "pioneer" or "wing" of the mother association as it dictates the aggressiveness of the association in tackling many sensitive issues such as the social-political issues like the land issues, education, economy, society and crimes and meritocracy.
The central theme, the"transformation of the UCA youths", of the 20th year celebration has been most fitting as it shows the mentality of its current leadership in seeking and tackling changes and challenges ahead. The theme is timely as Malaysian Chinese community is at the crossroad as where it is going and heading with so many "worrisome" social-political issues like education, economy, religion, crimes and security and rising racial tension within our multi-religious and multi-cultural society.Tonight I would like to ask everyone presence here to give the UCA youth a big hands as it has taken the very first step to change by inviting leader from both the ruling and opposition political parties to address issues of importance to the Chinese youth and Chinese community as a whole. It shows its determination in taking a stand that while it cares about politics; its position is "above politics". It is taking its leadership role that the Chinese community is demanding and waiting eagerly.
Education and Chinese Youth
Chinese with a 5000 years old history is regarded as a race rich of cultural heritage and wisdom. To understand the Chinese culture is to know the Chinese. However, one has to know Mandarin in order to understand the philosophy and culture of Chinese.History has shown how much weight the Chinese put on education. It is this unwavering attitude and believes in education and how education determines the success of a person and no richness or material well-being can replace education as the yard-stick of success. Even the Ch'ing conquerors were overwhelmed by the great Chinese culture and assimilated themselves with the Chinese.
The Chinese cultural heritage can only be maintained and carried on through mother-tongue education; the root of the Chinese would be up-rooted and its culture will be destroyed totally without its own mother-tongue education. The questions we need to address are as follow:Without our roots, who would we be? Who are we? How would we address and position ourselves? How to protect our roots and ensure that our rights are protected by laws?
Chinese youth cannot be the passive on-lookers in addressing the issues of how the national education policies affect and influence them and thought that everything is OK and that there are organizations like the UCA, Dong Jiau Zong and political parties to take care of them. The Chinese youth are the future leaders of all these organizations and it is high-time that they take a more proactive stand in all the issues that not only affect them but the country's future developments.
A) History of the national education policy and the national education system
Before we can fully understand the national education and how it affects the Chinese youth, we need to understand the national education policy as well as the national education system created under the policy. For this purpose it is necessary to understand the development of the national education policy implemented before and after Independence and its further development under the BN governmnet.
1) What is the national education policy?
The national education policy implemented by the present BN Government is in substance a policy of mono culturalism with the aim of achieving "one language, one culture" as the end objective. The mono-ethnic approach of the ruling elite as evident in the New Economic Policy [NEP] is well entrenched. It has been implemented and propagated by the ruling elite after the May 13 incident in 1969. The NEP was enacted in the 1970 as part of a bold blueprint to reduce income disparity among different ethnic groups. However the policy of the NEP permeates all spheres, including the educational field, which saw the implementation of the quota system till now.
2 What are the main characteristic of the NEP policy in our national education policy?
Among other things, they are as follows:(a) Endlessly pursuing the 'ultimate objective' of the national education policy;(b) Implementing ethnically-based quota system since the early seventies;(c) Practicing discrimination in the giving of educational funds to the educational institutions of other communities; and(d) Discourage the development of mother tongue schools.
The origins of "ultimate objective"
ii Abdul Razak Report 1956
The Abdul Razak Education Report 1956 was introduced just before Independence.The 1956 Razak Report was of dual character. The ruling elite intended to go ahead with the mono-ethnic policy by introducing the term "ultimate objective" for the first time in the history of education in Malaya:"... the ultimate objective of education policy in this country must be to bring together the children of all races under a national education system in which the national language is the main medium of instruction"
The political consensus prior to Merdeka
Consequently, the Abdul Razak Report 1956 dropped the proposal for the "ultimate objective", and instead recommended a national education system acceptable to the people. It recommended the establishment of:" ... a national system of education acceptable to the people of the Federation as a whole which will satisfy the needs to promote their culture, social, economic and political development as a nation, having regard to the intention of making Malay the national language of the country whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country."
Education Ordinance 1957- the true multicultural educational policy based on the spirit of Merdeka
The 1957 Ordinance came into force on 15 June 1957, shortly before the attainment of Independence on 31 August 1957.
s3 of the Ordinance provides: "The education policy of the Federation is to establish a national system of education acceptable to the people of the Federation as a whole which will satisfy the needs to promote their culture, social, economic and political development as a nation, with the intention of making Malay language the national language of the country whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of peoples other than Malays living in the country."
The broken bow or "after-marriage" theory?
I would described the turn-about of the multi-cultural policies to a mono-cultural one as a "cheating" partner who went back against his promises before the marriage.
Rahman Talib Report 1960
In 1960, the then Education Minister Abdul Rahman Talib headed a committee to:
However, the Rahman Talib Report 1960 performed a complete about-turn by way of re-introducing the "ultimate objective". "For the sake of national unity ... to eliminate communal secondary schools for the national system of assisted schools and to ensure that pupils of all races shall attend both national and national-type secondary schools."
Communal secondary schools are against "national unity"?
The national education policy proposed in the1960 Report was designed to eliminate mother-tongue secondary schools under the pretext of achieving "national unity". Pursuant to the 1960 Report, the Education Act 1961 was enacted the following year.
Education Act 1961
Within a short span of hardly 4 years, the national education policy based on multiculturalism as embodied in the Education Ordinance 1957 was re-converted to one of mono-culturalism under the Education Act 1961.
It reads: "3. The education policy of the Federation is to establish a national system of education … which will satisfy the needs to promote the culture, social, economic and political development as a nation, with the intention of making Malay language the national language of the country …" The end result was without the "preservation and substaining of the growth of the language and culture of other ethnic communities."
The Education Act 1996, replacing the 1961 Act, came into force in 1997. This piece of legislation retains the mono-cultural nature of the 1961 Act. However, on the other hand, it still harps on a national education policy based on mono-ethnic culturalism "to be executed through a national system of education which provides for the national language to be the main medium of instruction...".
s 17(1) of the 1996 Act- the final blueprint of the BN government.
All schools to use Bahasa Malaysia as main medium of instruction.
A provision with far-reaching ramifications can be found in s17(1). Under this section, all schools [including kindergartens] must use Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction, allowing only 2 exceptions: one, all new national-type [ mother tongue] schools yet to be established under the 1996 Act; and two, any school granted exemption by the Minister of Education. s17(1) provides: "17 (1) The national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the National Education System - except a national-type school established under section 28 "
B) The quota system and the affirmative action plan
The quota system
Quota system is the by-product of the NEP's affirmative action plan since the 1970. It is a concrete form of the national education policy and is the most controversial one as well . The legality of the manner of its implementation is open to question under the Federal Constitution .
[Note: the term "bumiputras" was introduced after the 13 May 1969 incident by the ruling elite after the end of the National Operation Council (NOC). It is not to be found in the Federal Constitution that came into force at Independence in 1957.]
The origins of quota system
The New Economic Policy [NEP] is a policy introduced after the 13 May 1969. The ruling elite have attributed the cause of the 1969 racial riots to Non-Malay dominance of the economy.However, academic observers have interpreted it otherwise:"… the May 13 Incident was a form of coup d'état directed against Tunku Abdul Rahman."
[Subky Latiff, Southern Asian Affairs 1977] [Suaram: Malaysian Human Rights Report 1996 at page 195]
Enrolment of bumiputra students in educational institutions
The quota system in the educational field is implemented pursuant to the NEP. Scholarships and loans 1980 -1990The scholarships and loans given out to bumiputras from 1980 to 1990 for certificate, diploma and degree courses are shown below:
1 Loans for polytechnic certificate courses -90%
2 Scholarships for Diploma of Education courses -90%
3 Local degree courses near -90%
4 Overseas degree courses almost -100%
The statistics on the highly divisive quota system were revealed in the Ministry of Education's written answer to MP Petaling Jaya, Dr Kua's Parliamentary question in December 1990.[Dr Kua Kia Soong: Reforming Malaysia 1993 at pp.257-268]
When the NEP came to an end in 1990, the ruling elite have introduced the National Development Policy [NDP] in its place, endlessly pursuing such senseless and discriminatory policy.Other ethnic groups such as Indians and the indigenous people of East and West Malaysia are marginalized in the field of education. They hardly receive sufficient financial assistance from the government, even though the NEP is claimed to eradicate poverty irrespective of ethnicity.
Quota system vs affirmative action
The quota system has always been described by the ruling elite as a form of affirmative action put in place after the 1969 May 13 incident which they claimed was aimed at uplifting the social, economic and cultural standards of the Malays. However, the term "affirmative action" has been misinterpreted by the ruling elite purely on ethnic basic, and such erroneous interpretation fails to meet the criteria of affirmative action under the international law.
What is affirmative action?
Affirmative action can not be a racially-based quota system. Apart from ethnicity, other factors such as need, social deprivation, merit, qualification, social skills and gender ought to be taken into account. Ethnicity should not prevail over other factors or else it would not be an affirmative action."
[Dr Boo Cheng Hau 1998: Quotas versus Affirmative Action ¨C a Malaysian Perspective, at page 7] "If preferential treatment only recognized the need for help along ethnicity classified along "indigenous" status alone, it would not only be discriminatory by itself. It would also defeat that actual end of affirmative action to create a just society.To transfer socio-economic domination from one ethnic group to another would only conceive a newly repressive social injustice.
Interpretation of Article 153(8A) of the Federal ConstitutionSoon after the end of the administration under the NOC, the Federal Constitution was amended to introduce the quota system in institutions of higher learning. A major change took place under the amendment introduced by Article 153 (8A) in 1971. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to give directions to any university or college to reserve a certain proportion of places for Malays and natives of the Borneo States for any course of study. The reason for introducing the amendment was spelt out by the then Prime Minister, Tun Razak: "The intention of the amendment is to reserve places in those selected courses of studies where the number of Malays and natives of the Borneo States are disproportionately small..."
Legality of the implmentation of the quota system
From the legal point of view, the quota system ought to be applied on a faculty basis, and every faculty is to reserve places for students of every ethnic group. "Article 153(8A) does not authorize the administrator of any university to refuse admission to any student of a particular race. It only allows a proportion of the places to be reserved for Malay students ...
... On such a reasoning, the legality of the manner of implementing the quota system is open to question. Up till now, there seems to be no trace of any order made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for the manner of reservation of places in universities. There is no evidence of such order having been gazetted. It appears that the manner of implementation was adopted pursuant to an administrative directive, and not an order of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The directive was made by the officials of the Ministry of Education. [The Constitution of Malaysia, Further Perspectives and Developments" edited by F A Trinidade and H P Lee 1986, at p49]
Ridiculous results of the quota system
In recent years, a considerable number of top achievers scoring 9As - 12As in the SPM examinations were not given appropriate places in local institutions of higher learning. Massive media coverage has been given to such unfortunate incident.Such scandalous incident is the direct consequence of the discriminatory implementation of the race-based quota system and turned away the brightest students from our university. The brain drain resulted could not be quantified but could be felt even by the government. So long as such system exists, this country is going to lag far behind the other world communities in the race or competition for achieving knowledge-economy. Vision 2020 would be just a dream out of reach because of the quota system.
Failure to achieve its main purpose But, in reality, it has now come to light that, after a long period of 30 years of its implementation, the quota system has failed to achieve its main purpose, i.e. to help enhance the ability of the Malay students to catch up and eventually compete "on a level playing field" with students from other communities. It has been revealed in the mass media by some academics very recently that, after 30 years of implementing the quota system, Malay students are still not in a position to compete with students from other communities 'on a level playing field'. There was a 'shocking discovery'. Less than 20% of the total population of Malay students in tertiary institutions may be able to compete with those from the other communities after 30 years of affirmative action
Ultimately quota system benefits the privileged few
The quota system appears to benefit the Malay community as a whole, but a close scrutiny of the quota system reveals that ultimately it benefits more the privileged few within the Malay ethnic group. Its implementation operates to the disadvantage of not only the underprivileged non-Malays, but also the majority of the underprivileged Malays. The statistics available are testimony to this.
Malay students of lower income families constituting about 63% of the Malay population, received only 14% of the university scholarships; but Malay students from the top income group of 17% [the privileged few] received more than 50% of the university scholarships. (Thomas Sowell1990: Migrations and Cultures ¨C a World View at page 57)
This would mean that the majority of the lower income Malay families, who really deserve and need such financial assistance, are not given university scholarships; but a tiny minority of affluent top Malay income group is receiving most of the university scholarships. Does this fit in with the moral basis of affirmative action? Certainly not. It has become the 'special privilege' for the privileged few of the Malay community. "would take away the benefits from the other needy Malay and non-Malay students. Evidently, the race-based quota system has not only ripped off the non-Malays' equal opportunities to higher education, but also threatens the underprivileged Malays' future." [Boo Cheng Hau 1998: Quotas versus Affirmative Action ¨C A Malaysian Perspective, at page 56]
The argument for the quota system introduced under the NEP is necessary in the Malaysian context. The reason given is that, without quota system, they will be marginalized like the Red Indians or the Blacks in America. This is totally baseless and senseless as the Red Indian are a minority in the US in total sense while the Malays are the majority which govern in Malaysia.
Discrimination in providing financial assistance
Discrimination exists in the giving of financial assistance to the different sectors and language streams. According to the statistics given by the education minister in Parliament, the allocations of development funds for the different language streams of primary schools are as follows:
96.6% of the development funds for education is given to national [Malay] primary schools
2.4% to the national type [Chinese] primary schools and
1% to national-type [Tamil] primary schools.
[Note: The above statistics were given by the then Education Minister Najib Tun Razak in reply to parliamentary question by the MP for Kota Melaka on 5 November 1996]
In terms of dollars and cents, out of every 100 ringgit of financial assistance granted to educational institutions, 96,54 ringgit is for Malay schools; only 2.44 ringgit for the Chinese schools, and 1.02 ringgit only for the Tamil schools. [Suaram: Malaysian Human Rights Report 1996 at page 211]
Retarded development of schools mainly providing mother tongue education
A good example can be found in the retarded development of Chinese primary and secondary schools since Independence.40 years after independence [1957 ¨C 1997], the Chinese population grew from 2.3 million to 5.3 million approximately, an increase of 3 million people [i.e. more than doubled], but the number of Chinese schools had been reduced. The number of Chinese primary schools, instead of having a proportionate increase, was reduced from 1,342 to 1,281 - a decrease of 61 primary schools; whilst the number of Chinese independent secondary schools was reduced from 86 to 60 - a decrease of 26 secondary schools. [Kua 1990: A Protean Saga ¨C The Chinese Schools of Malaysia (2nd Edition) at page 141]
Acute shortage of qualified teachers in National-type schools
The ruling elite has paid little heed to the serious problem of the acute shortage of qualified teachers for national type [Chinese] primary schools for years. There is a shortage of nearly 3000 qualified teachers for the Chinese primary schools throughout Malaysia today, but there is a huge surplus of 6,000 Malay school teachers.
It is to be borne in mind that currently there are 65,000 non-Chinese students [Malays, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans, etc.] studying in national-type [Chinese] primary schools. The number of such non-Chinese students constitutes 12-15% of the total student population in the national-type Chinese primary schools. [Annexure to the Declaration on Mother Tongue Education 1999 ¨C Dong Jiao Zong]
C) CHALLENGES AND EXPECTATIONS
The challenges to the national education and the Chinese youth are closely linked to the reform to be made to the national education policy and system. In order to bring about reform, we have to make a serious study of the problems created by the policy and the system as embodied in the existing Education Act 1996.
1 ) Mother-tongue education of various communities is at a crossroads. It is in a precarious position. That is the insecure legal position of mother-tongue education today. Mother tongue education is no longer a basic human right enjoyed by every citizen, but a "privilege" only, granted solely at the discretion of the ruling elite in the form of "exemptions" given by the Minister of Education.This is totally against international recognition of mother tongue education as a fundamental human right and against the spirit of a multicultural society..
2 ) Problems posed by the 1996 Act are as follows:
(a) Threat to growth of language and culture of other communities The Education Act 1996 constitutes a threat to the mother tongue education of the various ethnic communities. The 1996 Act stresses that " the national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the National Education System¡".The mother tongue education is apt as the pig in the slaughter-house; its existence is at the mercy of the power that being. It is up to the Minister to grant or not to grant the exemption from the application of the Act.
(b) Survival of national-type [Chinese and Tamil] primary schoolsS28 of the existing 1996 Act creates serious doubts about the survival of the existing national-type [Chinese and Tamil] primary schools. It provides: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister may establish national-type school and shall maintain such schools".
(c) The Minister is endowed with discretionary powers to de-register educational institutions and teachers, and to dismiss school committees. There are provisions in the 1996 Act ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. The Minister's decisions cannot be challenged in court, thereby eroding the judicial power of the courts. Malaysian would then lose any chance of appeal by law under the 1996 Act.
(d) The Malaysian Chinese Independent Secondary Schools [MCISS] cannot conduct the Unified Examinations unless exemptions are granted by the Minister under s143 of the Act. [See ss67-67] With the announcement of the Minister of Education on the 23st October 2007 that the government is not going to recognize the Certificate of the unified Examination conducted by the Chinese Independent schools, the Chinese community hope that the BN government has come to its sense was finally trashed.
(e) The 2008 UPSR exam is the high water-mark of the Chinese mother tongue education.Until today (28-10-2007), the Ministry of Education has yet decided whether the Science and Maths subject in the 2008 UPSR exam will be in English only or bi-lingual. If it is in English only, then that would be the beginning of the end of Chinese mother-tongue education in Malaysia as then only 2 subjects in the Chinese primary school will be taught in Mandarin, i.e the Chinese and the moral study.Educationists and political observers believe that the BN government would decide the matter in a political-sense and not on grounds of education.The Independent Chinese Secondary school will lost its supply of new students' intake if the Chinese primary schools lost its ground as will be determined by the 2008 UPSR exam.
3 ) Mother tongues is a basic human rightLearning and developing one's mother tongue is a basic human right. No one should be deprived of such fundamental right by legislation or administrative direction from the authorities. Mother tongue education is the basic right of all ethnic communities. It is recognized internationally. Such basic human right can be found in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and other related international covenants. The Mother tongue is the soul of any ethnic community, and the means to transmit its cultural heritage. Any attempt at "forced assimilation" of languages, cultures and education system will invariably lead to communal conflict . On the other hand, the respect for diversity and tolerance guarantees genuine unity among peoples of all ethnic communities.[Dong Jiao Zong: Declaration on Mother Tongue Education 19994)
4)Globalization and language The globalization process is fast taking place. It will have an immense impact on the national education in any country. Proficiency in the English language is an asset while proficiency in Mandarin is a dream for many who wish to deal with the emerging of China as the 4th economy power house. It is high time for us to discard the old perception of English and Mandarin as aliens' languages, but to look upon them as an international language for advancement.
In the New Era of the 21st century, multiculturalism will be the order of the day. The world community adopts multiculturalism in all spheres, including education. The mother tongue will be the most effective tool for achieving the purpose of discovering one's roots.On the other hand, the policy of "forced assimilation" rooted in mono culturalism, is "fighting a losing battle".
DR. M acknowledged the existence and failure of the "ultimate objective"
Even our ex-Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, in an interview with the Time Magazine on 9 December 1996, when asked for his view on the policy of assimilation, had to admit it, and he said:"The idea before was that people should become 100 per cent Malay in order to be Malaysian. We now accept that this is a multi-racial country. We should build bridges instead of trying to remove completely the barriers separating us. We do not intend to convert all the Chinese to Islam, and we tell our people, the Muslims, not to try to force people to convert."-Dr. M admitted the existence of the Ultimate Objective which was to turn Malaysia into "one language, one culture "nation.
Conclusion
Education's Rocky Path to National UnityEducation system is a subset of Malaysian institutionalized , racial and oftentimes, racist politics. Any serious attempt to deal with national unity should start with breaking that down as only a fair, just and multi-cultural educational policy will turn Malaysia into a developed nation.
A former education director-general Tan Sri Murad Mohammed Noor said in an interview years ago, "The Malays say they don't want to give up their privileges. But the Chinese say: 'With these privileges, your children can go to university, you don't have to worry. I've got to sell my house to send my child to university. But I am a citizen like you. I pay taxes like you. What integration are you talking about?' That's the Chinese view. The Malays say, 'This is in our constitution, before we got our independence. This is what we agreed on.' -What he didn't say was that there was no affirmative action plan and no NEP and no Bumiputras status prior to 1970 (before and after Merdeka).
My question is why can't we stick to the social contract as agreed by all parties prior to Independence? " Why can't we have a Malaysian First policy after 44 years of nation building?
Why, indeed?
The social contract agreed and formulated by our forefathers should be the basic of our education policy which can preserve and sustain the growth of the language and culture of all the communities to reflect our multi-racial and multi-cultural society.
Only a visionary educational policy can promote national integration and solve any mistrust among the people and prepare us to face the challenge in this "Global Era". Let us go back to the Education Ordinance 1957 as it was molded with the Merdeka spirit in mind. I personally do not see any reason why the BN, especially the UMNO can't accept the 1957 Ordinance as it was drafted and accepted by all parties prior to Merdeka.
The "ultimate objective" of all Malaysian-rivival of the 1957 Education Ordinance
May be the Chinese community and other non-Bumi communities did not send the ultimatum to the government yet and the voice has been lost over so many years of consultation and "collusion" by the political parties within the BN.
s3 of the 1957 Ordinance provides: "3. The education policy of the country (amended) is to establish a national system of education acceptable to the people of Malaysia(amended) as a whole which will satisfy the needs to promote their culture, social, economic and political development as a nation, with the intention of making Malay language the national language of the country whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of peoples other than Malays living in the country."
The Chinese community should have its own "ultimate objective" in the national education policy. All the political parties (from both spectrums), Dong Jiau Zong, UCA, all gilds and associations must create a united front and send the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education a joint Memorandum to restore the 1957 Ordinance to solve this long standing issue one and for all.
Only when the 1957 Ordinance replaces the 1996 Act shall there be true integration among all Malaysian.The Chinese youth have an important role to play as they are the members of all these political parties and associations; they have to act as the locomotive for-change or pressure-group within their own associations for the above-mentioned "Ultimate objective" to crystallize.
David Wong on 28-10-2007
