I want to reproduce a letter written by a friend of mine - Andrew Aeria - on the move by UM to scrap a talk that was supposed to have been given by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi. Just to clarify, the letter is written with a sarcastic tone, in case there is any confusion.
Congrats to the UM VC!
Andrew Aeria | Oct 23, 08 4:38pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Invite to Nobel laureate scrapped after 'protest from students'.
I am writing to congratulate Rafiah Salim, the vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya for bravely and single-handedly putting Malaysian academia back into the international spotlight.
Well done, Rafiah. By caving in to some obviously hidebound ‘Iranian students’ and cancelling Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s scheduled lecture on 'Islam and Cultural Diversity' at UM, you gratuitously displayed to the world your university administration’s equally immaculate bigoted view of academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.
Certainly, as Malaysians who already are the most informed in the world and living in a diverse multi-cultural society, we have no need to listen to ‘nobody’ Nobel Laureates like Shirin Ebadi, right?
I mean, what else does Ebadi know and what else can she tell us about ‘Islam and Cultural Diversity’ that we in Malaysia, with the help of our ‘Iranian students’, do not already know? So, well done.
I also gushingly applaud Rafiah Salim’s robust defence of the emotional health of ‘our Iranian students’. After all, if these blinkered ‘Iranian students’ are unhappy about ‘nobody’ Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s views and don’t want to listen to her, let alone allow others to explore any ideas that are different from their intolerant views, then surely we in Malaysian academia have to dance a jackboot march to their tune even if it is reminiscent of the Third Reich, no?
Well, Rafiah, you and your administration have pretty good goosestep dance moves, that’s for sure. I’m certain that all those now ‘happy Iranian students’ will gladly give you a 45-degree full-handed salute.
And if you listen closely, you might hear them happily utter ‘Seig Heil’! What courage you display in protecting the fragile emotions of our ‘Iranian students’. Truly well beyond the call of academic duty. Well done!
In this excellent spirit of ‘Malaysia Boleh’ and to ensure Malaysian academia’s continued international prominence, may I humbly suggest that you now direct the UM chief librarian to identify and publicly burn all books authored by Shirin Ebadi and other Iranian scholars of ‘Islam and Cultural Diversity’ that the ‘Iranian students’ don’t like.
I am sure those ‘Iranian students’ can very quickly draw up an extended list of disagreeable books that make them unhappy for your immediate action. Indeed, why stop at Iranian scholars, Islam and Cultural Diversity?
Why not just burn the whole UM library down so that all in Malaysian academia (led of course, by ‘our happy Iranian students’) can return to the raw pristine beauty of our vain-glorious collective ignorance.
Indeed, I am sure those ‘Iranian students’ and your administration would gladly welcome such a move as a significant civilisational move forward; Malaysian academia’s leap of faith into the brave new world of the 21st century!
Hurrah!
Since when have Iranian students in our public universities started dictating policy? Does this mean that if Indonesian students protest a talk given by Habibie, such a talk will be canceled?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the right of the Iranian students to protest. But if they want to protest, they should be given a space, both physically as well as in different student newspapers, to protest Shirin Ebadi's presence on campus. But she should also be given the space to speak her mind in a way that is befitting of a Nobel Laureate. But this is Malaysia so we should not expect either to occur, apparently.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Malaysian academic quoted in the Economist
It's not often that a Malaysian academic gets quoted in the Economist. I read this economist article last week and it referred to a Malaysian academic by the name of Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer, who is based in UNIMAS in Sarawak. I google scholar searched him and he has a pretty long list of publications. The Economist quoted him as a data mining expert. Kudos to the professor!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PhD for Zahid Hamidi
A few friends emailed me recently to tell me that an UMNO leader, Zahid Hamidi, currently a Minister in the PM's department and former UMNO Youth Chief when Anwar was still DPM, was recently conferred a PhD in Communications from UPM. I applaud his resilience in doing his PhD part time despite his busy schedule as a politician. But I am probably a bit suspect in regard to the content of his PhD thesis.
I heard Zahid Hamidi speak at a small PROMUDA function a few years back and he came across as an intelligent and intellectually curious UMNO leader. This was in 2003 and he was already doing his PhD then. I was impressed because he didn't really need to get a PhD to bolster his political credentials. I'm glad that he managed to finally finish his PhD. It's a long process which I can certainly attest to as I'm working hard to finish my own PhD thesis next year.
But I can't help but have a niggling doubt as to the quality of his PhD research. For now, I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to whether he did all the work himself or if he hired researchers to some at least part of the work on his behalf. I'll reproduce a brief description of his thesis which appeared on the Ministry of Information website and I'll comment after that.
Deputy Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been conferred a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Communication by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).
He will receive the Phd at UPM's convocation in October, said the university's School of Graduate Studies Deputy Dean Prof Dr Hasanah Mohd Ghazali in a statement here today.
The university senate approved the degree at its meeting on Feb 21. For the Phd, Dr Zahid completed a thesis entitled "Barisan Nasional Manifesto As Agenda for Malay Language Newspaper During the General Election Campaign."
The study was undertaken to identify the usage of BN manifesto as an agenda for the Malay language newspapers namely Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian during the general elections in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1995 dan 1999.
Dr Zahid, when asked to comment on the degree, hoped that it would spur the young generation to pursue their education to a higher level. He said that the major factor for his success was his belief in life long learning and hoped that it would encourage his children to follow in his footsteps.
"I hope this success will spur my political colleagues, especially the younger ones to study to a higher level. "If I can do it at the age of 55, the young generation should feel challenged (by it)," he said.
Commenting on his thesis, Dr Zahid said that based on the research the manifesto, which is regarded as a promise by BN, was the basis for the success and support obtained by the party during the general elections.
If the manifesto announced provided something good for the rakyat, the effect would be seen from the number of popular votes and increase in the number of seats won by BN, he said.
I'm not sure if this article quoted him correctly but I find the last remark quite disturbing. Has there been a case in the past whereby a BN manifesto would NOT provide something good for the rakyat thereby leading it to lose popular votes and seats? I'm not sure if he had a well defined dependent variable and a set of independent variables which he used in a regression analysis to test his hypothesis but from that statement alone, I find this hard to believe.
Furthermore, he tracked the usage of the BN manifesto in Utusan and Berita Harian in the elections starting from 1982 and ending in 1999. Unless you used very sophisticated coding to pick out and define different categories of reports and later quantify them, I suspect that you would not get much variance in regard to how these papers presented the BN manifesto to its readers - overwhelmingly POSITIVE! In social science methodological speak, you don't get any variance in the independent variable i.e. the BN manifesto or the newspapers reporting them.
In any case, I don't really think there's enough variance on his dependent variable i.e. electoral outcomes in the 6 elections he covered. He cannot possibly use the outcomes in individual constituencies as his dependent variables since you cannot possibly measure the impact of newspaper reporting on the BN manifesto by individual constituencies.
My sense is that he may have been poorly guided by his advisers at UPM who might not have wanted to piss off a high ranking UMNO leader and deny him his PhD. Every PhD inevitably has its share of weaknesses (I'm sure my own will be the same) but some methodological shortcomings will not pass muster in most universities where the advising committee does some sort of quality control.
I hope I can get my hands on his PhD thesis. If anyone has access to it, please email me.
I heard Zahid Hamidi speak at a small PROMUDA function a few years back and he came across as an intelligent and intellectually curious UMNO leader. This was in 2003 and he was already doing his PhD then. I was impressed because he didn't really need to get a PhD to bolster his political credentials. I'm glad that he managed to finally finish his PhD. It's a long process which I can certainly attest to as I'm working hard to finish my own PhD thesis next year.
But I can't help but have a niggling doubt as to the quality of his PhD research. For now, I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to whether he did all the work himself or if he hired researchers to some at least part of the work on his behalf. I'll reproduce a brief description of his thesis which appeared on the Ministry of Information website and I'll comment after that.
Deputy Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been conferred a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Communication by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).
He will receive the Phd at UPM's convocation in October, said the university's School of Graduate Studies Deputy Dean Prof Dr Hasanah Mohd Ghazali in a statement here today.
The university senate approved the degree at its meeting on Feb 21. For the Phd, Dr Zahid completed a thesis entitled "Barisan Nasional Manifesto As Agenda for Malay Language Newspaper During the General Election Campaign."
The study was undertaken to identify the usage of BN manifesto as an agenda for the Malay language newspapers namely Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian during the general elections in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1995 dan 1999.
Dr Zahid, when asked to comment on the degree, hoped that it would spur the young generation to pursue their education to a higher level. He said that the major factor for his success was his belief in life long learning and hoped that it would encourage his children to follow in his footsteps.
"I hope this success will spur my political colleagues, especially the younger ones to study to a higher level. "If I can do it at the age of 55, the young generation should feel challenged (by it)," he said.
Commenting on his thesis, Dr Zahid said that based on the research the manifesto, which is regarded as a promise by BN, was the basis for the success and support obtained by the party during the general elections.
If the manifesto announced provided something good for the rakyat, the effect would be seen from the number of popular votes and increase in the number of seats won by BN, he said.
I'm not sure if this article quoted him correctly but I find the last remark quite disturbing. Has there been a case in the past whereby a BN manifesto would NOT provide something good for the rakyat thereby leading it to lose popular votes and seats? I'm not sure if he had a well defined dependent variable and a set of independent variables which he used in a regression analysis to test his hypothesis but from that statement alone, I find this hard to believe.
Furthermore, he tracked the usage of the BN manifesto in Utusan and Berita Harian in the elections starting from 1982 and ending in 1999. Unless you used very sophisticated coding to pick out and define different categories of reports and later quantify them, I suspect that you would not get much variance in regard to how these papers presented the BN manifesto to its readers - overwhelmingly POSITIVE! In social science methodological speak, you don't get any variance in the independent variable i.e. the BN manifesto or the newspapers reporting them.
In any case, I don't really think there's enough variance on his dependent variable i.e. electoral outcomes in the 6 elections he covered. He cannot possibly use the outcomes in individual constituencies as his dependent variables since you cannot possibly measure the impact of newspaper reporting on the BN manifesto by individual constituencies.
My sense is that he may have been poorly guided by his advisers at UPM who might not have wanted to piss off a high ranking UMNO leader and deny him his PhD. Every PhD inevitably has its share of weaknesses (I'm sure my own will be the same) but some methodological shortcomings will not pass muster in most universities where the advising committee does some sort of quality control.
I hope I can get my hands on his PhD thesis. If anyone has access to it, please email me.
Friday, October 10, 2008
THES 2008 Rankings
The 2008 THES rankings are out as many of our readers have noted. Not surprisingly, no Malaysian university made it to the top 200. The top Asian university (not including Australia) is the University of Tokyo at no.18. NUS is ranked 30 and NTU cracked the top 100 at 77.
We've debated the pros and cons of university ranking systems many times in this blog. I'd also highly recommend the blog of Richard Holmes which monitors the methodology of the THES and other university rankings.
If I were the VCs of any of the top public universities in Malaysia (USM, UM, and UKM), I would refrain from playing the THES ranking game and set expectations low by saying things like 'there's no way that a Malaysian public uni can compete with the other universities in this list given that we're still a developing country, we're still trying to increase the % of PhDs among our faculty, we still have to improve our facilities etc...' I've said this before and I'll say it again, none of the public universities in Malaysia is anywhere near the standard of the top 500 universities in the US (where almost 100% of faculty have PhDs)
We'll have to wait until next week to see where the highest ranked Malaysian university appears (probably in the 300s I would guess) but it seems to me that it would be better for our public universities to try to achieve certain internally set targets e.g. 60% of faculty with PhDs and benchmark themselves to certain Asian universities (like our neighbors down south).
We've debated the pros and cons of university ranking systems many times in this blog. I'd also highly recommend the blog of Richard Holmes which monitors the methodology of the THES and other university rankings.
If I were the VCs of any of the top public universities in Malaysia (USM, UM, and UKM), I would refrain from playing the THES ranking game and set expectations low by saying things like 'there's no way that a Malaysian public uni can compete with the other universities in this list given that we're still a developing country, we're still trying to increase the % of PhDs among our faculty, we still have to improve our facilities etc...' I've said this before and I'll say it again, none of the public universities in Malaysia is anywhere near the standard of the top 500 universities in the US (where almost 100% of faculty have PhDs)
We'll have to wait until next week to see where the highest ranked Malaysian university appears (probably in the 300s I would guess) but it seems to me that it would be better for our public universities to try to achieve certain internally set targets e.g. 60% of faculty with PhDs and benchmark themselves to certain Asian universities (like our neighbors down south).
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Third Report Card MOE Blueprint
Read this pretty long article in the Star on the Third Report card of the MOE in following the progress of the National Education Blueprint (2006 to 2010). One always has to read these reports with a pinch of salt since they can be manipulated to present the facts in a positive light. It requires one to carefully read the past two report cards in addition to the latest one. But the Star article does point out some things which I thought were positive.
For example, the MOE does seem to be trying to introduce more flexibility into the education system. Cluster schools such as MCKK and Tunku Kurshiah College may allow its students to take the International Baccalaureate (IB) program instead of SPM starting in 2011.
The Minister, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, also indicated that the ministry would be moving away from a centralized system of exams to one that would allow greater flexibility at the school level.
In addition, he also emphasized that the ministry would be putting in more resources into vocational and skills training, something which this blog has emphasized in the past.
At the very least, the MOE is trying to be accountable by trying to keep to the goals of the National Education Blueprint. In the past, it seems to me that once these Blueprints were released, nobody pays any more attention to it and they are chucked aside quickly.
One complaint though, I couldn't find any of the report cards on the MOE's website. If someone can find it, please let the rest of us know.
For example, the MOE does seem to be trying to introduce more flexibility into the education system. Cluster schools such as MCKK and Tunku Kurshiah College may allow its students to take the International Baccalaureate (IB) program instead of SPM starting in 2011.
The Minister, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, also indicated that the ministry would be moving away from a centralized system of exams to one that would allow greater flexibility at the school level.
In addition, he also emphasized that the ministry would be putting in more resources into vocational and skills training, something which this blog has emphasized in the past.
At the very least, the MOE is trying to be accountable by trying to keep to the goals of the National Education Blueprint. In the past, it seems to me that once these Blueprints were released, nobody pays any more attention to it and they are chucked aside quickly.
One complaint though, I couldn't find any of the report cards on the MOE's website. If someone can find it, please let the rest of us know.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Science Stream versus Arts Stream
A friend of mine, Tzu Anne, pointed me to this post that was originally from a Singapore newspaper, the Electric New Paper, and reproduced in Lim Kit Siang's blog. The story is about a certain Lim Wah Guan. His story is one that is not that common in Singapore. He did pretty well in his primary school exam (PSLE) and for his O levels but did horrendously for his A levels which caused him to be rejected by NUS four times. He finally applied and got into UNSW in Australia for a degree in Chinese and Theatre Studies which he excelled in. He later did a Masters in Oxford and is currently pursuing a PhD in Princeton.
His story is not a typical Singapore story in that, as far as I know, very few students who score a C, E and O for his or her A levels and B, D and D in a repeat exam actually end up doing a PhD in Princeton. It does highlight the fact that there needs to be some flexibility in an education system but having some flexibility is usually not costless. (For those who are familiar with stats, think of having flexibility of making room for a late bloomer like Lim Wah Gaun as increasing your chances of making a Type I error because you want to decrease the chances of making a Type II error)
But more importantly, it does call out to me the question of whether someone should choose a certain stream or subjects to study just because it is easier to 'score' in those subjects. In the Malaysian context, this usually manifest itself in the good students going predominantly to the Science stream and the poor students going predominantly to the Arts stream.
Many students in Malaysia who are not interested in the subjects that are taught in the Science stream after Form 3 may be compelled either by peer pressure or by their parents to choose that default option even though they might be interested in pursuing more subjects in the Arts stream.
Personally, I think that this is a very sad predicament to be in. I left Malaysia after Form 3 but did spend a week or so in Form 4 in Malaysia before leaving for Singapore so that I could spend a few more days with some of my friends. It was more or less taken for granted that if you were a good student, you would automatically enroll yourself in the Science Stream. The students in the Arts stream were somewhat of a laughing stock to us in the Science stream since they were only there because they could not get good enough results to get into the Science Stream. As a result, teachers who teach subjects in the Arts stream were often demoralized because they were teaching poor students who were usually not that motivated. I would be interested in having access to some of the statistics because my guess is that a far larger percentage of students in the Science Stream ended up in universities whether foreign or local compared to those students in the Arts Stream. This becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle since students in the Arts Stream have low expectations of themselves and teachers then have low expectations of them and so on and so forth.
I don't think there is an easy way to rectify this situation but one possible way would be to allow for greater flexibility for students in the Science streams to take courses and subjects in the Arts stream. I'm not sure whether such flexibility currently exists in Malaysian schools (I suspect that there is some flexibility) but it should be extended such that over time, the negative stigma associated with the Arts stream and Arts related subjects can be decreased. It may also have the positive effect of mixing the 'better' students from the Science stream with those in the Arts stream.
I would greatly appreciate it if more recent secondary school graduates can enlighten me on the current situation in Form 4 and Form 5 but I highly suspect that the negative association with the Arts stream is still as pervasive as ever.
From an individual's point of view, I think that someone should take courses and subjects which he or she is interested in and not ones which are perceived to be easier to score. From a larger, societal perspective, having good and not so good students interact more based on subjects which presumably at least some of them are interested in is no bad thing.
His story is not a typical Singapore story in that, as far as I know, very few students who score a C, E and O for his or her A levels and B, D and D in a repeat exam actually end up doing a PhD in Princeton. It does highlight the fact that there needs to be some flexibility in an education system but having some flexibility is usually not costless. (For those who are familiar with stats, think of having flexibility of making room for a late bloomer like Lim Wah Gaun as increasing your chances of making a Type I error because you want to decrease the chances of making a Type II error)
But more importantly, it does call out to me the question of whether someone should choose a certain stream or subjects to study just because it is easier to 'score' in those subjects. In the Malaysian context, this usually manifest itself in the good students going predominantly to the Science stream and the poor students going predominantly to the Arts stream.
Many students in Malaysia who are not interested in the subjects that are taught in the Science stream after Form 3 may be compelled either by peer pressure or by their parents to choose that default option even though they might be interested in pursuing more subjects in the Arts stream.
Personally, I think that this is a very sad predicament to be in. I left Malaysia after Form 3 but did spend a week or so in Form 4 in Malaysia before leaving for Singapore so that I could spend a few more days with some of my friends. It was more or less taken for granted that if you were a good student, you would automatically enroll yourself in the Science Stream. The students in the Arts stream were somewhat of a laughing stock to us in the Science stream since they were only there because they could not get good enough results to get into the Science Stream. As a result, teachers who teach subjects in the Arts stream were often demoralized because they were teaching poor students who were usually not that motivated. I would be interested in having access to some of the statistics because my guess is that a far larger percentage of students in the Science Stream ended up in universities whether foreign or local compared to those students in the Arts Stream. This becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle since students in the Arts Stream have low expectations of themselves and teachers then have low expectations of them and so on and so forth.
I don't think there is an easy way to rectify this situation but one possible way would be to allow for greater flexibility for students in the Science streams to take courses and subjects in the Arts stream. I'm not sure whether such flexibility currently exists in Malaysian schools (I suspect that there is some flexibility) but it should be extended such that over time, the negative stigma associated with the Arts stream and Arts related subjects can be decreased. It may also have the positive effect of mixing the 'better' students from the Science stream with those in the Arts stream.
I would greatly appreciate it if more recent secondary school graduates can enlighten me on the current situation in Form 4 and Form 5 but I highly suspect that the negative association with the Arts stream is still as pervasive as ever.
From an individual's point of view, I think that someone should take courses and subjects which he or she is interested in and not ones which are perceived to be easier to score. From a larger, societal perspective, having good and not so good students interact more based on subjects which presumably at least some of them are interested in is no bad thing.
Fake Degrees from St Regis
Read this article on the Malaysian Insider, originally reported by SCMP in Hong Kong about fake degrees from a St. Regis University. Apparently, some Malaysians have also bought fake degrees from this place. Just a warning to our readers who might know of someone who claims to have a degree from this place.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Malaysian author long listen for the Booker prize
Got this link from a mailing list I'm party of (the Malaysian Forum started by a group of Stanford students). It's an interview with Tan Twan Eng, whose book, the Gift of Rain, was long listed (as opposed to short listed?) for the Man Booker prize in 2007. I have not read his book yet but I have read Tash Aw's Harmony Silk Factory which is also set in a similar time period (World War II), which I enjoyed thoroughly. It's always nice to read about a Malaysian author gaining some recognition on the international stage.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Finally, a VC with a good academic record
Got this piece of news from a friend from one of the public unis. Zaini Ujang, at 43, is the youngest VC in a public university, in this case, UTM. Unlike the UITM VC, Prof Zaini Ujang is a legit academic with a history of academic publications in peer reviewed journals. And he doesn't boast that he's a life long UMNO member and is proud of his publication record. You can view his publication record here. It's this kind of appointment which gives me some hope in the public university system in Malaysia. Another sign that UTM is moving in the right direction? I recently got to know two Malaysian PhD students in Cambridge who are sponsored by UTM. If they and others like them go back to UTM, it's a good sign for that institution.
Friday, September 19, 2008
SPM 2008 Revision Questions
Times Guides, the publishers of Times Higher Education magazines have published Times SPM 2008 Revision Questions. 15,000 copies of the book were distributed to schools in the Klang Valley and other city centers. In view of making this book available to all SPM students, Times Guides have produced an e-book version of the book for students to download for FREE. The e-book version has questions, answers and past year exam question analysis. This book is produced by a group of experienced teachers who are specialist in their subjects.
The e-book can be downloaded for free here.
The e-book can be downloaded for free here.
Monday, September 15, 2008
UPSI Study on S&M
Managed to locate an NST report on the UPSI study. You can download the study from the NST page. Bakri was certainly right about the lack of controls in the study. Would the Malay students from the rural areas have done better if the tests were in BM? This kind of control groups should be standards in these sorts of studies. And the fact that many students could not fill in the blank in 'He...to school' is not so much an indictment of the teaching of S&M in English but the appalling teaching of English. The more I read about this issue, the more I'm convinced that we should just continue with the teaching of S&M in English as a commitment towards improving the standard of English throughout our education system. If we revert to the old policy, I don't see the possibility of sufficient resources being devoted to this cause.
TEACHING OF MATHS AND SCIENCE IN ENGLISH: Study reveals policy's flaws
TANJUNG MALIM: Five years after schools began teaching Mathematics and Science in English, tests on thousands of students have revealed poor scores in these subjects.
The tests and surveys, part of a study of that policy, have also shown that the majority of students still find it hard to follow Mathematics and Science lessons in English.
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) put over 3,000 Year Five pupils and about 2,800 Form Two students around the country through short Mathematics, Science and English language tests between February last year and January.
The schoolchildren were from a mix of urban, rural and vernacular schools in Peninsular Malaysia.
The tests were made up of modified past-year examination questions. Some were taken straight out of textbooks.
Some 1,700 Year Five pupils tested this January had a mean score of 7.89 out of a maximum 20 for Mathematics.
The results were not much better for Science: a mean of 4.08 out of 14. English proficiency was not good either: a mean of 11.87 out of 31.
The mean scores of Malay and Orang Asli pupils were also much lower than those of the Chinese and Indians, said study leader Professor Emeritus Datuk Isahak Haron.
Isahak has called the policy a failure, particularly in terms of its impact on Malay students in national schools (Sekolah Kebangsaan), and is asking for a return to the teaching of Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Malaysia.
In the survey, many Year Five pupils told researchers they found it hard to learn Mathematics and Science in English, saying they did not understand the lessons.
In one sample, less than a fifth of the Year Five Malay students surveyed considered it easy to learn Science in English and only about a third thought it was easy to learn Mathematics in English.
When a sample of 1,300 Malay students were asked how well they understood the Mathematics and Science lessons when it was taught in English, over 60 per cent said they only understood the lessons "sometimes".
The policy had even failed in its aim of improving the pupils' command of English, said Isahak, a lecturer at the Faculty of Cognitive Science and Human Development.
Students struggled to correctly complete even simple sentences, he said, citing the following sentence in a passage taken out of a school textbook: "He ..... to bed" (The answer is "went".)
An average of 14 per cent and 19 per cent (two different groups) got the answer right.
Even the highest score according to racial breakdown -- 41 per cent of Chinese students in one group answered correctly -- did not speak well of the policy's aim of improving English.
Isahak suggested that it would do more good to allocate more time, staff and money to the teaching of English at the primary school level.
He urged a change in how the language was taught in schools. He said the standardised syllabus should be scrapped in favour of lessons tailored to suit the abilities of different students.
The UPSI study also incorporated findings from other surveys of secondary school students that pointed to similar problems.
Shortly after the policy was implemented in 2003, Associate Professor Hashima Jalaluddin of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia interviewed 43 teachers and 971 Form One students from six schools in the central and southern states of Peninsular Malaysia .
Most of the teachers said students had problems following Mathematics and Science lessons in English, while 70 per cent of the students said they would be more interested if the two subjects were taught in Bahasa Malaysia.
Only a quarter said they had no problem following the lessons in English.
In 2004, Zainuddin Bikum surveyed 229 students in two schools in Kuala Kubu Baru, Selangor, for his dissertation at UPSI and found that more than half of the group was facing difficulties.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Professor Juriah Long found that about half the students in both urban and rural schools were worried because they found it difficult to follow Mathematics and Science in English. This was one of the results of her 2005 survey of over 7,000 Form Two students nationwide.
Her study, which also looked at the location of schools and the socio-economic background of students, found the concern was greater among Malay students, those in rural schools, and poor students.
Isahak said Malay students in national schools, mostly in rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, had lost out the most as a result of the decision to teach Maths and Science in English.
The ones who gained from the policy were a small percentage of Malay students from upper middle class families who went to good schools, he said.
However, UPSI's own test results showed Year Five Malay students from rural schools scored highest in nine out of 10 Maths questions and two out of seven Science questions compared with Malay students in big town and city schools.
Meanwhile, Malay students in city schools consistently fared the lowest.
Isahak believes the difference in the percentages is marginal and because there are more Malay students in rural areas, it is these students who will be most affected.
TEACHING OF MATHS AND SCIENCE IN ENGLISH: Study reveals policy's flaws
TANJUNG MALIM: Five years after schools began teaching Mathematics and Science in English, tests on thousands of students have revealed poor scores in these subjects.
The tests and surveys, part of a study of that policy, have also shown that the majority of students still find it hard to follow Mathematics and Science lessons in English.
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) put over 3,000 Year Five pupils and about 2,800 Form Two students around the country through short Mathematics, Science and English language tests between February last year and January.
The schoolchildren were from a mix of urban, rural and vernacular schools in Peninsular Malaysia.
The tests were made up of modified past-year examination questions. Some were taken straight out of textbooks.
Some 1,700 Year Five pupils tested this January had a mean score of 7.89 out of a maximum 20 for Mathematics.
The results were not much better for Science: a mean of 4.08 out of 14. English proficiency was not good either: a mean of 11.87 out of 31.
The mean scores of Malay and Orang Asli pupils were also much lower than those of the Chinese and Indians, said study leader Professor Emeritus Datuk Isahak Haron.
Isahak has called the policy a failure, particularly in terms of its impact on Malay students in national schools (Sekolah Kebangsaan), and is asking for a return to the teaching of Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Malaysia.
In the survey, many Year Five pupils told researchers they found it hard to learn Mathematics and Science in English, saying they did not understand the lessons.
In one sample, less than a fifth of the Year Five Malay students surveyed considered it easy to learn Science in English and only about a third thought it was easy to learn Mathematics in English.
When a sample of 1,300 Malay students were asked how well they understood the Mathematics and Science lessons when it was taught in English, over 60 per cent said they only understood the lessons "sometimes".
The policy had even failed in its aim of improving the pupils' command of English, said Isahak, a lecturer at the Faculty of Cognitive Science and Human Development.
Students struggled to correctly complete even simple sentences, he said, citing the following sentence in a passage taken out of a school textbook: "He ..... to bed" (The answer is "went".)
An average of 14 per cent and 19 per cent (two different groups) got the answer right.
Even the highest score according to racial breakdown -- 41 per cent of Chinese students in one group answered correctly -- did not speak well of the policy's aim of improving English.
Isahak suggested that it would do more good to allocate more time, staff and money to the teaching of English at the primary school level.
He urged a change in how the language was taught in schools. He said the standardised syllabus should be scrapped in favour of lessons tailored to suit the abilities of different students.
The UPSI study also incorporated findings from other surveys of secondary school students that pointed to similar problems.
Shortly after the policy was implemented in 2003, Associate Professor Hashima Jalaluddin of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia interviewed 43 teachers and 971 Form One students from six schools in the central and southern states of Peninsular Malaysia .
Most of the teachers said students had problems following Mathematics and Science lessons in English, while 70 per cent of the students said they would be more interested if the two subjects were taught in Bahasa Malaysia.
Only a quarter said they had no problem following the lessons in English.
In 2004, Zainuddin Bikum surveyed 229 students in two schools in Kuala Kubu Baru, Selangor, for his dissertation at UPSI and found that more than half of the group was facing difficulties.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Professor Juriah Long found that about half the students in both urban and rural schools were worried because they found it difficult to follow Mathematics and Science in English. This was one of the results of her 2005 survey of over 7,000 Form Two students nationwide.
Her study, which also looked at the location of schools and the socio-economic background of students, found the concern was greater among Malay students, those in rural schools, and poor students.
Isahak said Malay students in national schools, mostly in rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, had lost out the most as a result of the decision to teach Maths and Science in English.
The ones who gained from the policy were a small percentage of Malay students from upper middle class families who went to good schools, he said.
However, UPSI's own test results showed Year Five Malay students from rural schools scored highest in nine out of 10 Maths questions and two out of seven Science questions compared with Malay students in big town and city schools.
Meanwhile, Malay students in city schools consistently fared the lowest.
Isahak believes the difference in the percentages is marginal and because there are more Malay students in rural areas, it is these students who will be most affected.
Bakri Musa's view on S&M in English
A well thought out piece by Bakri Musa. I got this through email and I don't think Bakri has posted it up on his website yet. I'll link it when its posted online. In the meantime, I've reproduced the article below. It makes reference to a UPSI study on the issue at hand. I'll try to locate a copy of this study and look further into it.
Continue Teaching Science and Mathematics in English
M. Bakri Musa
In May 2003, five months after the government started the teaching of science and mathematics in English in our schools, the Ministry of Education produced a “study” with the incredulous findings of significant improvement in our students’ achievements! All in five months!
Now five years later, research from the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) showed the very opposite results. What gives?
Both studies were prominently and uncritically reported in our mainstream media. That first study was presumably swallowed whole by our policymakers to justify continuing their policy. Rest assured that this second one too would be used for a similar purpose, as an excuse to jettison that same policy.
Despite many attempts I was unable to get a copy of that first study. Nor have I seen it published in any journal, or find any paper credited to its author, raising questions on the credibility of the “study” and competence of its “researcher.”
To the credit of its authors, this later paper is freely available on the Internet, all 153 pages of it. Its lead author is an emeritus professor, a title reserved for retired accomplished scholars, with a dean and deputy dean as his coauthors. Despite its impressive authorship, this study is deeply flawed in its design and conclusions. It does however, expose many weaknesses in the implementation of the policy, in particular the lack of teachers fluent in English.
Embarrassingly Flawed Study
The most glaring deficiency of this second study is its lack of any control group. This is basic in any research design. As the English language policy applies to all schools, you obviously cannot find a control group among current students. You can however find historical control groups by using the test scores of earlier comparable pupils who had been taught and tested in Malay.
With some ingenuity we could still have concurrent control groups, for example, Malaysian pupils attending English schools like Alice School and International School. Another would be adults fluent in English, or even the teachers. If those adults and students in English schools did equally poorly, then clearly the test is not reliable.
When I look at the test questions, it is not only the teachers who are deficient in English, so too are the test makers! Some of the questions are convoluted and would challenge even those fluent in English.
The second flaw is that there is minimal statistical analysis of the data. The pupils were tested and the results simply collated in pages and pages of raw data presented in dull, repetitive and uninformative tables. The authors must be graphically-challenged; they seem to have not heard of pie charts or bar diagrams.
There is also no attempt in delineating the roles of the many variables the researchers have included, like teachers’ English fluency, parents’ educational levels, and pupils’ geographic background (urban versus rural). To do that the data would have to be subjected to more sophisticated statistical analyses, beyond the simple analysis of variance used by the authors. Thus we do not know whether those students’ test scores could be correlated with their parents’ educational levels (a well-acknowledged factor) or teachers’ fluency in English.
There are numerous conclusions based on just simplistic summations of the data, with such statements as X percent of Malay students finding the study of science “easy” compared to Y percent of Chinese or Indians feeling likewise, or R percent of Malay students scoring high versus S percent of their Chinese counterparts. It seems that Malaysian academics, like their politicians, cannot escape the race trap.
These studies were conducted in January, February and July. Even the dumbest students knew that those were not the examination months. They knew those tests “don’t count;” thus skewing the results. The only way to make them take the test seriously would be to incorporate it into their regular examinations.
Besides, in January and February those students had just returned from their long end-of-year holidays during which considerable attrition of knowledge occurred. The difference between the racial groups may have nothing to do with academics but on such extraneous matters as how fast they settle down to their studies.
Of the 27 references cited, there is surprisingly no article from refereed journals. Most (14) are government-sponsored surveys, press releases, and newspaper articles, unusual for a scholarly paper. There are a few books cited, with the most recent published in 2002. There is considerable lag time between what is written in books versus the current state of knowledge. For that you would need journals and attend symposia.
Consequently the researchers’ review on bilingual education is dated. Contrary to their conclusion, it is now accepted that exposing children at a young age to bilingual education confers significant linguistic, cognitive and other advantages. The authors’ recommendation that pupils be taught only in their mother tongue and learn a second language later at a much older age is not supported by modern research.
Studies using functional MRIs (imaging studies) of the brain show that children who are bilingual at an earlier age use their brain more efficiently as compared to those who acquire those skills as adults. For example, when asked to translate between the two languages, “native” bilingual speakers use only one part of their brain while those who are bilingual as an adult use two.
Other cognitive advantages to “native” bilingual speakers include the ability to grasp abstract concepts faster, precisely the intellectual skill helpful in learning mathematics and higher-level science. The higher scores for non-Malays may well be the consequence of their earlier and more extensive exposure to bilingualism than Malays.
Revealing Findings
The study nonetheless reveals many useful findings. I fear however, that these nuggets of information would be lost by those who care only for the study’s unjustified conclusion to discontinue the present policy and revert to teaching science and mathematics in Malay. That would be a retrogressive step.
This study is only a snapshot; it does not enlighten us as to trend. It could be that the results would continue to improve. It is thus presumptuous for the authors to make a sweeping policy recommendation based only a limited snapshot study, and a poorly-designed one at that.
UPSI in its previous incarnation as Sultan Idris Teachers’ College was a hotbed of Malay nationalism. This study is less an academic research and more political polemic camouflaged as a pseudo-scientific study to justify its authors’ nationalist bias. Their data and methodology just do not support their conclusion.
The study found that fewer than 15 percent of the teachers were fluent in English, and that most teach using a combination of both languages. That is putting it politely. In reality they use bastardized or “pidgin” English. If those teachers lack English language skills, how could they teach any subject in that language? The fault here is not with the policy, rather its implementation. We should first train the teachers.
In its naivety the government spent over RM3 billion to equip these teachers with computers, LCDs and “teaching modules” to help them in the classroom. Many of those computers are now conveniently “stolen,” plugged with viruses, or simply left to gather dust as those teachers lack the skills to use them effectively.
The only beneficiaries of that program were UMNO operatives who secured those lucrative contracts. Had the government spent those precious funds to hire new teachers fluent in English, our students would have been better served, and the policy more effectively implemented.
This study missed a splendid opportunity to find out what those students, parents and teachers felt about the policy. It was as if those researchers and their field workers (undergraduates in education and thus our future teachers) were interested only in administering those tests, collecting their data, and then getting back to campus.
Surely those parents and teachers had something to say on the policy. What do the teachers feel about the billions spent on computers? Are they eager to learn and teach in English or do they harbor nationalist sentiments and resent the policy? Those surveys would have helped considerably towards implementing the policy better.
A Better Way
I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English. I go further and would have half the subjects in our national schools be taught in English, including Islamic Studies. The objective should be to produce thoroughly or “native” bilingual graduates, able to read, write and even dream in Malay and English. That is the only way to make our graduates competitive.
I put forth my ideas on achieving this in my earlier (2003) book, An Education System Worthy of Malaysia. I would start small, restricting the program to our residential schools where the students are smarter, teachers better, and facilities superior. Work out the kinks there first, only then expand the program.
I would also convert some teachers’ colleges into exclusively English-medium institutions to train future teachers of English, science, and mathematics.
In rural areas where the level of English in the schools and community is low, I would bring back the old English-medium schools, but modifying it significantly with pupils taught exclusively in English for the first four years (“total immersion”). Malay would be introduced only in Year V, and only as one subject.
Since Malay would not be taught in the first few years and only a limited subject later on, admission to such schools would be restricted only to those with already near-native fluency in Malay or whose habitual language is Malay. Further, such schools would be set up only where the background level of Malay in the community is high, essentially only in the kampongs.
If we were to do otherwise, as having such schools in the cities where the level of English in the community is high and Malay low, those graduates would not be fluent in our national language, as during colonial days. It would not be in the national interest to repeat that mistake. Besides, the problem of our students’ deficiency in English is most acute in rural areas. Thus it makes sense to establish English-medium schools there.
There are many challenges to the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English. One thing is certain. We will never resolve them if we listen to ambitious politicians playing to the gallery or rely on less-than-rigorous “researches.”
Continue Teaching Science and Mathematics in English
M. Bakri Musa
In May 2003, five months after the government started the teaching of science and mathematics in English in our schools, the Ministry of Education produced a “study” with the incredulous findings of significant improvement in our students’ achievements! All in five months!
Now five years later, research from the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) showed the very opposite results. What gives?
Both studies were prominently and uncritically reported in our mainstream media. That first study was presumably swallowed whole by our policymakers to justify continuing their policy. Rest assured that this second one too would be used for a similar purpose, as an excuse to jettison that same policy.
Despite many attempts I was unable to get a copy of that first study. Nor have I seen it published in any journal, or find any paper credited to its author, raising questions on the credibility of the “study” and competence of its “researcher.”
To the credit of its authors, this later paper is freely available on the Internet, all 153 pages of it. Its lead author is an emeritus professor, a title reserved for retired accomplished scholars, with a dean and deputy dean as his coauthors. Despite its impressive authorship, this study is deeply flawed in its design and conclusions. It does however, expose many weaknesses in the implementation of the policy, in particular the lack of teachers fluent in English.
Embarrassingly Flawed Study
The most glaring deficiency of this second study is its lack of any control group. This is basic in any research design. As the English language policy applies to all schools, you obviously cannot find a control group among current students. You can however find historical control groups by using the test scores of earlier comparable pupils who had been taught and tested in Malay.
With some ingenuity we could still have concurrent control groups, for example, Malaysian pupils attending English schools like Alice School and International School. Another would be adults fluent in English, or even the teachers. If those adults and students in English schools did equally poorly, then clearly the test is not reliable.
When I look at the test questions, it is not only the teachers who are deficient in English, so too are the test makers! Some of the questions are convoluted and would challenge even those fluent in English.
The second flaw is that there is minimal statistical analysis of the data. The pupils were tested and the results simply collated in pages and pages of raw data presented in dull, repetitive and uninformative tables. The authors must be graphically-challenged; they seem to have not heard of pie charts or bar diagrams.
There is also no attempt in delineating the roles of the many variables the researchers have included, like teachers’ English fluency, parents’ educational levels, and pupils’ geographic background (urban versus rural). To do that the data would have to be subjected to more sophisticated statistical analyses, beyond the simple analysis of variance used by the authors. Thus we do not know whether those students’ test scores could be correlated with their parents’ educational levels (a well-acknowledged factor) or teachers’ fluency in English.
There are numerous conclusions based on just simplistic summations of the data, with such statements as X percent of Malay students finding the study of science “easy” compared to Y percent of Chinese or Indians feeling likewise, or R percent of Malay students scoring high versus S percent of their Chinese counterparts. It seems that Malaysian academics, like their politicians, cannot escape the race trap.
These studies were conducted in January, February and July. Even the dumbest students knew that those were not the examination months. They knew those tests “don’t count;” thus skewing the results. The only way to make them take the test seriously would be to incorporate it into their regular examinations.
Besides, in January and February those students had just returned from their long end-of-year holidays during which considerable attrition of knowledge occurred. The difference between the racial groups may have nothing to do with academics but on such extraneous matters as how fast they settle down to their studies.
Of the 27 references cited, there is surprisingly no article from refereed journals. Most (14) are government-sponsored surveys, press releases, and newspaper articles, unusual for a scholarly paper. There are a few books cited, with the most recent published in 2002. There is considerable lag time between what is written in books versus the current state of knowledge. For that you would need journals and attend symposia.
Consequently the researchers’ review on bilingual education is dated. Contrary to their conclusion, it is now accepted that exposing children at a young age to bilingual education confers significant linguistic, cognitive and other advantages. The authors’ recommendation that pupils be taught only in their mother tongue and learn a second language later at a much older age is not supported by modern research.
Studies using functional MRIs (imaging studies) of the brain show that children who are bilingual at an earlier age use their brain more efficiently as compared to those who acquire those skills as adults. For example, when asked to translate between the two languages, “native” bilingual speakers use only one part of their brain while those who are bilingual as an adult use two.
Other cognitive advantages to “native” bilingual speakers include the ability to grasp abstract concepts faster, precisely the intellectual skill helpful in learning mathematics and higher-level science. The higher scores for non-Malays may well be the consequence of their earlier and more extensive exposure to bilingualism than Malays.
Revealing Findings
The study nonetheless reveals many useful findings. I fear however, that these nuggets of information would be lost by those who care only for the study’s unjustified conclusion to discontinue the present policy and revert to teaching science and mathematics in Malay. That would be a retrogressive step.
This study is only a snapshot; it does not enlighten us as to trend. It could be that the results would continue to improve. It is thus presumptuous for the authors to make a sweeping policy recommendation based only a limited snapshot study, and a poorly-designed one at that.
UPSI in its previous incarnation as Sultan Idris Teachers’ College was a hotbed of Malay nationalism. This study is less an academic research and more political polemic camouflaged as a pseudo-scientific study to justify its authors’ nationalist bias. Their data and methodology just do not support their conclusion.
The study found that fewer than 15 percent of the teachers were fluent in English, and that most teach using a combination of both languages. That is putting it politely. In reality they use bastardized or “pidgin” English. If those teachers lack English language skills, how could they teach any subject in that language? The fault here is not with the policy, rather its implementation. We should first train the teachers.
In its naivety the government spent over RM3 billion to equip these teachers with computers, LCDs and “teaching modules” to help them in the classroom. Many of those computers are now conveniently “stolen,” plugged with viruses, or simply left to gather dust as those teachers lack the skills to use them effectively.
The only beneficiaries of that program were UMNO operatives who secured those lucrative contracts. Had the government spent those precious funds to hire new teachers fluent in English, our students would have been better served, and the policy more effectively implemented.
This study missed a splendid opportunity to find out what those students, parents and teachers felt about the policy. It was as if those researchers and their field workers (undergraduates in education and thus our future teachers) were interested only in administering those tests, collecting their data, and then getting back to campus.
Surely those parents and teachers had something to say on the policy. What do the teachers feel about the billions spent on computers? Are they eager to learn and teach in English or do they harbor nationalist sentiments and resent the policy? Those surveys would have helped considerably towards implementing the policy better.
A Better Way
I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English. I go further and would have half the subjects in our national schools be taught in English, including Islamic Studies. The objective should be to produce thoroughly or “native” bilingual graduates, able to read, write and even dream in Malay and English. That is the only way to make our graduates competitive.
I put forth my ideas on achieving this in my earlier (2003) book, An Education System Worthy of Malaysia. I would start small, restricting the program to our residential schools where the students are smarter, teachers better, and facilities superior. Work out the kinks there first, only then expand the program.
I would also convert some teachers’ colleges into exclusively English-medium institutions to train future teachers of English, science, and mathematics.
In rural areas where the level of English in the schools and community is low, I would bring back the old English-medium schools, but modifying it significantly with pupils taught exclusively in English for the first four years (“total immersion”). Malay would be introduced only in Year V, and only as one subject.
Since Malay would not be taught in the first few years and only a limited subject later on, admission to such schools would be restricted only to those with already near-native fluency in Malay or whose habitual language is Malay. Further, such schools would be set up only where the background level of Malay in the community is high, essentially only in the kampongs.
If we were to do otherwise, as having such schools in the cities where the level of English in the community is high and Malay low, those graduates would not be fluent in our national language, as during colonial days. It would not be in the national interest to repeat that mistake. Besides, the problem of our students’ deficiency in English is most acute in rural areas. Thus it makes sense to establish English-medium schools there.
There are many challenges to the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English. One thing is certain. We will never resolve them if we listen to ambitious politicians playing to the gallery or rely on less-than-rigorous “researches.”
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Science and Math in English - Alternative Views
Two additional letters advocating for the reversal of the policy of teaching Science and Math in English. The first, written by Khairy Jamaluddin, is very well argued. The point he raised in regard to phasing in the teaching of Science and Math in English at the secondary level is particularly intriguing. This is a glimpse of a Khairy who is fully capable of making sound and cogent arguments when he is not playing up to his 'base'. The second is written by a Malaysian PhD student in Australia. He makes a similar point that it is the standard of English among English teachers in Malaysia which needs to be improved. On a related note, I wonder how many politicians who advocate for a return to teaching Science and Math in BM will actually send their kids to a public school or choose the route of a private school where English is much more widely spoken and taught.
Khairy's letter first.
IT has been almost a year since I called for a review of the teaching of Maths and Science in English while debating the motion on education at the Umno general assembly. I did so based on feedback from grassroots members and also a consistent opposition to the policy since it was announced by the previous prime minister.
I had felt then, as I still do now, that the policy was half-baked, lacking in any rigorous analysis and another attempt at putting a quick-fix band aid on a serious problem requiring structural reforms.
The report "Study reveals policy's flaws" (NST, Sept 7) sheds new light to justify my reservations about the policy. I feel the research conducted by Professor Emeritus Datuk Isahak Haron of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris and other surveys of secondary school students pointing to similar problems must be perused exhaustively and could prove to be crucial in tilting the debate on the issue ahead of the government's promise to review its implementation next year.
For the sake of clarity and lest I be accused of being retrogressive in my thinking, I would like to reiterate that I believe most Malaysians are in agreement that a strong command of the English language is an essential prerequisite for any school-leaver who wants to understand and absorb the massive corpus of knowledge available in reference books written in English at the tertiary level, or any graduate who wants to compete in the marketplace.
The English language has become a basic requirement for students and job-seekers in this increasingly globalised world where it is, for now, the undisputed lingua franca.
The issue here is not the importance of English. That is self-evident and the education system must commit itself to making our students fluent in English. In fact, in my Umno debate I urged Malays to emulate other communities in Malaysia by becoming bilingual, even trilingual. The real issue here is how we improve our children's command of English. I believe strongly that it most definitely is not through a poorly conceived policy like the teaching of Maths and Science in English.
UPSI's findings proved my fears were real and it uncovered the harsh realities our students face in schools due to this flawed policy. In particular, the impact of the policy on Malay students in national schools especially in the rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds has been catastrophic. Not only has it not improved the students' command of English, it has managed to hamper their understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts.
Furthermore, the problems and weaknesses of this policy are not confined to one ethnic group. The study revealed that the ones who gained from the policy were a small percentage of Malay students from upper middle-class families who went to good, urban schools. The paper further showed that even Chinese students struggled with learning Maths and Science when taught in English, demonstrating that this is a problem that cuts across ethnic lines.
In our effort to bridge the urban and rural divide, the gap between rich and poor, it is sad to see that in reality students in national schools, mostly in rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, have lost out the most as a result of the decision to teach Maths and Science in English.
The full report of the study also confirmed the often-heard anecdotal evidence that one of the key problems is that teachers are finding it difficult to teach in English and consequently students are having a hard time understanding these lessons that are conducted by teachers who themselves are not proficient in the language. As a result, almost 85 per cent of the teachers end up teaching Maths and Science in a mixture of English and Bahasa Malaysia, exposing a fundamental flaw in the implementation of the policy. How do you expect to answer exam questions in English when it is not entirely taught in English in the first place?
I also find myself concurring with the study leader's suggestion that it would be better to allocate more time, staff and money to the teaching of English at the primary school level rather than pursuing the teaching of Maths and Science in English. I have made this point repeatedly, that English is best learnt by the teaching of the English language and not by conflating it with subjects such as Maths and Science.
And to answer the point made by Samuel Yesuiah in his letter "Let's continue with the policy" (NST, Sept 8), if our students are given a sound foundation in the English language itself with proper instruction given to grammar, vocabulary and syntax, they will have few problems understanding "science reference books and journals in English at universities". They don't need to be taught Maths and Science in English to read reference books in English later on. They just need to be proficient in English, which clearly this policy has failed to achieve.
I wrote to this newspaper in November last year calling for immediate improvements to the teaching and learning of English in our schools. But that objective must not be pursued through a policy that not only falls short of its aim to improve English among our students but also seriously hampers their ability to learn Maths and Science.
It is high time we ditched this policy for the failure that it is and learnt from an episode of a flawed and ill-conceived policy defeating what were, I presume, noble intentions.
The second letter is written by Yap Soo Huey.
I WRITE to add to the current debate on the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English.
I graduated in 1999 from a small school in Penang where Science and Mathematics were taught in Bahasa Malaysia. Now, I am a scientist in a leading medical research institute in Australia and will be completing my PhD at the end of this year.
Since starting my PhD candidature in 2005, I have won five awards, including two awards at national conferences for Best Speaker (most other speakers were native English speakers) and one young investigator award at a prestigious international conference.
I am also an author in a major scientific publication and have more publications in the pipeline.
I am not alone in such success. There are two other Malaysians in the institute where I work, as well as senior scientists from Albania, Argentina, Armenia, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.
All of them are successful despite schooling in their respective national language!
Hence, my main points are:
1. It is not important for English to be the medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics. Stop wasting money and resources trying to implement this.
2. The standard of English in our schools has been deteriorating for so long that many of the teachers we have in schools are themselves not proficient in English.
3. The problem is the teaching of the English language itself. Don’t send Science and Mathematics teachers for English courses when some English teachers themselves need English courses, and English teachers who don’t need English courses need a useful syllabus from which to teach!
5. Don’t make the use of Bahasa Malaysia the scapegoat. It is important for Bahasa Malaysia to remain the medium of instruction in schools for the sake of national identity, which is vital for genuine national unity.
Finally, please identify and address the real problems in our school system.
A student competent in English and Science/Mathematics separately can communicate Science/Mathematics in English even if he/she learnt it in Bahasa Malaysia.
I have had no formal Chinese education, and both my parents barely speak Mandarin. The extent of my Chinese education is weekly tuition classes when I was in primary school.
Yet, with my minimal proficiency in Mandarin, I’ve engaged in lengthy scientific discussions, mainly in Mandarin, with scientists from China and Taiwan on many occasions with good outcomes.
Make sure Science and Mathematics are taught properly, and don’t discriminate against students who are poor in English but may have the aptitude for Science or Mathematics.
Communication can come after understanding has been established.
YAP SOO HUEY,
George Town.
Khairy's letter first.
IT has been almost a year since I called for a review of the teaching of Maths and Science in English while debating the motion on education at the Umno general assembly. I did so based on feedback from grassroots members and also a consistent opposition to the policy since it was announced by the previous prime minister.
I had felt then, as I still do now, that the policy was half-baked, lacking in any rigorous analysis and another attempt at putting a quick-fix band aid on a serious problem requiring structural reforms.
The report "Study reveals policy's flaws" (NST, Sept 7) sheds new light to justify my reservations about the policy. I feel the research conducted by Professor Emeritus Datuk Isahak Haron of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris and other surveys of secondary school students pointing to similar problems must be perused exhaustively and could prove to be crucial in tilting the debate on the issue ahead of the government's promise to review its implementation next year.
For the sake of clarity and lest I be accused of being retrogressive in my thinking, I would like to reiterate that I believe most Malaysians are in agreement that a strong command of the English language is an essential prerequisite for any school-leaver who wants to understand and absorb the massive corpus of knowledge available in reference books written in English at the tertiary level, or any graduate who wants to compete in the marketplace.
The English language has become a basic requirement for students and job-seekers in this increasingly globalised world where it is, for now, the undisputed lingua franca.
The issue here is not the importance of English. That is self-evident and the education system must commit itself to making our students fluent in English. In fact, in my Umno debate I urged Malays to emulate other communities in Malaysia by becoming bilingual, even trilingual. The real issue here is how we improve our children's command of English. I believe strongly that it most definitely is not through a poorly conceived policy like the teaching of Maths and Science in English.
UPSI's findings proved my fears were real and it uncovered the harsh realities our students face in schools due to this flawed policy. In particular, the impact of the policy on Malay students in national schools especially in the rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds has been catastrophic. Not only has it not improved the students' command of English, it has managed to hamper their understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts.
Furthermore, the problems and weaknesses of this policy are not confined to one ethnic group. The study revealed that the ones who gained from the policy were a small percentage of Malay students from upper middle-class families who went to good, urban schools. The paper further showed that even Chinese students struggled with learning Maths and Science when taught in English, demonstrating that this is a problem that cuts across ethnic lines.
In our effort to bridge the urban and rural divide, the gap between rich and poor, it is sad to see that in reality students in national schools, mostly in rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds, have lost out the most as a result of the decision to teach Maths and Science in English.
The full report of the study also confirmed the often-heard anecdotal evidence that one of the key problems is that teachers are finding it difficult to teach in English and consequently students are having a hard time understanding these lessons that are conducted by teachers who themselves are not proficient in the language. As a result, almost 85 per cent of the teachers end up teaching Maths and Science in a mixture of English and Bahasa Malaysia, exposing a fundamental flaw in the implementation of the policy. How do you expect to answer exam questions in English when it is not entirely taught in English in the first place?
I also find myself concurring with the study leader's suggestion that it would be better to allocate more time, staff and money to the teaching of English at the primary school level rather than pursuing the teaching of Maths and Science in English. I have made this point repeatedly, that English is best learnt by the teaching of the English language and not by conflating it with subjects such as Maths and Science.
And to answer the point made by Samuel Yesuiah in his letter "Let's continue with the policy" (NST, Sept 8), if our students are given a sound foundation in the English language itself with proper instruction given to grammar, vocabulary and syntax, they will have few problems understanding "science reference books and journals in English at universities". They don't need to be taught Maths and Science in English to read reference books in English later on. They just need to be proficient in English, which clearly this policy has failed to achieve.
I wrote to this newspaper in November last year calling for immediate improvements to the teaching and learning of English in our schools. But that objective must not be pursued through a policy that not only falls short of its aim to improve English among our students but also seriously hampers their ability to learn Maths and Science.
It is high time we ditched this policy for the failure that it is and learnt from an episode of a flawed and ill-conceived policy defeating what were, I presume, noble intentions.
The second letter is written by Yap Soo Huey.
I WRITE to add to the current debate on the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English.
I graduated in 1999 from a small school in Penang where Science and Mathematics were taught in Bahasa Malaysia. Now, I am a scientist in a leading medical research institute in Australia and will be completing my PhD at the end of this year.
Since starting my PhD candidature in 2005, I have won five awards, including two awards at national conferences for Best Speaker (most other speakers were native English speakers) and one young investigator award at a prestigious international conference.
I am also an author in a major scientific publication and have more publications in the pipeline.
I am not alone in such success. There are two other Malaysians in the institute where I work, as well as senior scientists from Albania, Argentina, Armenia, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.
All of them are successful despite schooling in their respective national language!
Hence, my main points are:
1. It is not important for English to be the medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics. Stop wasting money and resources trying to implement this.
2. The standard of English in our schools has been deteriorating for so long that many of the teachers we have in schools are themselves not proficient in English.
3. The problem is the teaching of the English language itself. Don’t send Science and Mathematics teachers for English courses when some English teachers themselves need English courses, and English teachers who don’t need English courses need a useful syllabus from which to teach!
5. Don’t make the use of Bahasa Malaysia the scapegoat. It is important for Bahasa Malaysia to remain the medium of instruction in schools for the sake of national identity, which is vital for genuine national unity.
Finally, please identify and address the real problems in our school system.
A student competent in English and Science/Mathematics separately can communicate Science/Mathematics in English even if he/she learnt it in Bahasa Malaysia.
I have had no formal Chinese education, and both my parents barely speak Mandarin. The extent of my Chinese education is weekly tuition classes when I was in primary school.
Yet, with my minimal proficiency in Mandarin, I’ve engaged in lengthy scientific discussions, mainly in Mandarin, with scientists from China and Taiwan on many occasions with good outcomes.
Make sure Science and Mathematics are taught properly, and don’t discriminate against students who are poor in English but may have the aptitude for Science or Mathematics.
Communication can come after understanding has been established.
YAP SOO HUEY,
George Town.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Another BTN fiasco
We've discussed the brainwashing which happens in the BTN courses before (here and here). One of the reasons why I'm so critical of the UiTM VC (besides the flaunting of his UMNO credentials and his lack of an academic CV) is the fact that he also proudly lists his credentials as a BTN speaker. One can only imagine the kind of rhetoric he would regularly spout as a speaker in one of these brainwashing sessions. The latest on the BTN issue is a letter sent to Lim Kit Siang. I'll reproduce it below.
BTN’s racist and divisive indoctrination courses
Now that Najib has apologised to non-Malays for Ahmad’s statement, I would like to bring to the attention of Najib the pain endured by the young non-Malay JPA scholars who are required to go through a five-day Biro Tatanegara programme at certain camps in the country. To be fair, many moderate Malay students too cried and were hurt by some racist comments made by the instructors.
As part of the course, which is mandatory before they are sent overseas, all non-Malays are segrgated and given lectures on the history of the country and how the immigration of the Chinese and Indians had taken place. And finally how the Chinese and Indians were given citizenship. The Malays too had their own similar sessions.
The instructors blatantly told them that they should not question the rights and privileges of the Malays as the non-Malays should be thankful that they were given citizenship status and a place to stay on their soil. My daughter together with the other non-Malay students was shocked and went back to their dormitories depressed. And to the Malay students, the instructors told them to be aware of this fact and not to mix too freely with the non-Malays.
A Malay friend of my daughter came back crying to the dormitory saying that she could not take the racist position taken by the government authority. My daughter then began questioning the bumiputra policy and was disgusted with such blatant indoctrination. This incident has also made the students harbour anger and resentment. Their fear for the authorities and losing their scholarships made them keep their cool. I am not exaggerating here - ask all the JPA students to write in anonymously and you will know the truth.
These are young minds being polluted with racism. Tens of thousands of students have gone through this programme and more will be attending it in the future. So can you blame them when they exhibit their racist tendencies when in authority? How could the JPA allow such a syllabus for the cream of the nation, who will one day be entrusted to implement government policies fairly?
So, will Najib take responsibility for the racist syllabus and subsequently the racist remarks and apologise to the tens of thousands of students and parents who were hurt by such hurtful remarks? Of course knowing the BN government, it will deny this. Believe me, this is the ABSOLUTE truth.
My call to Najib is to immediately probe into this claim with the help of a multi-racial team of officers from Suhakam BUT please maintain the anonymity of the young children who have everything to lose. This blatant racism practised and preached by the Barisan Nasional government must stop immediately.
From an outraged Malaysian parent
BTN’s racist and divisive indoctrination courses
Now that Najib has apologised to non-Malays for Ahmad’s statement, I would like to bring to the attention of Najib the pain endured by the young non-Malay JPA scholars who are required to go through a five-day Biro Tatanegara programme at certain camps in the country. To be fair, many moderate Malay students too cried and were hurt by some racist comments made by the instructors.
As part of the course, which is mandatory before they are sent overseas, all non-Malays are segrgated and given lectures on the history of the country and how the immigration of the Chinese and Indians had taken place. And finally how the Chinese and Indians were given citizenship. The Malays too had their own similar sessions.
The instructors blatantly told them that they should not question the rights and privileges of the Malays as the non-Malays should be thankful that they were given citizenship status and a place to stay on their soil. My daughter together with the other non-Malay students was shocked and went back to their dormitories depressed. And to the Malay students, the instructors told them to be aware of this fact and not to mix too freely with the non-Malays.
A Malay friend of my daughter came back crying to the dormitory saying that she could not take the racist position taken by the government authority. My daughter then began questioning the bumiputra policy and was disgusted with such blatant indoctrination. This incident has also made the students harbour anger and resentment. Their fear for the authorities and losing their scholarships made them keep their cool. I am not exaggerating here - ask all the JPA students to write in anonymously and you will know the truth.
These are young minds being polluted with racism. Tens of thousands of students have gone through this programme and more will be attending it in the future. So can you blame them when they exhibit their racist tendencies when in authority? How could the JPA allow such a syllabus for the cream of the nation, who will one day be entrusted to implement government policies fairly?
So, will Najib take responsibility for the racist syllabus and subsequently the racist remarks and apologise to the tens of thousands of students and parents who were hurt by such hurtful remarks? Of course knowing the BN government, it will deny this. Believe me, this is the ABSOLUTE truth.
My call to Najib is to immediately probe into this claim with the help of a multi-racial team of officers from Suhakam BUT please maintain the anonymity of the young children who have everything to lose. This blatant racism practised and preached by the Barisan Nasional government must stop immediately.
From an outraged Malaysian parent
Unfair attacks on UiTM?
Since the posts on UiTM have been mostly negative, actually all negative, I thought that we should have an alternative view for the sake of balance. The following is a letter / email sent from one of our readers. I'm sure that some of our readers will be tempted to 'flame' the writer for his views but I'd like to make an appeal. Please try to write informed comments / criticisms rather than just lash out with knee jerk reactions. For example, the writer says that affirmative action is needed in the Malaysian context. But does the policy of affirmative action require a publicly funded university to be 100% Malay / Bumiputra? Does allowing a quota of 10% of non-Malays mean that affirmative action is no longer practiced in UiTM? I leave our readers to judge.
Following the public demonstration by the UiTM students, we have been bombarded with popular assumptions made by people from all walks of life concerning their idea of what education is, the evil of isolationism and the importance of English. Let us list down all of these popular assumptions with a special reference to UiTM, the favourite punching bag of the day:
Firstly, UiTM is the only university in which the culture of racial chauvinism thrives. In other universities, both public and private, both local and abroad, there is a cosmopolitanism atmosphere in which differences are tolerated, and the multiracial students and faculty members are oh-so-very friendly with each other.
Secondly, the UiTM students are so unfriendly to other people, particularly to those of different races. In contrast, the students from other universities are very warm, jovial and extremely helpful and friendly with everyone.
Thirdly, the UiTM students and graduates are the only ones whose command of English is putrid and atrocious. On the other hand, all the students from other universities could speak English like the native speakers. Why, listening to them, it is very difficult to believe that they are not British, Americans or even Australians. To take this even further, the command of English of all foreign graduates is impeccable and flawless.
Fourthly, the most important commodity that a university student must acquire out of his student life is the ability to communicate well in English, since success in life is solely determined by how well you could express yourself in English.
Most people have never thought of the concept of structural inequality, at the same time they have also chosen to disregard the multitude of elitism producing factors in the society. Most of these critics still believe fervently in the simplistic assumption that if you work hard, success will be in your way. When challenged, these same high priests of meritocracy would point out to some individual examples of successes and hence the conclusion: “you see! without any crutches, only with hard work, you would and could succeed” . This view automatically assumes that the poor are poor because of their own inability and weakness. While this could normally be harmlessly allowed in an academic discourse, to firmly juxtapose this assertion on the predominantly poor malay and bumiputra communities is nothing else other than racism. Hence it is funny to notice how some people tried to portray themselves as liberals yet end up on the dung heap of racism.
The next point of attack concerns the time frame of this policy of protectionism, that is to say, how much longer should UiTM enjoy its special malay/bumiputra nature vis-a vis the affirmative action policy. Well-intentioned critics would see this as a numbers game , that taxpayers have given enough time for UiTM to enjoy its special nature and that the Malay/bumiputra sectors have considerably improved their lot in life, thereby the status quo should be changed. This writer has no qualms in accepting the imperatives of helping the poor. However this must be viewed from a particular context.
Have the malay/bumiputra improved their economic standing? A knee-jerk answer would be in the affirmative, with the ASLI’s findings thrown in to bolster such claims. Unfortunately, there exists considerable ambiguity in such findings since we still are in the dark as to whether the so-called wealth has been spread around the community as opposed to it being in the hands of a few elites. Some would argue that this would not be relevant since if it is shown on paper that the Malays have achieved the specified percentage, then theoretically, the Malays as a whole are now richer. Another argument would be it is every man for himself , and this would be an incentive to spark and sustain future growth, whereby if a man gets RM1 million, it is his alone since it is a reward for his effort and he alone has the absolute share over the spoils. This would then be an incentive for others to work as hard as him, if not harder, and the others would surely obtain similar success . All of these so-called libertarian arguments strategically disregard the power of monopoly, historical and structural inequality of the community together with the greed factor in economics. Justice also has a social dimension to it, whereby it is unjust if the wealth of the community is in the hands of a few elites. There is no problem in supporting the move for wealth to be spread around equitably, that the use of taxpayers’ money should be done in a just manner, that there should be transparency and accountability in the policies of the government. Any reasonable person would be ready to champion such clarion call.
Historical amnesia is always deployed in trying to argue that the history of this country started in 1957/1963 and that every community was born in the said period, with no community having precedence over the other. It is also assumed that the natives of this land had no qualms in accepting any person to be part of the community without any conditions. Hence it has been bandied around that the idea of Malay/bumiputra special positions/rights/privileges is just a constitutional fiction, that the Malays readily accepted the immigrants to be the citizens of this country, embracing them with open arms even, with no prior conditions whatsoever. Some have even gone the extra mile by asserting that the Malays are not the true indigenous people of this country vis-à-vis the Orang Asli, hoping to prove that the Melakan empire together with the pre-islamic malay kingdoms were just a myth. Some of these critics have not even bothered to analyze the British colonial policy papers on the Malays, particularly on the Malay system of education. All of these ridiculous assertions could not hide the inevitable conclusion that the contention that there was absolutely no social contract made between the different races in this nation upon independence is certainly unacceptable.
This writer supports equality and also the call for the affirmative action policies for the malay/bumiputra to be reexamined , which is similarly contained in the Reid Commission’s report. But to do so by disregarding the social and economic disparities of the malay/bumiputra is truly a tad too fanciful.
The main purpose of a tertiary education is not to produce graduates whose command of English is fantastic. It is to educate the student so that he could be a better person and to be instilled with good values such as empathy, trustworthiness and honesty. It is hoped that he would leave the university with a supreme conviction to do good for his family, society and the nation. This is certainly not to deny the importance of the English language. It is however a tool, rather than be seen as an end in itself. Sadly, there are numerous examples of people who got to where they are right now simply on the basis of their command of English. It does not matter if they have no work ethics, it also does not matter if they cannot be trusted to handle the key organizational issues. To the guilty employers, image is everything. As long as the “English factor” could be used to prop up the company’s image, then, why not. It has also been assumed that a good command of English would ipso facto instill some good values in the individual. This is as absurd as the assumption that a good command of Arabic would transform the person into a rabid terrorist. Our society still has an unhealthy obsession with image. As long as the person dresses well and speaks English well, preferably with a genuine sounding accent, then everything is fine although the person might be devoid of ethics altogether. We still have a long way to go in trying to get rid off this “sarong party girls” mentality from our society.
Concerning UiTM itself, many pointed out to the alleged highest unemployment rate of its graduates. What many have conveniently forgotten is that the bulk of the graduates of UiTM are made up of diploma holders. So, what would a good diploma holder do? Why, enroll in a degree course, that’s what. Hence many of these diploma holders then enroll further in degree programmes not just in UiTM, but in other universities as well , thereby earning them the title, “unemployed graduates”. This baseless criticism also assumes that all the graduates of other universities have no problems in the job market, and that they are truly in demand like hot cakes. This is again another nonsensical assumption. This view further assumes that all of the employed graduates are employed based only on merit, not on some other criteria eg, nepotism, cronyism, family connections, etc, etc, which is far from being the case as the job market is rife with such practices. As for the command of English, most Malaysian graduates suffer from this malady as a result of the education system in the schools. Even if you were to walk into the Law Faculty of UM or the law departments of any of the private colleges, you could still find some students with a poor command of English and it goes without saying that not all foreign graduates have a good command of English.
As for unfriendliness and/or racial chauvinism, this writer would be the first to say that not every one is a friendly person. With different personalities and different levels of reasoning and feeling, there would always be people who are different than us. But to simply label ALL UiTM students and graduates as unfriendly and chauvinist and at the same time to assume that all the students and graduates from other universities are virtuous role models and perfect citizens is nonsensical, beyond comprehension. In fact, to say that all of the above problems are uniquely “UiTM” or even worse, “malay/bumiputra” is definitely racism by any other name and therefore inexcusable.
This writer implores all commentators to use logic and good faith in dealing with this subject. Otherwise what is intrinsically an imperative discourse would turn out to be a just a mundane arena in which we display our true persona.
-MOHD NAZIM BIN GANTI SHAARI
Following the public demonstration by the UiTM students, we have been bombarded with popular assumptions made by people from all walks of life concerning their idea of what education is, the evil of isolationism and the importance of English. Let us list down all of these popular assumptions with a special reference to UiTM, the favourite punching bag of the day:
Firstly, UiTM is the only university in which the culture of racial chauvinism thrives. In other universities, both public and private, both local and abroad, there is a cosmopolitanism atmosphere in which differences are tolerated, and the multiracial students and faculty members are oh-so-very friendly with each other.
Secondly, the UiTM students are so unfriendly to other people, particularly to those of different races. In contrast, the students from other universities are very warm, jovial and extremely helpful and friendly with everyone.
Thirdly, the UiTM students and graduates are the only ones whose command of English is putrid and atrocious. On the other hand, all the students from other universities could speak English like the native speakers. Why, listening to them, it is very difficult to believe that they are not British, Americans or even Australians. To take this even further, the command of English of all foreign graduates is impeccable and flawless.
Fourthly, the most important commodity that a university student must acquire out of his student life is the ability to communicate well in English, since success in life is solely determined by how well you could express yourself in English.
Most people have never thought of the concept of structural inequality, at the same time they have also chosen to disregard the multitude of elitism producing factors in the society. Most of these critics still believe fervently in the simplistic assumption that if you work hard, success will be in your way. When challenged, these same high priests of meritocracy would point out to some individual examples of successes and hence the conclusion: “you see! without any crutches, only with hard work, you would and could succeed” . This view automatically assumes that the poor are poor because of their own inability and weakness. While this could normally be harmlessly allowed in an academic discourse, to firmly juxtapose this assertion on the predominantly poor malay and bumiputra communities is nothing else other than racism. Hence it is funny to notice how some people tried to portray themselves as liberals yet end up on the dung heap of racism.
The next point of attack concerns the time frame of this policy of protectionism, that is to say, how much longer should UiTM enjoy its special malay/bumiputra nature vis-a vis the affirmative action policy. Well-intentioned critics would see this as a numbers game , that taxpayers have given enough time for UiTM to enjoy its special nature and that the Malay/bumiputra sectors have considerably improved their lot in life, thereby the status quo should be changed. This writer has no qualms in accepting the imperatives of helping the poor. However this must be viewed from a particular context.
Have the malay/bumiputra improved their economic standing? A knee-jerk answer would be in the affirmative, with the ASLI’s findings thrown in to bolster such claims. Unfortunately, there exists considerable ambiguity in such findings since we still are in the dark as to whether the so-called wealth has been spread around the community as opposed to it being in the hands of a few elites. Some would argue that this would not be relevant since if it is shown on paper that the Malays have achieved the specified percentage, then theoretically, the Malays as a whole are now richer. Another argument would be it is every man for himself , and this would be an incentive to spark and sustain future growth, whereby if a man gets RM1 million, it is his alone since it is a reward for his effort and he alone has the absolute share over the spoils. This would then be an incentive for others to work as hard as him, if not harder, and the others would surely obtain similar success . All of these so-called libertarian arguments strategically disregard the power of monopoly, historical and structural inequality of the community together with the greed factor in economics. Justice also has a social dimension to it, whereby it is unjust if the wealth of the community is in the hands of a few elites. There is no problem in supporting the move for wealth to be spread around equitably, that the use of taxpayers’ money should be done in a just manner, that there should be transparency and accountability in the policies of the government. Any reasonable person would be ready to champion such clarion call.
Historical amnesia is always deployed in trying to argue that the history of this country started in 1957/1963 and that every community was born in the said period, with no community having precedence over the other. It is also assumed that the natives of this land had no qualms in accepting any person to be part of the community without any conditions. Hence it has been bandied around that the idea of Malay/bumiputra special positions/rights/privileges is just a constitutional fiction, that the Malays readily accepted the immigrants to be the citizens of this country, embracing them with open arms even, with no prior conditions whatsoever. Some have even gone the extra mile by asserting that the Malays are not the true indigenous people of this country vis-à-vis the Orang Asli, hoping to prove that the Melakan empire together with the pre-islamic malay kingdoms were just a myth. Some of these critics have not even bothered to analyze the British colonial policy papers on the Malays, particularly on the Malay system of education. All of these ridiculous assertions could not hide the inevitable conclusion that the contention that there was absolutely no social contract made between the different races in this nation upon independence is certainly unacceptable.
This writer supports equality and also the call for the affirmative action policies for the malay/bumiputra to be reexamined , which is similarly contained in the Reid Commission’s report. But to do so by disregarding the social and economic disparities of the malay/bumiputra is truly a tad too fanciful.
The main purpose of a tertiary education is not to produce graduates whose command of English is fantastic. It is to educate the student so that he could be a better person and to be instilled with good values such as empathy, trustworthiness and honesty. It is hoped that he would leave the university with a supreme conviction to do good for his family, society and the nation. This is certainly not to deny the importance of the English language. It is however a tool, rather than be seen as an end in itself. Sadly, there are numerous examples of people who got to where they are right now simply on the basis of their command of English. It does not matter if they have no work ethics, it also does not matter if they cannot be trusted to handle the key organizational issues. To the guilty employers, image is everything. As long as the “English factor” could be used to prop up the company’s image, then, why not. It has also been assumed that a good command of English would ipso facto instill some good values in the individual. This is as absurd as the assumption that a good command of Arabic would transform the person into a rabid terrorist. Our society still has an unhealthy obsession with image. As long as the person dresses well and speaks English well, preferably with a genuine sounding accent, then everything is fine although the person might be devoid of ethics altogether. We still have a long way to go in trying to get rid off this “sarong party girls” mentality from our society.
Concerning UiTM itself, many pointed out to the alleged highest unemployment rate of its graduates. What many have conveniently forgotten is that the bulk of the graduates of UiTM are made up of diploma holders. So, what would a good diploma holder do? Why, enroll in a degree course, that’s what. Hence many of these diploma holders then enroll further in degree programmes not just in UiTM, but in other universities as well , thereby earning them the title, “unemployed graduates”. This baseless criticism also assumes that all the graduates of other universities have no problems in the job market, and that they are truly in demand like hot cakes. This is again another nonsensical assumption. This view further assumes that all of the employed graduates are employed based only on merit, not on some other criteria eg, nepotism, cronyism, family connections, etc, etc, which is far from being the case as the job market is rife with such practices. As for the command of English, most Malaysian graduates suffer from this malady as a result of the education system in the schools. Even if you were to walk into the Law Faculty of UM or the law departments of any of the private colleges, you could still find some students with a poor command of English and it goes without saying that not all foreign graduates have a good command of English.
As for unfriendliness and/or racial chauvinism, this writer would be the first to say that not every one is a friendly person. With different personalities and different levels of reasoning and feeling, there would always be people who are different than us. But to simply label ALL UiTM students and graduates as unfriendly and chauvinist and at the same time to assume that all the students and graduates from other universities are virtuous role models and perfect citizens is nonsensical, beyond comprehension. In fact, to say that all of the above problems are uniquely “UiTM” or even worse, “malay/bumiputra” is definitely racism by any other name and therefore inexcusable.
This writer implores all commentators to use logic and good faith in dealing with this subject. Otherwise what is intrinsically an imperative discourse would turn out to be a just a mundane arena in which we display our true persona.
-MOHD NAZIM BIN GANTI SHAARI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)