‘Politicians, not vernacular schools, causing national disunity

 

Malaysia celebrates 66th anniversary of independence -

PETALING JAYA: It is not vernacular schools causing national disunity, but politicians like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, says Sungai Buloh MP Datuk R. Ramanan.

The Malaysian Indian Transformation Unit (Mitra) Special Committee chairman said it was most regrettable that Dr Mahathir had to resort to a seditious statement in calling for the abolishment of vernacular schools recently.

At 98 years old, Dr Mahathir should play the role of bringing Malaysians together instead of creating division, said Ramanan, who is also PKR deputy information chief. As such, he urged the former prime minister to “stop his continuous inflammatory statements which bring no value to national unity”.

Ramanan also pointed out that unlike private schools, vernacular schools funded by the Federal Government have existed since our independence and are part of the national school system.

“The Chinese primary schools, for example, have over 100,000 Malays, Indians and other bumiputras, and like Indian primary schools, they play a major role in nation-building.

“I invite Dr Mahathir to visit these schools for himself and see their contribution to national unity in their programmes and syllabus,” said Ramanan in a statement yesterday.

He also said that some of the best talents have graduated from these primary schools and are occupying high positions in the government and private sector.

As a result of the existence of these schools, Malaysians have been able to have a grasp of Mandarin and Tamil, which are linguistic assets, said Ramanan.

“One reason why Malays and Indians are sending their children to these vernacular schools for six years of primary education is because they want their children to learn Mandarin or Tamil,” said Ramanan.

He added that with China and India being major economies, Malaysians who are able to speak these languages are marketable and sought after.

Ramanan also said that Bahasa Malaysia is also highly emphasised in these schools.

“It’s unfortunate that Dr Mahathir has chosen to see everything from a racial angle to ensure that he is in the news,” he said, while also questioning if Dr Mahathir’s grandchildren attended private or international schools or studied in national schools.

Ramanan said he was initially very hesitant to respond to Dr Mahathir’s remarks about abolishing vernacular schools, but felt that a rebuttal was necessary to put the record straight.

“It is most unfortunate that Dr Mahathir still refers to Malaysians who are not Malays as pendatang (immigrants) as we celebrate the nation’s 66th anniversary.

“Let me quote American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr, who said ‘we all come in different ships but we are in the same boat now’.

“That is the destiny of all Malaysians, regardless of our race and religion,” he said.

Source link

Malaysia celebrates 66th anniversary of independence - Xinhua

Dr M calls parties led by non-Malays 'parti pendatang'

Report: Dr Mahathir says racial issues caused by non-Malay

Giving a choice of education to our students in Malaysian school systems

Malaysian school systems: http://www.globalchildhoods.net/index.php?page=malaysia

We can have many different school systems, as long as they all teach ways to acquire relevant skills and knowledge.

"Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity."

THE Johor Sultan’s recent proposal for there to be a single school system for the country became the latest talking point amongst teachers last week. The Sultan’s proposal, among other things, entails the use of English as a medium of instruction.

In the public space, the discussion went off tangent straight away. Some were quick to defend the present system because they said we need to preserve the vernacular schools, which in turn are meant to ensure the preservation of Chinese and Indian culture and their respective mother tongues.

These supporters seemed to suggest that without vernacular schools, the people of these respective ethnic groups would lose their cultures and languages altogether.

There are some primary-level vernacular schools in rural parts of India that are intended for the continued use of their mother tongue. However, students have the flexibility of transferring to English-medium schools at the secondary level. This flexibility enables Indian education to be largely singular in its system, with a wide use of English as medium of instruction.

Unfortunately, our view of vernacular schools is tied to a political idea: that politicians of a particular ethnic group are required to defend these vernacular schools – regardless of their actual usefulness and value to their communities – as an indicator of their care and concern for the welfare of their communities. Education becomes a political tool.

Middle-class parents want the present system to be retained because the approach taken by successive Ministers of Education has essentially been to privatise education. Hundreds of licences for private schools have been issued, and even international schools are now open to locals with the means to afford them for their children.

So this wealthy group does not mind the present system because for them at least, education is now isolated from the mainstream ; and they are thus able to have what some of them believe to be a superior method of teaching children, and imparting the right kind of education.

Others who want a single system insist on vernacular schools being abolished, and in their place “a Malay (national) centric system” where schools can impart lessons on loyalty and patriotism with more vigour. They argue that we still need to instil patriotism, unity and racial harmony in our pupils and students.

They believe that a sufficient amount of indoctrination is necessary to turn our young into “true Malaysians”, while religious classes and adequate prayer halls will shape Malay children into good Muslims (since we now seek to be Syariah-compliant in everything we do).

We can safely say that under the present political setup, no government will dare abolish vernacular schools. So if national schools become more “Malay” and more Islamic, we can expect more vernacular schools to mushroom all over the country, keeping pace with private schools (local and international ) as they seek to attract ever-larger numbers of students whose parents have “no confidence” in the national school system.

We can have as many systems in our schools as we like, as long as the “one” overriding component in any system that matters is the idea that schools are for teaching students to acquire deep knowledge and skills relevant to the present world.

Schools of the 21st century do not exist primarily to build national unity, to foster narrow nationalism, or to protect any mother tongue. They are not designed to make you “a better person” or religious and sin-free, for that matter.

Today’s education is primarily about having the right skills to get jobs, as the effect of globalisation and new artificial intelligence will be taking a lot of our work away, and may ultimately make us all redundant if we are not prepared. In that context, education must be about giving our children relevant, useful and productive skills.

If the characteristics of the national school were to be modelled on those found in Switzerland, Finland or Singapore, for example, (with some modifications, of course), that would be acceptable because their focus is on producing students with skills that are useful in this present environment.

The diversity of available subjects, with options given to parents to decide on issues such as language, can accommodate different aspirations without compromising on quality or the schools’ central mission.

I recently met a Finnish teacher in Helsinki who was proud to tell me that almost all Finnish students speak three European languages, although there is no compulsion to do so in their school system.

According to this teacher, they have to be multilingual because then their job opportunities become much wider. Necessity always produces better education systems and methods.

Mother tongues can be kept alive through their regular use in a modern education system, without having vernacular schools. Let’s face it: having a poor and mediocre Tamil school system with low enrolment will not do much to help preserve the language and culture of the Tamil community. The only people who benefit are Tamil politicians.

Today’s education produces well-rounded children who will get jobs. It’s when they have no jobs that we worry, no matter how well they can speak their mother tongue.

Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.

By Zaid Ibrahim All kinds of everything

Former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (carbofree@gmail.com) is now a legal consultant. The views expressed here are entirely his own.


Related posts:

Malaysia's vernacular schools not the problem

Those who oppose vernacular schools ... are driven by their desire to produce a society moulded in a way that they desire. Please keep e...

Barking up the wrong tree !!

Chinese language advantage and education in M'sia; Don’t turn it into a political tool!

A new status for Chinese

I often take a long pause when I am asked about what I do in Beijing, especially if the person is from Malaysia. For the last two decades, more than 90% of Chinese Malaysian families send their children to vernacular primary schools. Those who do not read and write some…

Malaysia's vernacular schools not the problem

Those who oppose vernacular schools ... are driven by their desire to produce a society moulded in a way that they desire. Please keep element of choice for both parents and students.

AMONG those opposing vernacular schools, you can detect one umbrella argument that is continuously used by many parties. They say that the existence of vernacular schools is a threat to national identity and a hindrance to unity. Their fear is that this student segregation will lead to a fracturing of our society.

I disagree with this view. I think they confuse the purpose of education and there is also a lot of hypo­crisy going on.

Let us firstly look at the concept of schooling. Historically, the entity known as a school has its origin in Prussia in the early 1800s.

At that time, Prussians were looking at methods to produce citizens who would loyally work and fight for causes determined by their rulers. So they devised a system where, from a very young age, their citizens were trained to live a regimented life.

It did not matter what your abilities and interests were. As long as you were of the same age, you would be grouped together and forced to learn subjects determined by the elites.

Like the military, there was heavy emphasis on leadership by head teachers and teachers, while students were mere recipients of what was taught to them. That regimentation remains as the nature of modern schools.

After two centuries of bureaucratic evolution, schools these days are not about providing holistic education to support the child’s individual growth anymore. Instead it is about producing cohorts of citizens who can be easily grouped and compartmentalised.

Every one of us who went through the modern school system has been compartmentalised into groups based on our exam results.

And that is also why it has become the norm for those in power to use the school as a tool for social engineering. From day one, since Prussian times, the purpose of a school has always been about social engineering. Yet the vast majority of people today confuse schools with education.

In reality, you can still get an education without going to what have become our traditional schools. Education can be obtained from home, or in informal groups that come together for what is today known as “home-schooling”.

More interestingly, there is also a global interest in concepts such as unschooling, Sudbury schools, and democratic schools.

Those who oppose vernacular schools usually do not argue about the quality of education received by the students. They are not driven by the desire to catalyse social mobility by ensuring everyone has access to quality education. But they are driven by their desire to produce a society moulded in a way that they approve of.

The elites have a concept of what they feel society should be like and they want to use the Prussian factory-like model of schools to produce underlings who behave according to their pre-determined mould. To legitimise their mould, they label it as unity.

Note that their desire for unity has nothing to do with education. Their focus is on schooling. And this is where the hypocrisy creeps in.

Many of the people who want to promote their mould of unity have never attended any of our government schools. They don’t even send their own kids to our schools.

They step into our schools perhaps for a few hours a year for hyped-up visits, yet they speak as if they really know. More amazingly, they speak as if they actually have faith in our school system when their actions show otherwise.

In reality, these elites campaign for something that will never affect them. When it comes to their own families, they send their children for a “better” education elsewhere.

They want to limit our choices on schools because they know that they can always pay their way out and send their own children to a school of their choice.

This is the tragedy of some of the privileged. Instead of looking for ways to make sure everyone can afford school choices like them, they want to kill choice for everyone who cannot afford to pay.

Let me pose a rhetorical question.

If unity can only be achieved by making students from different backgrounds come together in one school, then why do they just want to close vernacular schools?

To be specific, data shows that Chinese schools have higher ethnic diversity than other schools. I can think of many non-Chinese schools that are completely mono-ethnic. If we are objective, it is not the Chinese schools that need to be closed down.

This is why I say that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate. Worse, that hypocrisy is clouded by confusion about whether we want to educate or we just want to have factory-like schooling.

The vernacular school debate is a debate of the elite. For us common people, our sole desire is to be able to provide our kids with quality education.

It is possible to provide school choices for the commoners, such as by using school vouchers so that choice is provided but schools are still free for the students.

Of course, it will take time to move towards this choice-based system. Until we get there, I beg the elites to stop trying to kill what few choices remain for us poorer citizens of this country.

By Wan Saiful Wan Jan The Star

Thinking Liberally

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely
the writer’s own.

Related posts:

Separate the Attorney-General's powers to correct a flaw ... Jul 7, 2015 ... Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs ( www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are ...

 Fighting corruption must be serious !

Jun 23, 2015 ... Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are ...

Barking up the wrong tree !!

In "civil liberties"

Chinese language advantage and education in M'sia; Don’t turn it into a political tool!

In "civil liberties"

A new status for Chinese

I often take a long pause when I am asked about what I do in Beijing, especially if the person is from Malaysia. For the last two decades, more than 90% of Chinese Malaysian families send their children to vernacular primary schools. Those who do not read and write some…

In "Main"

Related:

Can liberalism save Malaysia?

Do we want peace or unity?

Bad politics in mosques

Taxes must not be too taxing

Answering to the people

State more dominant in business