Time to reset East Asia

It has been a week full of dire implications for regional relations, even if nobody wants to admit it.

WHAT do Philippine-US joint naval exercises, a visiting Japanese Defence Minister and the World Peace Forum at Beijing’s prestigious Tsinghua University in recent days have in common?

Answer: disputed territorial claims in East Asian waters. More specifically, these events during the week have resonated particularly with disputed maritime claims involving China.

Although each of these occasions has had motivations of its own, maritime disputes as a recurrent theme makes them seem larger than intended. That illustrates the pervasive nature of territorial disputes in the region.

When politicians and diplomats wish to make a point beyond a standard statement, they look for opportune moments on which to frame that point. The week had provided three occasions for that: joint war games, a minister’s visit(s) and an international peace conference.

These events need not have anything to do with each other, even if they all kicked off on Thursday. But as it happened, the common theme linking them was unmistakable.

This year’s two-day World Peace Forum (WPF) at Tsinghua is only the second in an annual series, and already it is more ambitious in scope and attendance than last year’s. Among the assembled scholars and public intellectuals were a virtual who’s who of former national leaders from around the world.

June 27, 2013: Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao addresses the Opening Ceremony of the World Peace Forum 2013 in Beijing, capital of China. (Xinhua/Xie Huanchi)

The WPF is a joint initiative between Tsinghua University and the China Institute of Foreign Affairs. It is described as China’s first high-level security forum for in-depth discussion on regional security issues.

Tsinghua, of course, is the alma mater of several Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping. The WPF’s Secretary-General is prominent Chinese academic and internationally respected intellectual Yan Xuetong, who is articulate in both Chinese and English.

Given its brief but impressive record, there is little doubt that the WPF will establish itself as the region’s leading security forum. This year’s theme was said to span innovative approaches to, and possible areas for, international security cooperation.

But however laudable these aims may be, they would have to wait. The value-added in the intended theme would have to come privately from researchers and scholars in due course, because the professional politicians and diplomats have so far produced little that is new.

Being from the host country, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Vice-President Li Yuanchao were among the few serving officials in attendance. They combined reassurances of China’s commitment to peace with firm warnings against rival claims to disputed territories.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a delegate at the forum, caused a stir in Japan with a post-conference Beijing interview quoting him as saying that China’s disputed territorial claims were “inevitable”.

China and Japan remain locked in dispute over the Pinnacle Islands, which China calls Diaoyu and Japan calls Senkaku.

Hatoyama later clarified his comments by saying that he meant China’s claims were “understandable”, adding that he “won’t deny China’s position”. That only added to the furore in Tokyo.

Hatoyama is known to favour a more Asia-centric Japan over the country’s post-war Western-centrism. China has in turn looked to him to facilitate closer bilateral relations.

At the same time, Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera visited Manila for two-day talks on regional security issues. The focus of discussions was understood to be China’s recent assertiveness in regional waters.

Besides the Spratly Islands, the Philippines and China both claim sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which the Philippines calls Panatag Shoal and China calls Huangyan Island. That produced a months-long standoff between the two claimants last year, which technically remains today.

Philippine warships withdrew one year ago this month owing to bad weather, but Chinese naval vessels remained. The standoff has not been resolved and still appears to defy resolution.

Both countries also claim Second Thomas Shoal, which the Philippines calls Ayungin Shoal and China calls Ren’ai Jiao. Even the names of seas are in disagreement: the Philippines has taken to calling the South China Sea the West Philippine Sea.

Onodera’s visit can be seen in context when viewed together with events that follow. He continued his travel to Hawaii to discuss regional security issues with his US counterparts this weekend, as Asean Foreign Ministers met in Brunei last week

Meanwhile, the Philippines also launched joint military exercises with the US on Thursday. The six-day Carat (Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training) 2013 war games cover a wide range of contingency functions, including interoperability between the Philippine and US navies.

US destroyer USS Fitzgerald arrives at the former US naval base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City, north of Manila on June 27, 2013, to join the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises close to a flashpoint area of the South China Sea.

Manila is also considering allowing the US “and other allies” (principally, Japan) to use Philippine bases in case of military challenges over disputed territory from China.

The Philippine Constitution has since 1987 barred foreign military bases on Philippine soil. This includes the military bases of countries considered allies.

However, the Philippine government is currently tweaking all three words “foreign”, “military” and “bases” to allow what would functionally amount to foreign military bases in the country.

Foreign military forces may be permitted to enter Philippine military facilities with their vessels, equipment (including weapons and weapon systems) and troops. They may be permitted to stay for the duration of their needs, which cover repair, refuelling and re-supply.

There are no time limits for fulfilling these needs. So, in practice, ally countries may station their forces in the Philippines indefinitely.

In addition, US military forces including aircraft carrier fleets would be able to remain in and operate from adjacent waters. The option of foreign military “places, not bases” would continue, plus the use of “Philippine” military bases in the Philippines.

For Manila, all that would serve as a deterrent against any untoward challenges from Beijing. Neither the Philippines nor anyone else can imagine a straightforward one-on-one faceoff with China for any extended period, given the huge disparities between the two countries’ capacities.

But while on the surface tugging at big brother’s (US’ and/or Japan’s) coat sleeves may seem like a solution for Philippine policymakers, there are some serious problems with such an assumption.

How far can the Philippines expect a major power acting as patron to come to its aid as and when needed? Such a service, even if available, will exact a price that Filipinos may not find acceptable.

To what extent can such an obliging major power, if one exists, restrain provocative Philippine actions that invite retaliation? Would Manila be prepared to submit to such restraints?

And when push comes to shove, would any major power back Philippine actions to the hilt against China? The US and Japan have important economic and other ties to China they would be loath to jeopardise for a third party.

Adding to Manila’s anxieties is the Philippine uniqueness of having borders that are more amorphous and disputed than virtually any other country. It is something Philippine officials “understand” more than they care to admit, given the implications for foreign relations.

The 1987 Constitution tries to address the issue by limiting national territory to areas currently occupied by the national administration. But that has not stopped different interpretations of what constitutes “current occupation”.

Philippine officials are still working out the terms of an “access agreement” for its military bases with big-power allies, which would be consistent with the Constitution and the existing Visiting Forces Agreement. To be workable, the new agreement would also have to be consistent with reality.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES BY BUNN NAGARA

> Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at ISIS (Institute of Strategic and International Studies) Malaysia.
  
Related posts:
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world ... 
 Chinese Navy defends South China Sea
China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea
Restoring unity at South China Sea 
No one can stop China in South China Sea but China ... 
Who owns Diaoyu Islands? 
China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan ... 
Japanese right-wingers seek political gains landed on Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's strategic offensive, from Diaoyu Islands to Nay ... 
Japan stole Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike ...
China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands
China sends fighters to counter Japan's war planes 
Dispute with China takes toll on Japan

Right ways to boost teaching of English in Malaysia

In part two of his article, Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon puts forward a multi-pronged approach that can be adopted to reach the goal of improved English literacy among Malaysians. Reintroduction of English-medium schools along the lines of private and international schools but affordable to a larger segment of the population is one of the options. 

WITH the Education Blueprint currently being finalised, there remains an excellent window of opportunity to re-chart our course for the future. At the primary school level where parental choice is significant, it appears that the dream of a national school where students of different races come together at age seven is more unattainable than it was in 1970.

In 1970, almost a third of the students were enrolled in English-medium schools which were ethnically mixed and growing in significance in terms of share vis a vis other language medium schools before the policy was abruptly changed.

Fast forward to present day and it is patently obvious that after four decades of implementation of the policy, our primary schools have become more ethnically separated – statistics on student enrolment in national schools reveal that 94% of the students are Malay and 96% of Chinese parents now enrol their children in Chinese schools, up from 50% in 1970.

Mother tongue

Ironically, it is the Chinese vernacular schools which are now the most ethnically mixed, with a good 9% from the Malay community and 3% from Indians and others.

For a large and growing proportion of Malaysian families, English has and remains the effective language of communication to the extent that it has become a mother tongue. Such families no longer speak their ethnic tongue.

Much has been said about the pursuit of national unity through the study and use of a common language, Bahasa Malaysia (BM).

However, this does not and cannot mean that learning and pursuing knowledge in languages other than BM will erode national integration efforts, patriotism or make us less Malaysian.

Virtually all our past and present prime ministers were educated in English-medium schools. In fact, the current Minister of Education I and II went through English-medium schools and universities. They are certainly not less nationalistic on account of that experience. On the contrary, they are more confident and accomplished on the Malaysian and international stage because of it.

By bringing back the option of English-medium schools, teaching not only science and maths but other subjects like geography and literature in English will allow us to tap into world-class curricula, textbooks and, more importantly in this Internet age, enhance access to virtually unlimited storehouses of up-to-date knowledge which are predominantly in the English language.

In such schools, BM should be taught intensively as a compulsory subject to enable students from English-medium schools to take and pass the same Form Five BM paper as their counterparts in the national schools. This ensures all attain the same competency in the national language while allowing students to be more proficient in English and able to engage fully with the world.

An independent survey undertaken in April 2012 by Introspek Asia revealed that 26% of Malaysians “always, most of the time and sometimes” speak English to their children. For this large group of people, English is effectively their mother tongue.

The argument therefore is that this English-speaking multiracial group comprising 23% to 26% of the population should be allowed the option of sending their children to English-medium schools.

Furthermore, this option already exists for the higher income families who can afford the English-medium private and international schools in the country.

However, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents of all races who would like their children to benefit from an English-medium school education as a means to enhancing their upward social mobility just because they could not afford it.

Closing the divide

This has contributed to widening the performance divide between students in the rural-urban areas and household income categories and the government should step in to provide this option to level the playing field.

Any attempt to improve English proficiency must take cognisance of the fact that international research has shown that at least 60% immersion in English and subjects is necessary for full English proficiency to take root, and this can best be done in an English-medium school.

Teaching English as a subject and devoting only 10% to 15% of the teaching hours to English may be inadequate in building English operational proficiency (as acknowledged in the 2012 Blueprint p. 4 to 9).

At least 60% immersion is necessary to raise the level of English proficiency among students, and ensure that children from the lower income households are not deprived of the opportunities enjoyed by students schooled in private and/or international schools.

Expand opportunities 

Obviously, a programme to increase English immersion cannot be identical for each of the 10,000 schools in the country, given varying capabilities to implement the programme.

What is clear is the country’s wish to reclaim lost ground in English language proficiency.

Milestones have been identified to measure outcomes, for example, the official target of making English a compulsory must pass subject by 2016 and the announced goal of achieving 70% pass with credit in the Cambridge 1119 English language examination paper by 2025.

We need to do things radically different if we are to attain these goals.

There has to be a multi-pronged approach to reach the goal of improved English literacy amongst Malaysians.

Towards the end of last year, the Ministry ascertained that the majority of the 70,000 English language teachers do not have the necessary skills level to teach in English and have set in place a series of programmes to upskill them. This is a basic requirement that has to be done but this process will take time.

In the meantime, while the upskilling process is going on, to increase the pool of teachers we need to call upon retirees who can teach in English – there are 400,000 teachers and 3% of them retire every year – i.e 12,000 a year.

If we consider that teachers between the ages of 55 and 70 can still teach effectively, the total number of retired teachers would be 180,000 in that age group and if only 10% were capable of teaching in English, there is a pool of 18,000 to call back to active duty.

We should offer them full pay and at the same time, they would continue to draw their pension (approximately 60%), and this would mean that they would take home a total of about 160% of their last drawn salary.

This is very different from the pre-2005 days when teachers were offered to work beyond retirement at the same pay as then they would be working for only 40% of their salary since their pension would be paid anyway, and that is the reason why not many would want to extend beyond their retirement age.

There are also thousands of other retirees who are fluent in English but were not teachers. On a short course basis, it must be possible to call upon some of them to be teachers in English in this national effort.

In addition, flexible working arrangements like part-time work can also attract mid-career mothers who have left the workplace because they could not do a full-time job.

Having dramatically increased the supply and pool of English teachers using the above, we need to apply the immersion method of English learning through three channels:

1. National Schools: Increase the contact time in English from the current 15% to 40% or more in stages over the next few years.

Projects and activities to be conducted in English in addition to Bahasa Malaysia. Progressively add subjects to be taught in English to raise the contact time in English

Using textbooks, if necessary from other English-speaking countries, we can quickly add subjects to be taught in English progressively until we reach 40%.

The time spent in English in national schools to be dramatically raised, and to work out the resources to be applied to reach those targets and not the other way round.

2. Some national schools are, however, more ready to take off in the English language than others. For example, high-performing schools and some mission schools, which have quicker access to retired teachers who can come back to teach in English.

Model schools

These schools are to be given increased autonomy to adopt international curriculum and assessments. Bahasa Malaysia will continue to be a compulsory subject and taught intensively. Given their capacity to implement faster, they could become model schools in a pilot project that could be extended to other schools later.

3. Re-introduce English-medium schools as an option along the lines of private and international schools but affordable to a larger segment of the population. These schools teach in English for most subjects but offer Bahasa Malaysia as a compulsory subject.

Using a multi-pronged approach, we have a chance to achieve the goal of having 70% of our schoolchildren attain a credit pass in Cambridge 1119 English by 2025.

More importantly, it allows for our students to quickly tap into all the knowledge available in the Internet, which is primarily in English.

It is proposed that a detailed programme of engagement be worked out, starting with a survey both in the urban and rural areas among parents of students in existing schools as well as parents of children about to enter the schooling system. This survey should gather data by postcode location on whether parents would send their children to English-medium education if given the choice.

With the survey results, the government can assess the size of the demand for English schools and make the necessary plans to satisfy it at least through a pilot implementation.

The results of the pilot study will provide government with better policy-making inputs on the potential outcomes that can be expected from such schools in terms of ethnic integration, achievement rates and
proficiency in English moving forward.

In addition, the results, if positive, will also serve to soften the hard stance of those opposed to a change in the policy that may be long overdue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren of all races to see this through.

> Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon is managing director of Royal Selangor and President of the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. He also serves on the boards of EPF, MIDA and Matrade.


Related posts:

Charting the way forward for English-medium schools in Malaysia

Right, Bring back English schools would be a smart move for Malaysians 
Winning education, America and China! 
Beware of Malaysian Chinese school leavers being lured into dubious degree and diploma programs ! 
English language in Malaysia in dire straits! 
'Poke-eye' Melayu English blunder, Mindef blames ... 
“Clothes that poke eye”, Melayu English; Lost in ... 
'Poke eye' Melayu English in many public institutions ...

Charting the way forward for English-medium schools in Malaysia

There has been much talk about English-medium schools in recent days. The end of English-medium schools came abruptly with little or no discussion during troubling times. Now may well be the time for discourse on such schools.

 Over the past few weeks, many articles and letters have been published on the desirability of reintroducing English-medium schools in Malaysia. Those among us who were schooled in the 50s and 60s often reminisce with fondness and nostalgia about the good times we shared with friends of all races.

We also recall the many devoted teachers who “terrified” us but yet earned our highest respect, so well portrayed by Lat in his cartoons in the characters of Mr Singh, Tuan Syed and Mrs Hew.

Students then identified strongly with their schools and healthy inter-school rivalry contributed to raising not just academic standards but the standard of sports and other extra-curricular activities, including inter-school debates.

Looking back, it is easy to see why so many of us recall our schooling days with such fond memories and wish to revisit those days of old.

In looking back, it is important to get a sense of how multiracial schools were then and the significant role played by English-medium schools in bringing us together as Malaysians before such schools were phased out from 1970.

Statistics are difficult to come by but there is a gem of a publication entitled Educational Statistics of Malaysia 1938 to 1967 published by the Educational Planning and Research Division of the Ministry of Education Malaysia in 1967 which is available online at http://www.fmm.org.my/upload/Educational%20Statistics%20of%20Malaysia%201938-1967.pdf.

Also included was an important graph charting the enrolment of students in assisted schools between 1947 and 1967 (see chart).

It is clear from the chart that enrolment in the English-medium schools enjoyed the highest rate of growth among the language streams and would have become the largest group of schools in the country if the policy had not been abruptly changed in 1970.

Suffice to say that by 1967, English-medium schools accounted for 33.8% of all students in the country, Malay-medium schools 40.3%, Chinese-medium schools 21.4% and Tamil-medium schools 4.5%.

It is also useful to recall that parents were allowed, then, to choose the language stream of the schools they enrolled their children in.

As no statistics were available on the racial breakdown of students in the English-medium schools, a close approximation was made by dividing the total population of students in 1967 according to the racial composition of each group in that year and subtracting the number of students already enrolled in their respective language medium schools.

The balance is a realistic approximation of students enrolled in the English-medium schools. Using this method of approximation, the English-medium schools had attracted a healthy racial mix of approximately 34.6% Malay, Chinese 43.1%, 16.4% Indian and 5.9% “other” students. (see chart 2)

At the secondary school level, English-medium schools, administered by both the government as well as mission schools were by far, the most popular type of schools, attracting more students than any of the other language streams, a choice made by the majority of parents throughout the country.

Students followed a curriculum used worldwide and textbooks in English that were carefully selected and graded in complexity through years of use and fine-tuning.

Students then sat for examinations that were internationally graded and recognised as the “O” Levels of the Cambridge Examination Board. Such students later went on to assume important positions in all sectors of the economy – the government, bureaucracy, academia and the private sector.

The landscape, however, changed radically after the May 10, 1969 general election and the riots of May 13. Amid the uncertainty and following the trauma of the events, the then newly appointed Education Minister, Datuk Abdul Rahman Yaacob, only two months into the job, and with little if any consultation, announced a new policy.

The policy was that from 1970, English-medium schools would cease to exist and remaining students in English language-medium schools would be phased out over the next 11 years until they completed Form Five in 1982.

This radical decision saw the beginning of the gradual erosion of the strong English language foundation, a competitive edge that Malaysia had enjoyed over its neighbouring countries for decades.

Along with the removal of English- medium schools, a number of serious problems emerged in the education system, including low achievement rates in science, mathematics and reasoning as evidenced in Malaysia’s low PISA and TIMSS scores, the employability of graduates and their relative competitiveness in an increasingly globalised world.

It is no mere coincidence that the top 10 scorers are from the OECD countries and Asian tigers, and if we are to achieve sustainable high income status in the future, our scores in these benchmarks have to be improved.

We are heartened by the current national dialogue taking place over the drafting and finalisation of the National Education Blueprint. Various interest groups and stakeholders have been consulted, including right up to the Council of Rulers, and rightly so given the special place that education has in the heart of every parent and central to the competitiveness of a nation.

Contrast this consultation with the overnight decision then to abandon English as the medium of instruction – a decision taken whilst the country was caught in the immediate aftermath of the May 13 riots where many people were killed and cars and shophouses were burnt and the priority then was security and bringing back life to normalcy.

We will leave it to researchers and insiders at the ministry at that time to reveal the reasons for this sudden promulgation of a policy that had such a long term negative impact on our competitiveness.

We only know, for example, that veteran politician Dr Goh Cheng Teik wrote in December 1970 in his book The May Thirteenth Incident and Democracy in Malaysia that the radical educational policy change in 1969 was made without the knowledge or authorisation of then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Referring to the same issue, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in his book Doctor in the House wrote, “Out of the blue, Tun Rahman Yaacob announced that all government secondary schools and government-aided schools would become National Secondary Schools where the teaching would be in Malay. Schools in Sarawak and Sabah, however would be exempted. His decision made Tun Rahman very popular with the Malays, particularly Malay university students, but the move had a political rather than an academic agenda.”

It is not too late in the day to revisit the issue of English-medium schools – this time not under the shadow of the events that occurred in May and June 1969, but in the light and with the benefit of the knowledge and experience that we have accumulated over the past 44 years.

We owe it to ourselves to have this serious conversation on the way forward for education, the bedrock for maximising the potential of all citizens and enhancing the competitiveness of our nation in these globally challenging times, especially with the advent of this Internet age.

By YONG POH KON

> Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon is managing director of Royal Selangor and President of the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. He also serves on the boards of EPF, MIDA and Matrade. Part Two of his article will appear in Sunday Star tomorrow.

Related posts:
Right ways to boost teaching of English in Malaysia
Right, Bring back English schools would be a smart move for Malaysians 
Winning education, America and China! 
Beware of Malaysian Chinese school leavers being lured into dubious degree and diploma programs !  
English language in Malaysia in dire straits! 
'Poke-eye' Melayu English blunder, Mindef blames ... 
“Clothes that poke eye”, Melayu English; Lost in ... 
'Poke eye' Melayu English in many public institutions ...