Improving standard of English

Published on: Sunday, September 29, 2019

By: Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad

Text Size:

English is the most widely spoken language in the world with 1.121 billion speakers, of which 743 million are non-native speakers. More than half of internet content and technical and scientific periodicals are in English. Unfortunately, much of the debate over English in Malaysia has been conducted in a binary manner: Malay versus non-Malay, rural versus urban and middle-class versus poor. But studies have shown that most Malaysians appreciate the importance of English.

The many reversals of policies suggest that the diversity of Malaysian schools makes it challenging to uniformly implement changes or reforms.

The Teaching of Science and Maths in English (PPSMI) was introduced in 2003, but Chinese schools were allowed to continue teaching the subjects in Chinese in 2005.

Then, a reversal was announced in 2009 after studies showed rural schools performing disproportionately worse in English-language subjects compared with urban schools owing to a lack of fluency among teachers and students alike.

In January 2016, the Dual-Language Programme was implemented, allowing schools that met certain requirements to teach mathematics and science in English. I believe the DLP is best suited for the diverse reality and capacity of Malaysian schools and is in line with the recognition for greater autonomy and decentralisation of the education system.

Now, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has said the government is studying the possible return of PPSMI. As Selangor’s state executive councillor for education from 2014 to 2018, I had very little influence over, or ability to help, the schools in our state, partly due to the political discrimination by the previous government but also because of the centralised reality of our education system.

However, decentralisation shouldn’t be about turning control of schools from one set of politicians to another or letting schools drift on their own. Rather, it is about having a common set of goals and values, yet letting different schools move at their own pace, depending on their local conditions, and ensuring that the proper oversights are in place.

Recently, I have been tasked with overseeing education on the Federal Territories Minister’s Council. As part of that responsibility, I have started visiting a number of schools in our capital, starting with my constituency Setiawangsa.

The condition of the facilities in some schools, unfortunately, is very poor. Oftentimes, they have to wait for funds from the Education Ministry to make repairs or replacements.

There is no way for us to improve English and education without investing in proper infrastructure and technology.

The people, as taxpayers, have to be willing to pay for it. In 2018, Vietnam, for instance, spent 5.8pc (US$13.9 billion) of its gross domestic product on education, the highest percentage in Southeast Asia. In contrast, the amount spent by Malaysia on education has been on a downward trend since 2011, dropping annually from 5.8pc of GDP to 4.7pc by 2017.

Nevertheless, the “software” side of the English dilemma cannot be neglected.

We need to work on improving critical thinking, boosting the quality of teachers and easing their non-teaching workload. Education Minister Maszlee Malik’s work in this area has been admirable.

For instance, teachers now no longer have to write acquisitions in relation to the Textbook Loan Scheme (SPBT), and schools with internet access can now record pupil attendance online.

But changing mindsets is a little more difficult.

There have been far too many incidents in national schools of minority students being subjected to unnecessary racial and religious pressures.

We cannot expect minority parents to shift their children to national schools if their faith and culture are going to be denigrated, but we also cannot let identity politics and culture wars spread to our schools. The recent khat controversy is a case in point. As a matter of principle, I believe exposing students to part of our national heritage should not be an issue, but decades of distrust has polarised the debate to a great extent.

Similarly, there have been reports that students in schools implementing the DLP are not being tested because we are supposed to shift away from being exam-oriented.

However, “not exam-oriented” should not and does not mean no examinations at all. After all, the selling point of the DLP is to allow children who are capable of doing science and maths in English to do so. Culturally, parents and teachers have to stop viewing and treating these exams as markers of intelligence, but rather, as signposts of progress, or what the student needs to improve on.

It is always good to give parents, students and teachers more choice, but personally, I decided to send my son to a national school.

However, I also understand and respect the roles that the other streams play.

The decision, ultimately, is in the hands of the government, which must be mindful of the public’s opinions and those of stakeholders.

In the meantime, the focus should be on improving the existing frameworks. We must have clearly defined goals on where we want to go in improving English.

There can be no good educational outcomes without the efforts of the teachers, academics and administrators — often a thankless job.

We should and do expect a lot from them, but they likewise should be honoured and compensated accordingly. We have had decades of top-down, poorly-thought-out policies in relation to English and education as a whole being bulldozed through, and it has not served us well.

I return to the example of Vietnam. It went from emphasising Mandarin during its domination under China to French, Russian and then English after 1986.

As the US-China trade war rages, Vietnam is poised to become a key beneficiary. Foreign direct investment in Vietnam between January and May this year has seen a year-on-year increase of 69.1pc while corporations such as Samsung, Olympus, Nike, Ikea and Apple are increasing the portion of their items sourced from Vietnam or transferring their manufacturing operations there. This could not happen if Vietnam did not have a ready supply of good human capital.

We can draw a number of lessons from Vietnam’s experience. Despite its challenging circumstances, it maintained its fierce will for freedom as well as its culture and language.

It was also willing to reverse itself and try new approaches several times, but always kept its eye on the goal of strengthening itself and maintaining its independence. We must also realise that these things take time. Broadly, Vietnam’s shift to English began 33 years ago and is still ongoing.

Malaysians cannot expect overnight results without time, hard work, patience and sacrifice.

Of course, Malaysia is not Vietnam. We are not a seemingly homogenous country, and we do not, and hopefully never will, live under a one-party state. However, it would be wrong to assume that autocratic countries have an advantage over democracies like us, or that they will do better in the long run.

Indeed, worldwide, the achievements of democracies are more impressive, precisely because they are harder to bring about.

Improving the standard of English in Malaysia and education across the board is something that cannot be brought about without the will of the people.

Let us also not forget that education is not just about seizing gross materialistic gains.

Malaysia’s education must not lose its human face and humanistic purposes of bringing up men and women who bring goodness to their families, communities and countries.

l Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is the MP for Setiawangsa and is in charge of the education portfolio in the Federal Territories Minister’s Council. He is also the chief organising secretary of Parti Keadilan Rakyat and the author of several books in Malay and English. His first book, Moving Forward: Malays for the 21st Century, was first published in 2010 and is now out with a new preface.