Malaysiakini.com (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) Use theatre to promote use of English, 19 March 2009
by Mansor Puteh
Cunning and confusing. These are the descriptions I can give to describe those supporting the use of English for mathematics and science in the primary schools.
From what many can see, it is clearly evident that the use of Malay has become less stressed, even by the Malays who now speak in the language in pidgin style.
The most glaring fact is in the statistics. Statistics don’t lie. Look at the readership of Malay language papers compared to the English language ones and we can see how over the last six years, the readership of Malay newspapers and other similar publications have gone down.
Utusan Zaman has become extinct; it was saved only with the intervention of arts, culture and heritage ministry which wanted the paper to be continued to be published, but only as a supplement for the romanised Utusan Malaysia.
I was shocked, but not surprised, to hear comments made by some of the top scorers in the STPM examination who spoke either in Malay or English at the same time. How confusing.
On the contrary, I find it quite amazing how those who are not good in mathematics and science are the ones who could speak and write in English and even Malay, better than those who are good in the two subjects.
It is not amusing with what has had happened to the Malay language. It is the national language, no less. Yet, the stress on it is now less pronounced.
If this is allowed to continue, surely there will be people amongst the Malays and non-Malays who will start to demand the use of English for other subjects, until it will come to the point that even Sastera Melayu is taught in English.
It is not about not wanting to study English; it is more about wanting to stop the rot in Malay amongst our students.
Most students nowadays do not write or speak in the language that well, including the Malay ones. Just look at those who appear on the entertainment and other talk show programmes on television and radio. One can see how poor their command of the language is.
So if the government wants to encourage the Malays as well as non-Malay students to learn Bahasa Malaysia so they can speak and write it well, then wouldn’t it be also prudent to have them study it mathematics and science in BM too?
The problem with the use of mathematics and science for the study of English is that not only that is it flawed, but also strange.
Not many students have much passion for these two subjects anyway. No wonder many drop out of the science classes to go to the arts stream and that is where they get to learn English better, by using it all the time.
The English in the old days got the locals to study English so they could use it in their everyday life. They encouraged the schools and colleges to get students to take part in the production of stage plays.
This is where they use English and learn how to pronounce words and sentences well and expressively, too.
So it is no wonder to anyone how those who are active in English language theater in the city and country are the ones who can speak in this language the best compared to those who do not.
So if the government or ministry of education wants to encourage Malaysian students in the primary schools to study English or even Malay so that they can speak in these languages better, they should have courses in theater so the students can learn to use these languages and properly too.
(2) English - setting ourselves up for success, 16 March 2009
by Slipperyhead
Recently, the teaching of science and mathematics in English has drawn flak from various quarters of society and has become a controversial topic. As I am hardly one to shy away from controversy, here's my bit on it all.
Personally, I think that it is interesting to note that the vast majority of the argument against the teaching of science and mathematics in English stems from this notion of 'protecting the national language' or 'protecting our culture'. I find it interesting because I personally see these notions of 'heritage' and 'culture' as mostly unrelated to the topic at hand.
I think that these concepts and arguments have been drawn into the issue inappropriately, to make the argument against the teaching in English to seem stronger than it actually is. In other words, I think people are against the policy for the wrong reasons.
I think that there are two reasons why people are really against the teaching of science and mathematics in English. The first is because they have experienced first-hand that this adjustment from Malay to English is not going well - in other words, they are finding it hard. And of course it is hard - I think most educators can agree that the manner in which the switch was made was not the best.
The second, is that these individuals prefer speaking and communicating in Malay. The notion of speaking a language other than what they, or the generations before them, were using is an odd proposition. It's hardly surprising that such individuals would be hesitant to support the shift.
It has also been pointed out by some that one does not need to master English to be successful. This is only a half-truth, and therefore, a half-lie. What it should read is that 'one does not need to master English to be successful in certain areas, but in others, he/she will probably benefit from doing so'.
You see, detractors of the shift to English happily make the 'mastery of English equals success' connection, because it is a generalisation that cannot possibly hold up upon closer scrutiny. The truth is that it is language fluency, or some measure of communication skills, that makes success (in any area - think about it) possible. English does not hold a monopoly over the act of 'achieving success'.
But if we take the global context into account, it is clear that being able to communicate in English is a huge boost. In the global context, it does not really matter if you can speak or write in Malay. This may be a painful truth, but it is true nonetheless - Malaysia is the only place in the world where Malay is spoken. That's 25 million out of 6 billion people. If my math is right, that is 0.4% of the world's population.
Now, that does not mean that the other 99% are masters in English. What it does mean though, is that English is a language that is far more spread out than Malay. This will always be the case. More than that, unless Malaysia finds itself somehow taking over a significant part of the world in the distant future, the usage of Malay is not going to spread beyond our borders. All over the world, however, English is going to continue to spread.
There is a principal in behavioral therapy, an approach in causing desired change in individuals, which I think is relevant here. This principle is basically that ‘You want to set people up for success’. Basically, it means that it is always good to set up a system that is designed to allow people to succeed, and indeed does do so as often as possible.
If we look at the place of English in the global context, I see the teaching of science and maths in English as a positive step in this regard - we are setting ourselves up for success. You can whine and gripe about how much you hate English, or how much you love Malay, but the facts of the global context remain. The better we can speak English, the better off we are globally.
Some individuals have pointed out their experiences of studying overseas, and how they did not need to have mastery of English to succeed in a foreign university. While that may be true, it is besides the point, because the aim of the switch to English was never to create masters of the English language, but to improve basic fluency.
Think about it - if mastery was the goal, we would have switched the subjects that actually required demonstrating one's mastery of English to succeed - like history, for example. The goal has never been to place English one step above Malay - it has clearly been to place English higher than it was before. There is no logical reason to look at the issue as a zero-sum game.
And as someone who has experienced both sides (as teacher and a student) and in both local and foreign universities, believe me when I say that the observation is always the same - people who can communicate better in English tend to get more out of their study experience (in English-based institutions, of course).
There is also something important here that many people seem to have overlooked. If the cultural and/or heritage arguments are true, that is, if the switch of teaching maths and science in English is having a negative effect on the status of the national language, shouldn't that mean that our children's fluency in Malay has been decreasing?
Shouldn't this, and only this, be the fuel in these arguments against the teaching in English? What do the scores from school exams tell us - are more people failing Bahasa Malaysia now than ever before?
Detractors of the shift who sprout the 'heritage' and 'cultural' sentiments would be better served to colour their arguments with these kinds of facts. My guess is that they cannot - because they are non-facts. Citing the stats will instead reveal something else - that more and more people are failing English than ever before.
What we need to do is to set up a system that encourages better fluency in English rather than doing the exact opposite (switching everything back to Malay) which is s a set-up for failure in the global context.
I do think that the switch was not made in the best manner possible. I don't think the government would readily disagree with that notion. But surely, we must all agree that:
1. English fluency is at an all-time low in a world that requires us to be fluent in the language and that;
2. Nobody is implying that we should be speaking English as our first language in the first place.
The policy to switch maths and science to English was certainly made in the best of interest of the long- term. What we need to be voicing out are our specific problems with adjusting to or fully implementing the policy.
If children from rural areas are finding greater difficulties in making the switch, what can be done? If teachers themselves are not fluent in the language, what can be done? These are the issues that should be raised, because these are the real barriers to success.
Sentiments of culture and heritage, while they do have their place, are beside the main point - the main point being, how can we set Malaysians up for success?
(3) Science, maths in English not a big help, 16 March 2009
by Seong Ping
I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'English not a prerequisite for success'.
I fully agree with the arguments of Lian Wee Ler on the topic of teaching of maths and science in English. I would like to add a few more comments.
My mother tongue is Mandarin Chinese. I studied at a Chinese primary school and graduated from a local public university. I obtained a MSc degree in Taiwan and am currently doing my PhD in Singapore, all in electrical engineering. My PhD research is nothing but all mathematics.
My additional views are:
1. That the teaching of science and maths in English in primary schools would help students master science and technology has never been logically established. Poor performance in science and technology innovation is never due to the poor academic performance of our primary and secondary school children.
On the contrary, our first class SPM/STPM talents admitted to the local universities are being reduced to third class talents by the poor academic standard of our public universities, best indicated by their deteriorating standing in world university rankings.
2. Being proficient in English is not a prerequisite for scientific and technological research and innovation. Strong foundations and good understanding of concepts play the crucial role.
In fact, only a moderately good linguistic foundation is needed. But it requires a very strong understanding of science and maths fundamentals to succeed in scientific and technological research.
Although Malaysian engineering students are generally more proficient in English than their Taiwanese/ Chinese/Korean peers, our engineering mathematics foundation is a joke to them.
This is part of the reason why Malaysians have been missing from the radar screen of global technological research while the Taiwanese/Chinese /Korean have maintained their consistent appearance.
3. Language learning and the learning of science and maths are two distinct processes. Learning a language involves representation and the expression of ideas in thought while science and maths involve logical reasoning and manipulation.
To require the primary school kids whose IQs have not fully developed yet to master both English and science and maths simultaneously is more absurd than requiring someone to complete a degree in rocket science in Russia while simultaneously mastering the Russian language.
Therefore, teaching science and maths in English is an outright blunder.
4. To take Singapore or Hong Kong as successful references grossly overlooks the fact that the use of English in both these modern city-states has been common and pervasive.
English may even have become the mother tongue for some people. Therefore, success in the teaching of science and maths in English in both cities doesn’t imply feasibility of the policy in Malaysia where kampung kids and teachers barely speak English even at school.
5. If there is anything to be done to improve the education standard of science and maths in primary/ secondary education, it would be to widen the scope of the syllabus, to foster innovation and creativity and to strengthen the understanding of fundamental concepts.
Teaching of science and maths in English is however doing no help here. On the contrary, it is obviously rendering the education process ineffective.
(4) Work with Indonesia to strengthen Malay language, 16 March 2009
by Mohamed Idris
A lot has been said recently about the teaching of science and maths in English in Malaysian schools. I hereby wish to critically examine some arguments that proponents of the policy put forward.
First of all, we must keep in mind that children learn better in their mother tongue. This is a fact that any educationist knows. Educationists will also tell you that English is best learned as a subject taught by professional language teachers.
Second, school pupils do not need English to access scientific literature because they deal with a relatively small set of basic principles of science that are mostly stable and that are available in the mediums of instruction used in Malaysian schools.
In fact, English as a key to knowledge is generally needed at university where students often have to consult works written in English. Even in that case they need a working knowledge of academic English rather than a perfect command of the whole language.
Third, English is not the only language of science. The first Malaysian angkawasan Sheikh Muszaphar had to learn Russian before he could go into space.
Russian is often dubbed as the ‘language of space’. German is important in philosophy. Arabic is indispensable in Islamic studies. In short, the world beyond English is vast, different and diverse.
It cannot be experienced with English only, if it can be experienced with English at all.
Fourth, one of the main factors that contributed to the rise of European nations was the vernacularisation of science. Prior to that, Latin was the language of science.
Latin enabled scholars with different European mother tongues to communicate with one another, but it contributed at the same time to the exclusion of the masses from scientific discourse and, in turn, hindered the progress of science itself.
This is what the exclusive use of English can do to Malaysia today.
Fifth, there is a need to look beyond language when we discuss the importance of English in today’s world.
No matter how vital English is, the fact remains that a country progresses if its people possess some essential qualities such as a strong work ethic, honesty and social responsibility.
France is one of the most attractive countries to foreign investors, even though it takes severe measures to protect its language through its famous Toubon Law.
In conclusion, the science and maths in English policy should be scrapped once and for all. However, this is not enough.
There is a need to strengthen Malay as the national language, especially in higher education and in the private sector. Cooperation with Indonesia is crucial in this regard. Only then can Malay make sense.
(5)'Language, identity two separate issues', 14 March 2009
‘We ought to be careful not to confuse academics and culture. The education ministry should not be held accountable for going against the national language.’
On 'English not a prerequisite for success'
Jason LKH: The writer has valid points pointing out that rural students are losing out because of their background and that young students do not need to refer to scientific journals out there which are in English.
Nonetheless, I would like to point out that this is hardly related to the national language and the deterioration of identity but does indeed go against the Education Act. GMP, I suspect, has confused academics with culture.
PPSMI has many flaws in its implementation and favours the strong and resourceful only. I would appreciate GMP’s movement more if they explicitly fight for the rural people – that they have not received sufficient attention from the government to improve learning and teaching conditions.
However, they have roped in the federal constitution, especially the national language, for a stronger anchor of their case, of which I do not understand the need to do so. All anak-anak bangsa Malaysia learn and know Bahasa Malaysia. It is not as though Bahasa Malaysia is optional.
I think we ought to be careful not to confuse academics and culture. For if we were to be tied down to culture at the expense of advancement in science and mathematics, then obviously the results are:
1. Brain drain – the urbanites, being more resourceful, further their studies overseas and never come back because they are in favour of English as their instruction medium.
2. Stagnant development in local academics – this is already observable in our local university standards; our ranking has just been free-falling over the years.
Failing to train our generation to study mathematics and science in English would spell doom for them in their tertiary years if they seek to pursue in the field of academics.
Again, this is because the wealth of knowledge is in English, and I doubt Malaysia has sufficient resources to effectively translate the journals into Bahasa Malaysia, to help our scientists make new discoveries.
Therefore, PPSMI is important for our country’s advancement. However, the education ministry must be responsible for its poor implementation which resulted in the sidelining of the rural groups and poor performance in the subjects.
The ministry should not be held accountable for going against the national language - the two issues are not related at all.
Education First: The use of English for teaching maths and science is being debated using reasons of 'identity’ in preserving the Malay language and 'being competitive’ in using English as the lingua franca.
Both arguments are as valid as are they insufficient reasons to decide on the matter at present moment
We have to acknowledge the fact that the present use of English to teach maths and science is a bad implementation for both arguments. ie, this policy does not do much to either threaten or preserve the use of Malay, nor does it improve the use of English.
What it does do is to make it even more difficult for a big majority of Malaysians who already have trouble grasping the language.
You need to learn a language early on in education and then use that language to learn other things.
This silly policy should be stopped, not because of issues relating to identity, but for the purpose of enhancing education.
As usual, education policies are made by politicians who don't seem to understand or know educational issues. One wonders if they even have, as their priority, an interest in educating Malaysians.
Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad: I have read the comments of some readers regarding the teaching of science and maths in English. Quite a few are not even aware of the main issues involved.
Firstly - the usage of English is not about scientific proficiency or daily usage at all. It is about the transfer of state-of-the-art technology from the vast scientific literature written in English.
If one is not fluent in English, then how does one hope to internalise and assimilate new technology from the advanced nations, that is written in English in the scientific literature ? Where, then, is the transfer of technology?
As I have said previously, the amount of scientific literature in Bahasa Malaysia is negligible. Dewan Bahasa simply cannot translate the huge existing scientific literature into Bahasa Malaysia.
Consequently, I urge Malaysians to think about the transfer of technology. I certainly agree that STPM or SPM physics can easily be taught in Bahasa Malaysia.
No doubts about that at all. But that is definitely not why we should teach science and maths in English.
In a technology-driven world, successful nations must be able to handle state-of-the-art developments in the scientific field. They must be able to transfer and assimilate new technologies as they arise.
But the transfer of technology can only take place if your scientists and engineers can read the vast scientific literature in English! And that is the real issue behind the language switch.
Neo: I am a lawyer trained in an Australian university in the 1980s.I went to a Chinese primary school. I did Remove Class and my year was the second year the government secondary schools (‘sekolah kebangsaan’) started teaching science and maths in BM in 1976.
In fact, all subjects were in Bahasa. I only learned English and Chinese as language subjects in secondary school. I went to Australia after I finished my Lower 6 and did Year 12 - the equivalent of HSC/STPM there. I speak Chinese at home .
I took maths, physics, chemistry, Chinese and English in Year 12, because I wanted to do medicine at uni. My first year in Australia, doing Year 12 there, was spent learning how to study and pass exams in English for the uni entrance exam.
I won the prizes for chemistry and physics in my school and my score for the uni entrance exam was in the top 1% of the state that I studied in.
These days, not many people realise I am from a ‘Chinese school’ but it was not an easy year that year when I did my year 12 - 1983 - in Australia. I could have scored even higher if I were more proficient in answering the Year 12 exam questions in English.
The trend continued when I ended up not doing medicine but law in Australia and my first year in law school was again spent - not on learning the legal principles - but mastering English the way lawyers judges write it, what is called ‘legalese’.
It sounded like Martian to me at that time as I was a science student after Form 3. My English was too poor to understand all that legalese.
It may not be relevant here but I do find that if I had studied science and maths in English in secondary school, it would have improved my English greatly.
And not necessarily just for the purpose of mastering the science and maths subjects. I was handicapped when I did my Year 12 in Australia.
My older siblings did science and maths in English and their mastery of English, both spoken and written, was better than me when at the same age. Even so, my English was considered ‘very good’ for someone coming from a Chinese secondary school at that time.
This because I had private tutor in my teens, a British gentleman, long dead now, to help me brush up on my English. Not many young people have this kind of opportunity to hone their English skills.
Has anyone considered ‘teaching science and maths’ from this angle?
Genius-At-Work: I don’t know why we cannot resolve this on-going issue about whether maths and science should be taught in English or Bahasa Malaysia.
In my opinion, the solution is a very simple one but the question is whether there is a will to implement it or whether there are more hidden agendas to it.
If we can logically separate the issue of languages and the medium of instruction into two, we will be able to see the solution to this problem.
I think the arguments for and against the use of English for Maths and Science in schools are real and valid for not only the students but also for the teachers.
So we need to address the issue very seriously without any hidden agendas. This is about education and it is a basic necessity for every child in this country. The main issue here is whether the ‘medium of instruction’ should be in English or BM.
The solution to this - ‘why not both?’ We need only two type of national schools - the English-medium and the BM-medium schools. Let the families and children determine which they want.
We will be producing two types of citizens - one that will be proficient in BM and the other proficient in English.
BM being the national language and the lingua franca of our government service, these BM proficient students can look for more national level job opportunities while the English-proficient students can explore a more global outlook for their careers.
The choice can be made from the beginning but, of course, it can be altered in between if anyone is willing to change their medium and put-in the extra effort to master the other language.
The question many will be bringing up will be the implementation issues. I think that is the least of problems if you remove the hidden agendas and racial bias.
The issue of not having enough teaching staff for English-medium schools can be overcome if we open up more training places to more non-Malay citizens.
Or we can bring in foreign teachers for the short to medium-term until we train our own teachers.
The problem on the non-availability of English teachers was a problem created by our system over the last 20-odd years or so and if do not begin to rectify it now, we will not be able to change in the next 20 years.
Of course, the other parties who will be up in their arms to champion the vernacular schools. But how often do you see students from Chinese-medium schools going to China or Taiwan for their higher education in Mandarin? Or Tamil school children going to Chennai to do their undergraduate studies? Ironic isn't it?
All of them are struggling to score well in their English-medium UK or Australian-based undergraduate courses. These linguistic enthusiasts can be satisfied with every school having its own language departments to promote mother tongue languages.
The national curriculum can be streamlined to have three languages - BM as the first language, English as the second language, and Mandarian/Tamil/Arabic and other mother tongue languages as the third language.
It will always be a big asset to the nation to produce citizens who are tri-lingual and we can assure that no one will lose their identities.
The solutions are there for everyone to see. Let the market forces determine the success of the nation and not people who have hidden agendas. Let our children's futures be decided by their parents and not be blocked by bureaucratic decision-makers.
Netizen: We are wasting our time arguing over what subjects to teach in English. What we should seriously be looking at is how we can do a better job in helping children become more proficient in this language.
What I can say is that we cannot run away from the fact that command of this language has really declined and it does affect this country's ability in the global market place.
I'll give you a glaring example. I went to a well-known local bank to get a statement for my account. I filled out the form and then asked about the fees.
The clerk showed me the fee structure at the bottom of the page, which read: RM5 for current year + RM1/copy, RM10 for each previous year + RM1/copy. Upon more questioning, I discovered that ‘copy’ actually meant page. So it's RM1/page.
That makes a tremendous difference in the fees I would have to pay. I was not amused to say the least. The word ‘copy’ when used to refer to a transcript means a reproduction of a written/ printed record. It is not a synonym for ‘page’.
Now, can you imagine that a bank like this cannot get important terminology like this correct on its forms and the English on the form is very misleading?
Let's face it. If we just want to stay inside our borders and not interact with the rest of the world, then don't worry about English. Otherwise, we better do something about this problem because we are already in trouble.
(End)
