Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) BM vs English: The never-ending debate, 18 June 2010
by Dr Mana
It is obvious that many parents are not happy that Science and Mathematics in school will not be taught in English soon. These are the parents who realise the advantage of using English to learn the sciences. There is no doubt that using English to teach these subjects would be advantageous for all Malaysians, especially for those who have the intention to pursue tertiary education.
However, since not all teachers and students are prepared to do so, it is still a matter for debate. The blame is now on the language per se, teachers, parents and students – and the decision made on this important issue will have some political impact on the nation.
Studies have shown that over 80 percent of our teachers are not ready to teach Science and Mathematics in English despite the huge sum spent on the PPSMI (the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English) over the past years.
However, the policy did not fail for no reason. Many English-speaking students – especially those living in the urban areas with parents who can help their children and speak the language at home – have without a doubt gained a lot from this policy. But the majority of those non-English speaking students, especially in the rural areas, are completely lost for clues.
Many have abysmally failed to grasp the subject matter in a language quite difficult for them to use or master. The PPSMI policy could go on, but it may not be advantageous for the majority of our students who are execrably weak in English. For these students, their parents and teachers, the blame will always be on the English language and less on the subject matter if they cannot perform effectively in the examinations.
It is indeed a mounting task to make millions of students facing this language problem cope with the subject matter fruitfully. Despite all the debates on this issue, many educators still share the opinion that the PPSMI policy has significantly failed to make all students follow the subject matter in English.
Teachers are the best to testify to this fact, as they are the ones facing the students, not the armchair critics. Teachers have admitted to the fact that the majority of our students are not able to cope with the subjects when taught in English. Many also admit that they themselves are not prepared to teach the subjects effectively in English.
Studies have also shown that the two palpable reasons for this failure are firstly, the majority of our teachers themselves are not competent in the English language, although they are subject matter specialists. Secondly, the majority of our students are not proficient enough to understand the subject matter in English. Consequently, the combination of these two factors has made the policy a letdown.
When teachers cannot express themselves effectively while speaking or writing, they may not even be able to put their ideas across successfully, no matter how knowledgeable they are in the subject. This is one of the 'blights' our teachers are facing.
This hitch is not only faced at the primary school level but also occurs at the highest level of our education dowel – the universities. In other words, if we insist that English should be used to teach Science and Mathematics at the pre-tertiary level, it may help some but it may also be disadvantageous to many others. And those who are affected the most are those from the rural areas.
Literally, the majority of our students at primary school level are not equipped enough to learn the subjects in English, although studies have shown a fervent desire to learn. They aspire to do so, no doubt, but they are still intrinsically weak in English. Most of these students cannot get much help from teachers and parents either - who often have weak language skills themselves. Yet again, many are too poor to attend tuition classes for this purpose.
Some critics have assumed that students are weak in Science and Mathematics because these subjects are taught in English. Not many though, have come up to say that students are weak in these subjects, not because of the medium of language used, but because they are intrinsically weak in the subjects no matter what language is being used to teach them.
There are three possible options to overcome this sticky situation. The first one is to allow those who wish to study the subjects in English to continue doing so all the way through with the guidance of competent teachers. And for those who wish to be taught in their mother tongue, let them do so.
Therefore, every school should provide two streams under the same roof to cater for these needs, which would be the best option to please both students, parents and teachers.
The second option would be to make everyone learn the subjects in their mother tongue, at least at the primary school level. However, students may face problems when the language switch is done at the secondary level. And many parents who are English-educated may not be happy with this move.
The third and final option would be to bring back the English medium school. Let those who want to learn the subjects in English study in these schools. However, to provide an English medium school in every nook and corner of the country may not be feasible, as it is going to cost the government colossally.
With this dilemma facing the government and many parents, it could even have some impact on the voting pattern of the electorate in the next general election. And disgruntled parents who are given little choice to choose the medium used to teach these subjects may not cast their votes for the ruling coalition.
(2) The robotic Malaysian in the 'Allah' row, 19 June 2010
by AB Sulaiman
COMMENT At the Bloggers Universe Malaysia (BUM) gathering on May 22, the ethnocentricity of the Malay-Muslim mind showed in the form of its steadfast impertinence to those who appear to criticise Islamic principles and features.
I refer specifically to the word 'Allah', a subject for discourse by those present. Blogger Akhramsyah Muammar Ubaidah Sanusi has been a strong flag bearer of this mantra. He stated that non-Muslims are not to use the word, for by doing so would confuse the Malays.
The root or source of this alleged confusion seems to be that in Islam there is only one God with the name of Allah. But in Christianity there are three: first, God (as the supreme meta-physical super-human principle of transcendence) per se; second, Jesus as the son of God and third, the Holy Spirit or Ghost.
Akhramsyah further contended we are a democratic country where the majority rules. So as the majority rules that 'Allah' is not to be used by non-Muslim, then this ruling must be respected by the minority.
He suggested for non-Muslims to use 'Alah' rather than 'Allah' as a compromise, surely a superficial and cosmetic solution.
One meaning of 'Allah'
This subject has been in the public domain for quite a while and would be a definite case of déjà vu by my repeating it in this article. But the issue is so compelling that I have to proceed commenting on it.
Consider the following:
Firstly, Al-Lah is Arabic for 'the God'. This can be understood and even be seen by the phrase 'La ilah ha il Allah Muhammad ur Rasul Allah' a mantra uttered and repeated almost by the hour by any good Muslim. 'La ilah' means 'there is no God' and 'Ha il Allah' means 'but God'.
The rest i.e. 'Muhammad ur Rasul Allah' means 'and Mohammad is God's Prophet'. So its direct translation would be 'There is no god but God, and Muhammad is God's prophet.'
(Note the same root word 'Lah' for God in the three occasions it has been used, in this short but vitally important religious mantra. This has been pointed out at the BUM forum by MP Khalid Samad who was also present).
Second, its usage in history. As far as I know, when the Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham founded the concept of monotheism in 20th-19th centuries BCE he was already bandying 'Al-Lah' when proselytising the principle of the One God to the unbelieving and polytheistic nomadic desert tribes.
This label had since then been used by all subsequent prophets, which Islamic philosophers say amount to no fewer than 240,000 in their total number. It has been so for 4,000 years. It has been so until the present day.
Third, its usage at the present time. Arab Muslims and non-Muslims alike all use Allah to refer to God.
Similarly non-Arab Muslims or non-Muslims, like the peoples of Indonesia (250 million of them) also find no objection to this word. The same goes to the Christian (or Jewish) Egyptians, Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans and so on.
And don't forget the Sikhs in this country and elsewhere in the globe. In their religious scripture 'Guru Grant Sahib' God is called by all the Hindu names and Allah as well.
Then we have the perennial Islamic teaching that Allah is God and He has 99 different names like Al-Rahman, Al-Rahim. The most peculiar thing is that when you go through the entire list, 'Allah' is tellingly not one of them.
Copernicus
Akhramsyah's single-mindedness is reminiscent of Copernicus in the 15th century. During his time the belief had been that the sun and all the other planets moved around planet Earth. He was the only one single human soul who thought otherwise, that Earth and the other planets moved around the sun.
As human civilisation progressed and developed and the level of human knowledge increased by leaps and bounds, Copernicus was proven right.
In the case of Akhramsyah, however, (and here he represents the only one community in the whole world that says the word 'Allah' is strictly for Muslims) I do not think he will be proven right by time.
So for 'Allah' to mean 'God' to the generic human civilisation has gone through the test of time of over 4,000 years. Could Adzhamsyah repeat a Copernicus? Based on the narrations above I am not inclined to think so.
Galileo
As it turns out Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad of Ikim in his article 'Blasphemy can lead to apostasy' has cautioned all Muslims not to be too brave with items of faith for there is a thin line between blasphemy and apostasy. And apostasy is a huge and most definite no-no in Islamic reckoning.
Wan Azhar has cautioned all and sundry not to play around with Islam, its tenets and principles, its teachings and philosophies. It is already a perfect religion when God revealed it first to Adam and later to Prophet Mohammad. He lamented that many Muslims are having the temerity and audacity to question or challenge Islamic principles.
In this article, I'll address Akhramsyah's contentions and Wan Azhar's cautionary words together for I believe they have a strong cause and effect relationship: 'I contend and believe that 'Allah' is exclusively the name of the Muslim God. If I do not believe it then I might be blasphemous and an apostate.'
This article is not about challenging the teaching of Islam. It is comparing the thinking platform Wan Azhar uses in his defence of the sanctity and piety of Islam with that of the more rational human mind. For this, I have to bring on Galileo, the 'Father of Modern Science', who broke the line of thinking similar to that used by Wan Azhar.
Galileo says that no past wisdoms should be accepted in toto. Everything must be observed, experimented upon, followed by analysis, hypothesis, synthesis and conclusion, before any wisdom is to be accepted at all.
More than that - he taught all and sundry to record each observation and experimentation to allow other people to repeat them for themselves. Virtually all of the accumulation of scientific knowledge that we see around us today are the 'results' of this penetrating thinking method known as the 'scientific method'.
In Islam, however, no such scientific method ever existed. It's more that Islam is already in a state of perfection. What is perfect is to be emulated and approximated, not destroyed. So much so that an adherent would do well here and in the next world if he loyally and dutifully observes and obeys and performs all of its principles and tenets and rules and regulations. It's more 'do as I tell you, and do not question anything'.
I think this is a form of theological bullying. You don't allow your followers to say any bad things against you, you just simply make them follow your rules and regulations. You do not allow for any debate, not to mention experimentation. It is not a case of scientific thinking but of 'might is right', of using brute force or a strong central authority over rationality.
Majority in a democracy
To come back to Akhramsyah's postulations, I'd repeat yes in a democracy the majority rules and the minority must respect this.
But we all have heard of the bane of democracy – the tyranny of the majority. The majority Malay in this case should always use common sense, fair play and good judgment when running the country. In any good democracy, we should be able to draw the line between the fairness and justice with the tyranny of the majority.
In any event, Akhramsyah used it in a limited sense, in a political context, and within the country. What happens of this word is used alternatively in the economic context and well out of the borders of Malaysia? Consider the following:
Firstly, economically the majority of income tax payers in the country (some say up to 80 percent) are non-Malay. Are we going to ignore the interest and beliefs of the (majority) tax-paying non-Malay? Would this not be tantamount to the tyranny of the political majority Malay over the political minority (but tax-paying majority) non-Malay?
Secondly, when Akhramsyah mentioned the Malay-Muslim majority who supported the ban on non-Muslim use of 'Allah', on what authority has he been in doing so? The point is, there can be many Malays who might object to his contention and presumptuousness. (How can we be sure this issue has not been used only by the 'Ketuanan Melayu' advocates to suit its private agenda, for example).
Third, with almost the rest of the Muslim world (read that as the Muslim majority) totalling about 1.5 billion people not objecting to this term, it appears that it is only the Malay-Muslim in Malaysia comprising say 15 million (i.e. the minority) who is making this contentious claim. Akhramsyah should be looking for ways and means to 'respect the wishes' of the vast majority of Muslims the whole world over, in the past and at present.
Might is right, might makes right
The sad part is the government of the day otherwise known as the 'Ketuanan Melayu' leadership are learning this principle of might is right and perhaps on the basis of imitation, the present government is politically bullying the citizenry.
The Ketuanan Melayu leadership using the 'might is right' principle of governing where strength or physical might (in this case the numerical and political majority of the Malay) can establish moral right, as it appears to be in this case.
Later this might become 'might makes right' whereby the view of right and wrong is determined by this same 'Ketuanan Melayu' institution. The views and sentiments of the people are completely ignored.
What a way of governing a country when the authorities deny its own citizens from discussing the very ideas and principles that are central to their lives. What a way of governing when the people are not allowed even to think creatively and imaginatively.
Perhaps Raja Petra Kamarudin is right when he suggested in his blog that the government appears to actively suppress our thinking facilities. In the event we and our future generations will soon be reduced from thinking human beings to mechanical robots.
・AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.
(3) Your children's future in an Islamic state，3 June 2010
by Helen Ang
Malaysian involvement in the Gaza flotilla and Malaysia's response to the Israeli military operation against the pro-Palestinian activists both unite Umno, PAS and PKR in a cause beloved of the Muslim world.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his Perdana Global Peace Organisation had raised over 300,000 euros to buy three boats for the Gaza expedition, reported the Perdana website. Six of the flotilla's Malaysian participants sailed to Gaza under the aegis of Perdana.
Some readers have wondered aloud about the lack of a similar national outrage to the atrocities committed in Myanmar, Sudan and Sri Lanka.
There is no mystery as it is quite natural that the Muslim brotherhood should be more concerned about the fate of their brethren. It is only the zealous proponents of universal brotherhood who mistakenly believe that this inclination of the ummah may be something unnatural.
"We are all one race, the human race" is a slogan to sell the idea that the various races on the planet should love each other. But perhaps what "we're all human" merely does is to remind us that we're not chimpanzees.
The inconvenient truth is that we are indeed various races and of various religions, and Malaysia is an ethnically fractured society where churches have been firebombed and Hindu idols destroyed.
As the passionate reactions to the Palestinian conflict have shown time and again, Malaysia is greatly sympathetic to Palestinian Muslims while vastly indifferent to Burmese Buddhists, Sudanese Christians and Sri Lankan Hindus.
The reason why is straightforward - Islam is the most defining characteristic of this land; two-thirds of the population are Muslim and ultimately everyone is free to pick and choose the cause closest to their heart. Malaysia does not vary from the rest of the Organisation of Islamic Countries in our close alignment with Palestine.
Notably, three successive prime ministers have declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state - and thus meriting our leading role in the OIC - although Najib Abdul Razak's declaration is more precisely that Malaysia has never been a secular country.
Islamising the country
The Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) asserts that Malaysia is a 'negara Islam' in a pamphlet issued in 2002. Jakim director-general Mohamad Shahir Abdullah was following up on the Islamic state affirmation by then prime minister Mahathir and his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In the Jakim statement, Mohamad Shahir listed what he said was a series of proofs that the country is Islamic. Read it - it's in Bahasa Malaysia.
There are few voices today insisting that Malaysia is secular. Even Karpal Singh who famously said "over my dead body" about the Islamic state status has been ominously silent of late.
Whereas the secretary-general of Karpal's DAP party, Lim Guan Eng, is loudly trumpeting the emulation by Penang of the governance of Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz. On May 20, Lim had been scheduled to officiate the opening of a surau in the state secretariat building Komtar, much to the chagrin of some in Umno Youth.
I'm more inclined to agree with the assessment of the three prime ministers past and present that Malaysia is somewhat an Islamic state since Islam is everywhere and anytime in the country. Or if we're yet to fully attain the Islamic state aspiration, there are many Muslims who see no reason why we should not.
For details on Islam as a state function, please read my articles 'Will minorities be made increasingly syariah-compliant?' published by the Centre for Policy Initiatives, and 'Rukunegara: M'sia not quite secular' on the variety of state Islamic agencies including those in the PM's department.
Funding spread of Islam
More and more concepts from Islam have been made familiar to us - Hadhari by ex-premier Abdullah, Amar Maa'ruf Nahi Mungkar by the Penang Pakatan state government, Raudhatul Sakinah in Putrajaya and it would seem Najib is making a foray into Islam Wasatiyyah branding.
More and more words of Arabic origin have crept into our common usage such as muzakarah, muhasabah and mujahadah, not to mention terms like takaful, sukuk and riba, now that several more financial institutions are offering Islamic banking and not just restricted to Bank Islam and Bank Muamalat.
Another indicator of the level of Islamisation is the Tudung Index.
Even the highest echelons of the church have at last publicly conceded the deep reach of Islam, in this particular case, into the pockets of the state treasury.
The remarkable pastoral letter recently penned by Bishop Hwa Yung, chairman of the Methodist church's council of presidents, contained the following pertinent observation:
"Indeed the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities."
The tremendous disproportion in terms of allocation to the different religious communities can be explained by Article 12(2) of the federal constitution. It says: "... it shall be lawful for the federation or a state to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose".
It is the enabling mechanism for the government to disburse financial assistance to mosques and for activities promoting Islam. Tellingly, the article clauses omit any reference to Christianity and other faiths in this regard.
Most are unaware of Article 12(2). Evidently, the people touting 'Malaysian First' are on the mistaken footing that the country does not make any distinction between its citizens. Malaysia most clearly distinguishes its citizenry one from another, and even coined the word 'bumiputera' for this purpose.
Islam impacting minorities
Yesterday Malaysiakini carried an article about convert Faris Syafi Abdullah who lamented the difficulties faced when one wishes to renounce Islam.
Another convert in the same boat is Faizal Wong Abdullah. I've written in greater detail about the trend of Chinese, especially those in the civil service, to embrace Islam, in my 'Syariah-compliant' article cited earlier.
In it, I also discussed the breadth and reach of syariah law, its rigorous application and how easily fatwa can be legislated to carry harsh penalties as well as the Malaysian authorities strenuously rendering the adherents of Islam a monolithic block.
As for the increasing number of Indian converts to Islam, there are the controversial issues surrounding this development.
It is not only PAS and Umno that have been ramping up the Islamisation process but the Raja-Raja Melayu flexing their muscles through political Islam too.
We're living in a country where to question the monarchy and 'special position' of the Malay (whose identity is conflated with Islam and whom the royals are constitutionally empowered to protect) is seditious and can land you in jail.
'1Malaysia' is Najib's propaganda. 'Malaysian First' is Lim Kit Siang's rhetoric. While denizens of Bangsar Malaysia (spelling deliberate to allude to the affluent suburb) may buy into 1Malaysia1st, the decision of the majority G1 Chinese to send their children to vernacular school speaks volumes of the latter's inherent skepticism.
G1 is the group to whom "Chinese education is part of their socio-cultural life and even their identity as a race" whereas the English-speaking, Western-oriented G2 category are "vocal, articulate, often Christian, and likely to be from a professional class" - ref. quotes attributed to the MCA think-tankers of Insap and Insap's G2 "thoroughbred" CEO, Fui K Soong.
Methinks the G2 doth protest too much. How can these Malaysian First-ers credibly reconcile their 'one united country' mantra in the face of the facts above?
Aside from Chinese, more Indian parents are enrolling their children in vernacular Tamil schools than before. The wariness of the minorities for national school and its attendant Malay environment will not be allayed so long as Islamism is a pervasive feature of the education system.
・HELEN ANG used to be a journalist. In future, she would like to be a practising cartoonist. But for the present, she is in the NGO circles and settling down to more serious writing and reading of social issues.
（End）
