Revise ETEMS for the sake of social equality

We have read the views of many in our dailies recently on the issue of whether the Government should continue with the ETEMS policy or otherwise. One would get the impression by reading the English dailies that the masses are for continuing with the policy. Actually this is deceptive. We can be certain that those who speak their minds in these English dailies are from the middle and upper echelons of society whereas nobody is speaking on behalf of the lower echelon. If only they can voice their opinions in this foreign language.

I am writing to advocate that the Government need to revise the ETEMS policy for three major reasons. First, for the simple pedagogical reason that our teachers have not been trained in English and they are not proficient to teach the subjects in that language. Both subjects – science and mathematics involved concepts that require clear explanation for understanding and could not be acquired by just reading the textbooks alone. They are also cumulative, the next topic needs underlying prerequisite topics. Failure in understanding the lower concepts will mean failure to understand the higher concepts. This means many of our children who do not have the language are doomed to failure. This is especially true for the sciences, and a little lesser for mathematics. Our studies have shown that despite going through ETEMS short language courses and the buddy mentoring system, the teachers have only improved insignificantly. A foreign language especially English takes a long time to master. Even many of us who came from the English medium of the 1960s know that it takes almost a lifetime. So it is not fair to think that these teachers can master it in 6 years. To continue with the policy means longer and deeper training in English for the thousands of teachers while teaching and the government had better come up with a more solid plan.

Second, Bahasa Malaysia has been the language for the democratization of higher education in this country as our history has shown. It acts as an equalizer. The evidence is clear if one looks at the statistics of the number of bumiputras who managed to obtain a college or university education before and after 1970s, that is before UKM was established and Bahasa Malaysia became the medium of instruction of all public universities. It was only after this that there was a rise in the number of bumiputra professionals and middle class. The Education Policy of 1970s had helped narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and created a bigger base of middle class which is a stabilizing factor in society. Now, if we continue with the ETEMS policy, what the government had worked hard and long to achieve will begin to loosen and disintegrate because the majority of the masses who have no infrastructure to acquire this language especially from deprived schools, homes or communities will not be able to make it in science and mathematics and thus will fail to become professionals. English has always been a disequalizer of society whereas the national language the equalizer, and many countries knew this and will not let it happen to their people such as the Germans, French and the Japanese.

Third, this policy if continued right from the primary school, will slowly cause the death of Bahasa Malaysia as the language of intellectualism. I think many elderly readers still remember how the elitist Malays do not have the confidence that Bahasa can be a language of the sciences for its lack of terminologies and history so as to enable the universities to produce engineers, medical doctors, dentists or architects. But these pessimist group has been proven incorrect when UKM and then followed by UM and others began to produced our own engineers and doctors who are even recognized by the Royal professional bodies in the UK. In fact, graduates of our public universities never encountered any problems continuing their further post-graduate studies anywhere despite having learned in Bahasa. Similarly, the government has been sending students abroad right after SPM to study in the West. Most of them succeeded in their respective fields even to the extent of gaining admission in Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial University. So there is no issue with our system. In fact, in this era of globalization, where there is always tension between international and local pressures, the nation has to strengthen its national consciousness and preserve its culture and identity. Otherwise, it will be gobbled by bigger powers. Of course, globalization also meant diversity and thus, the need for an ability to articulate in the language of the world which is English.

Being in the S&T, most of these graduates who are fluent in English are employed in the private sector. I think the decline in the standard of English that was worrisome to our leaders in the past government administration are those observed in the public, civil service sector especially in officers who are in charge of international affairs and negotiations in this globalized world which is borderless, where inter-nation conflicts or crises occur more frequently. Then we have nobody to blame but ourselves because we have looked up so much to S&T and neglected those bright individuals in the Arts and Social Sciences. In fact, if we had a good visionary policy, we would also send these students to study in the West but we did not. Thus, we are left with mediocre in English and also in the depth of their specialized areas in the public sector. In fact, we do not have great thinkers and planners for running the civil service machinery.

Having shared the analysis above, and having stated my position for a revision of the ETEMS policy, let me reiterate that nobody in Malaysia today will say English is not important. Even those primary school students will say so. Only that English is important now because they have to pass the science and mathematics examinations. So examination does work as a motivating factor in acquiring knowledge or skills, besides its diagnostic function. Knowing English is beneficial for acquiring knowledge, international relations and negotiations and doing business today since it is the lingua franca of sciences. Muslims and Malays too need to acquire English just as al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina who are Persians mastered Arabic to the point of writing their works in that language because it was the lingua franca of sciences during that times. We are not like the Japanese who even have to debate whether to introduce formal English in primary schools just because China and Korea have begun to do so. They can still afford their language because of their advanced status in S&T, already having many websites, translators that do translated works including academic journals, magazines etc.

Hence, I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Education revert the teaching of science and mathematics to the previous way as seen positively by all groups before this reform. In fact the group that decided the ETEMS policy did not represent the majority or the masses and we can gauge who they represented by just reading the National Brain Trust Document July 2002. It is a shame because no representative from Persatuan Linguistic Malaysia, Perihatin nor Dong Ziao Zong were available. Since ETEMS has great implication for reducing the democratization of higher education and later creating a social divide, let us create the opportunity to use English because a language will not flower without usage by making it living in non-examinable subjects such as Physical Education and Health, Arts and Crafts, ICT or any other living, conversational subjects. There will be less tension for students and there will be more fun as they converse too. Introduce this in Tahap Dua of primary school and prepare these teachers for it. This is a smaller group compared to science and mathematics. Then continue the practice in secondary school with the subjects that requires expression and play of ideas such as history or geography. Finally, ensure that in the matriculation or form six level every student will take one subject of his elective or specialization in English to prepare for academic purpose later. As for the university, maybe it is now apt to introduce English for entrance examination as the motivating factor rather than MUET. Perhaps we can also learn from the Japanese by making it necessary for undergraduate and Master students in S&T to read English journals and present their work in Bahasa in class. Then make it a policy for PhD students in S&T to write their dissertation in English. But this should be introduced gradually just like the way Tun Abdul Razak our former premier laid the policy for language shift beginning in 1970 and which was only completed in 1983 and before we can be proud of his and our success at Bahasa as the national language and language of national unity whereby more non-Malays of this generation were able to communicate better than previous generation as a gesture of being Malaysians, fingers were already pointing at the decline of English.

Over and above this suggestion, let us also improve the teaching of English and students’ motivation for it. Many of our students from the lower socio-economic status are not motivated and do not see its use. They have no role models whether at home or in the community. Thus, we might have to make criterion-referenced examinations for all levels instead of norm-referenced so that we can ensure their level of proficiency. As for teaching, we need to encourage a lot of competitions to motivate by having inter-class, inter-form, inter-house, inter-school, inter-district and inter-state competitions of debates, speech, essays, language games etc.. We should do this for both English and Bahasa Malaysia. I remember the zest the late Tun Syed Nasir had in making Bahasa Malaysia the national language in the 1960s. We need such kind of personality today. Our teaching of languages should be more based on the concept of the community of inquiry so that there is a lot of discussions of concepts and meanings for at least one period a week.

Finally there will be parents from the middle and upper echelons who will wonder what will happen to their children who have learned science and mathematics in English if we decide to revert. I think this is not a problem and a big issue because we are reverting from a foreign language to our national language familiar to the students. This is like the reversion in the 1970s except that more children of all ethnicity are more well-versed in Bahasa compare to the parents’ generation, thanks to Tun Razak. As for all the terminologies learned, they will still be used when Bahasa takes over. A polygon is just a poligon, a molecule is a molekul, an acid is asid and an alkali is alkali. I think we have to weigh between the deleterious consequences beginning 2011 when we examine the disparities across ethnicity, social classes and locality of the graduates of the system or having just a minor switch in language in 2009 that does not harm anyone in the long run.