Content uploaded by Sivapalan Selvadurai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sivapalan Selvadurai on Jul 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 14
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Debating education for nation building in Malaysia: National school
persistence or vernacular school resistance?
Sivapalan Selvadurai¹, Ong Puay Liu2, Marsitah Mohd Radzi3, Ong Puay Hoon4, Ong Puay Tee5,
Badariah Saibeh2
1Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia, 2Institute of Ethnic Studies
(KITA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia, 3Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Heritage, Universiti Malaysia
Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, 4Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuching,
Malaysia, 5Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia
Correspondence: Sivapalan Selvadurai (email: sivap02@gmail.com)
Abstract
School and education system may be a critical and strategic platform for nation-building. At the same time, the
politicization of the education system as well as the interdependent nature of schools and external forces may
contribute to the destabilization of the role of school in nation building. In Malaysia, the issue of mono-lingualism
as a medium of instruction in schools has been a contested one with efforts of accommodating bilingualism and
multilingualism continue to be attempted with no solutions in sight. The persistence of vernacular schools has
generated both intense debates and resistance. This article examines the reasons for the resistance to, and
persistence of vernacular schools. The data were drawn from three main sources, namely interviews with heads
and/or representatives of 12 schools (mostly national schools and Chinese schools) from four states namely
Selangor, Kelantan, Sarawak and Sabah as part of a wider project on social cohesion study as well as newspapers
and web sources. The resistance to vernacular schools was premised on the affirmation that national schools rest on
the idea of inculcating and sustaining national identity as well as facilitating cross-cultural experience and
communication while eliminating the more segregating and divisive forces in vernacular schools. By contrast, the
persistence of vernacular schools pertains to the idea of sustaining minority cultural identity, countering the lack of
national schools’ sense of accommodation and questionable quality of education, and refuting the perception of
vernacular schools as structural cause of disunity. Besides these negotiation difficulties of cultural identities in the
school system, wider power politics and market politics interplay in influencing the resistance and persistence of
vernacular schools.
Keywords: Chinese school, education, lingualism, National school, social identity, vernacular school
Introduction
Ideally Malaysians would like to believe they have a collective culture that captures the imagination of its
people as one nation. However the social reality in the socio-political landscape is otherwise because the
idea of modern state, the understanding of the people and the execution of the institutional process differ.
Prior to colonization, the country was led by Malay sultanate and feudal structures with distant
contacts in this part of the world between the eastern Chinese frontier and western Indian and Islamic
frontier. After Western colonization, the people were exposed and socialized to different sets of
institutional structures. The influxes of economic migrants from China and India through the colonial
economic agenda created a complex socio-political landscape with the formation of a plural society. This
has led to an amalgam of structures and institutions that underpin the country’s education and school
system.
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 15
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
The current education system in Malaysia has its origins in the pre-Independence era (Ong et al.,
2013). The British introduced secular education with English as the medium of instruction and later other
vernacular schools, classified according to the language of instruction, were the Malay, Chinese, and
Tamil schools. The British colonial ‘indirect’ rule in 1874 through the residents’ system was an
interventionist move that enable the introduction of formal English education into the Malayan school
system, which later became ‘national schools’. The curriculum of these schools had much in common
with the British schools. Emphasis was given to the acquisition of the three R’s (Reading, wRiting,
aRithmetic) during primary school. Most of the time spent on teaching was specifically for aiding
children whose mother tongue was mainly Malay, Tamil, Cantonese and Hokkien.
What was witnessed was the existence of multi-lingual school system with vernacular schools having
separate medium of instruction. Besides vernacular language for the Malays, the British felt obligated to
provide a basic form of education designed to teach the children of the local people to do subsistence
farming and fisher. The Chinese and Indian communities established their vernacular schools with school
curricula and teachers from China and India respectively. In 1913, the first Chinese school was set up in
Malaya (then in Singapore). Chinese schools saw the introduction of English and Malay language in 1945
where later the accommodation of language and culture issues was settled through the Fenn-Wu Report
(1951). Also the syllabus in all Chinese schools was reviewed to reflect the local context.
The characteristics of the Chinese school differ as there are two types of Chinese schools, namely
vernacular Chinese school (at the primary level) and independent Chinese school (at the secondary level).
In this article, reference is made to the vernacular Chinese school which follows the national curriculum.
Many students in these vernacular Chinese schools, after completion of their primary education, move to
national secondary schools where the medium of instruction is in Malay. This system would make the
students from Chinese-medium schools trilingual and all other pupils at least bilingual (those from Tamil
schools and Arabic/religious schools are also trilingual). Chinese schools would thus be integrated into
the national system and yet not be abolished.
Meanwhile the scenario in national schools after independence in Peninsular Malaysia saw a shift to
Malay language as the medium of instruction in the 1970s with the eventual completion of the task in
1978 (David & Govindasamy, 2005). In Malaysia, the setting up of vision schools involves placing a
national school and other vernacular schools (i.e. Chinese and Tamil schools) together at the same site to
share common facilities such as the school canteen and sports ground. It is hoped various races will
encourage greater interaction between them and foster national unity (Mohd Izham & Jamallullail, 2010).
With the exception of the English national schools and Christian missionary schools, the vernacular
schools comprised mainly of pupils from a single ethnic group. However, while this is true for Tamil
schools, statistics for Chinese schools show that 15% of students studying at the nearly 1,300 Chinese
primary schools in the country are non-Chinese (Wong, 2014).
The identification of vernacular schools by linguistic affiliation and ethnic groups consolidated the
cultural divide especially at the primary school level. This divide was further solidified by geographical
location as the majority of the Malays tend to reside in rural villages, with the Chinese in urban areas, and
the Indians in rural plantation areas. These diverse schools had diverse management and financial
resources which comprised of government-maintained schools, missionary schools, non-profit schools,
and privately funded schools (Ong et al., 2013) which further enhanced the social divide.
In 2003, the Ministry of Education mandated the use of English for teaching all Mathematics and
Science subjects in order to prepare its student population for competition in an increasingly globalized
market. However this bilingual policy was reversed in 2012 with both subjects now being taught in Malay
language.
School and education are critical components of State agenda as they concern public interest and have
become a critical and strategic platform in nation-building, of which national school is viewed as a
strategic educational tool (Azly Rahman, 2013). However historical and political attempts to consolidate
all schools under a single stream national school have failed even in the postcolonial era. Even prior to
independence the intent in establishing national schools has encountered resistance from the Chinese
fraternity. On the opposing front, the resistance to vernacular schools has also gained momentum. The
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 16
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
issue of mono-lingualism as a medium of instruction in national schools has been a contested one.
Attempts to accommodate bilingualism and multilingualism are ongoing in Malaysia with no solutions in
sight. However, two key personalities - one an educationist (UiTM pro-chancellor Abdul Rahman
Arshad) in 2012 and another a politician (Cheras Umno chief Syed Ali Alhabshee) in 2014 have urged the
government to look into setting up a single-stream school system to overcome the barrier towards racial
unity posed by the multi-stream. The most recent call for the abolition of vernacular schools was the
‘Hapuskan SJKC’ [Get rid of SJKC] banners displayed during the Malaysia Day 16 September 2015 rally
by the ‘Red Shirts’, dubbed ‘the#Merah169’ (Malay Mail Online, 2015).
Why is there resistance to vernacular schools when it is perceived to be performing well? Why hasn’t
the national school been popular among the minorities? Why did the vernacular school persist? Why the
resistance to national school implementation?
The objective of this article is to examine the reasons for the resistance to and persistence of
vernacular school. The data were drawn from three main sources, namely interviews with 12 schools
(mostly national schools and Chinese schools), heads and/or representatives from four states namely
Selangor, Kelantan, Sarawak and Sabah as part of a wider project on social cohesion study (see
acknowledgement) as well as newspapers and web sources.
Literature review
There are two sources for the literature review namely theoretical and empirical sources related to the
question of language and identity in schools, with particular reference to the issue of persistence and
resistance to vernacular school.
Theories on language and identity-politics
There are two strands of theory with regard to the debate on language as medium of instruction in national
schools and vernacular schools. These theories explain the relationship between language and identity
through social identity theory and postcolonial theory.
The social identity theory is premised on the socio-psychological approach which assumes a direct
relationship between language and ethnic identity where language contact is seen as an outcome through
group membership. Tajfel’s famous social identity theory contends that groups are formed on the bases of
self-definition, attraction, and cultural participation (Bagby & Rector, 1992). Giles and Byrne (1982)
proposed a theory of ethnolinguistic identity where ethnolinguistic vitality provides a subjective feeling of
belonging to a particular group (in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). This theory suggests language as a
salient marker of ethnic identity and group membership (in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). There are two
ways of viewing this relationship between language and group membership and identity. If the mother
tongue language and ethnic identity of the minority group are strong, it suggests a strong in-group
identification, in-group vitality high, in-group boundaries are closed and identification with other groups
weak and low likelihood to assimilate and learn the second language. Opposing characteristics are
observed if the in-group identification is weak.
Meanwhile the post-structural and related postcolonial critical approaches view identity as
multidimensional, contingent and subject to negotiation across context (Doran, 2004). Here language is
used as a key for strategic enactment of subject positions projecting particular aspects of their social
identities and downplaying others in particular settings. Language ideologies, ethnic and national
identities are linked to relations of power and political arrangement in communities and societies
(Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Language choices in multilingual contexts are assumed to be embedded
in larger social, political, economic and cultural systems. Bourdieu (1991) views linguistic practices as a
form of symbolic capital convertible into economic and social capital and distributed unequally within
any speech community especially in terms of linguistic stratification (in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 17
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Postcolonial theory extends this post-structural view by contesting and rejecting meta-narratives of
universal ideas of modern education, nation state, homogenous identity, and universalizing tendencies.
These tendencies are often carried over by postcolonial states that are perceived as neocolonial states
because of the hegemonic nature of their actions. Their actions, instead of being inclusive, rely primarily
or continue on a platform set by their past experiences with colonials. As such the postcolonial states are
seen to become neocolonial masters often with hegemonic discourse, showing limitation of outlook by its
inability to empathize across boundaries of culture and ethnic differences. The representation of others
(e.g. minorities) as ‘them’ (other cultures) from the powerful majority shows a way of achieving this
limited end.
Postcolonial theory shows how a particular system (e.g. school system) is silent on matters related to
politics of education. Postcolonial theory tries to foreground question of cultural difference and diversity
and examine their treatment in school, for example spaces for multilingualism. Postcolonial theory
celebrates hybridity and cultural polyvalency. For example Homi Babha’s (1994) idea of third space for
understanding the dynamics of identity negotiation in minority communities entails creating an in-
between space of culture where hybrid identities transgress fixed identities of traditional order.
Postcolonial approach sees states of marginality, plurality and perceived ‘otherness’ as sources of energy
and potential for change.
Past empirical studies
The issue of resistance to vernacular school and its persistence can be framed by examining the counter
context whether monolingualism or bilingualism or multilingualism should be promoted in national
school system. The notion of lingualism means the modes of language instruction used in the school
system as means for teaching and learning process. The prevalent discourse is between the need for
bilingualism and multilingualism. Monolingualism suggests a single-stream medium of language
instruction in a school and promotes the idea of single cultural foundation for nation-building process.
Bilingualism rests on arguments to accommodate globalization, internationalization, industrialization, and
solidarity, and while multilingualism premised on linguistic and cultural diversity in schools has the
potential to enlighten and expand our understanding of others, access to ease of learning at early stage,
and thinking in mother tongue to sustain cultural identity.
Lai and Byram (2003) explore the politics of bilingualism in Hong Kong with the shift from English
to Chinese (e.g. Mandarin) as medium of instruction in schools. The language shift policy was
problematic for Hong Kong as it has to go through the decolonization process since 1997 and
internationalization of English under globalized developments witnessed in ICT. Some of the problems
are associated with hegemonic struggle of social groups in the society such as the indigenous elite class
and national ruling elites at both the local and national level.
Tupas and Lorente (2011) examined the Philippines experience where there were three phases of
language use in schools from monolingualism to bilingualism to multilingualism. Since 1901 the
public education system in Philippines established by the Americans saw English as the sole medium of
instruction. However, since 1974 the Bilingual Education Program of the Philippines (BEP) was
introduced with English as the medium of instruction in science and mathematics and Filipino, the
national language, in all other subjects. The bilingual approach saw Filipino as the national language can
smoothen the learning among Filipinos and express their identity as a nation (Smolicz & Nical, 1997)
while English played the role as a global language. Since 2009, the BEP was replaced by the
implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) at primary school level to
encourage mother tongue acquisition. This action was seen as progressive in accommodating the needs of
the varying indigenous communities in gaining access to primary education, who were displaced by the
bilingual stream.
In contrast, pessimism prevails in South Africa to bring on board the mother tongue education as an
additive bilingualism policy. Banda (2000) sees this policy as facing obstacles when the utility of
vernacular languages is perceived as lesser to English by key actors such as role models, learners and
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 18
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
parents. In a somewhat similar fashion, Gupta (1997) has argued against vernacular schools namely
problems encountered by children in multilingual settings, and the potential for mother tongue education
to be socially and ethnically divisive as well as marginal groups diminish access to power structures.
De Klerk (2002) posits the discourse on multilingualism or linguistic diversity rests on the concerns
for human rights as well as cultural and linguistic sustenance of minority groups. This approach positions
the role of mother-tongue education as a key political and linguistic tool in the empowerment of marginal
communities such as minorities. Mother tongue of minorities is viewed as a basic human right and its
growth is viewed as progressive in countering hegemony of majority languages in terms of injustices and
inequalities (De Klerk, 2002).
Stroud (2003) viewed multilingualism education through vernacular and local languages have both the
negative and positive effect of globalization. Multilingualism can reinforce the negative effect of
globalization by marginalizing these languages as witnessed in case of Malay language sidelined in the
predominantly English preferred market place. Multilingualism can also counteract the negative effects of
globalization by promoting the mother tongue and other local languages.
Debate
We will frame this debate along two lines, firstly, arguing for the resistance to vernacular school, which
inevitably comprises the affirmation and support for the national school, and secondly, arguing for the
persistence of vernacular school, which will inevitably comprise resistance to its counterpart national
school.
Arguments for the resistance to vernacular schools
Arguments for the resistance to vernacular schools mainly premised on the claim and affirmation for the
support of the national schools. It rests on the idea of inculcating and sustaining national identity as well
as facilitating cross-cultural experience and communication through national school, and eliminating
segregative and divisive forces in vernacular school.
1) National identity through national schools and not vernacular schools
The cause of national schools for nation building purposes is without doubt an avenue for the State to
shape the society with positive values and perspectives celebrating the nation’s diverse community make
up. As such, the national school can be a microcosm reflective of the Malaysian society. This ideal if
properly cultivated will provide a collective view of a sense of belonging, trust and shared destiny. In the
Malaysian case, the common and popular ideal is the promotion of the idea of single language stream
(monolingualism) with Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) as the medium of instruction in the national
school but there were also options for bilingualism as in the case of teaching of Maths and Sciences in
English in 2003. The assumption of the mono-lingual strand is that as a Malaysian, one should be in a
Malay-medium national school as their national language is Malay. The second bilingual strand is
somewhat accommodative of English as a market and global language of which the nation’s position
matters.
Thus the main resistance to vernacular schools was based on this ideal of nation building and
formation of national identity. As a consequence, the State’s intent and interest has always been to ensure
that the diverse minority population favouring vernacular schools embrace a national school curriculum
with the national language as a platform for national culture – with the slogan “bahasa membentuk jiwa
bangsa” which literally means “language forms the soul of the nation.” From this angle vernacular school
with its mother tongue or minority language as medium of instruction contradicts the national aspiration.
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 19
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
2) Cross-cultural experience and communication in national cultural foundations
Nations’ cultural foundations and values are reinforced in national schools and this serves as a platform to
grapple with the idea of a racially and culturally diverse Malaysian society. Thus by creating a Malaysian
fabric in the national school, it will facilitate cross-cultural experience that will influence beliefs and
behaviour of students and eventually develop skills to engage in communication. Thus, the opportunity to
interact with wider sections of the community with different languages and different ethnic groups were
enlarged through the national school platform. Here the vernacular schools were perceived to be limited
in view of the lack of a common national language to play a facilitating role, besides lack of opportunity
for cross-cultural experience with a wider mix of ethnic groups. It was envisaged that if there are greater
number of vernacular schools present, then there is also less possibility for greater mix of ethnic groups in
national schools.
3) Vernacular school as segregative and divisive obstacle to unity
From the idea of schools as a reinforcing agent of values and perspective, vernacular school with its
parochial mother tongue language as medium of instruction and ethnically preference groups were
perceived to be segregative in nature as partial values of a minority group is projected and not the national
aspiration. Besides that, the lack of opportunities for students to interact with the wider mix of people acts
as an obstacle to unity. This is more so a problem if the students come from a segregated living
environment and end up in a segregated vernacular school which could be counterproductive to the unity
aspiration if these students were to continue until the secondary level.
Arguments for the persistence of vernacular schools
Several arguments for the persistence of vernacular schools have been put forward by the Chinese
stakeholders namely sustaining cultural identity, lack of accommodation in national schools and
questionable quality of education in national school. Besides the perennial social identity concerns
associated with Chinese schools, the interdependence between the factors was seen where the persistence
of Chinese schools is partly due to the governance and politics of education and lack of faith in the
national schools which are viewed as less inclusive and lacking in quality of education.
1) Sustaining minority language to sustain minority culture and identity
One of the key arguments for the persistence of vernacular schools is in sustaining minorities’ culture,
especially in the Malaysian case, the sustenance of Chinese and Indian culture. The identity of minorities
in terms of their mother tongue is very much dependent or rooted in the medium of instruction of the
vernacular school. Also certain subjects that create cultural awareness such as literature, history and ethics
are all embedded in this vernacular stream. This argument can be traced back to the formation of the
education act prior to Malaya’s independence where the Fenn-Wu report (1951) found that the Chinese
leaders were concerned about the abolition of Chinese schools and its possible consequences on the
erosion and eventual eradication of their culture after the policy formulation. Besides the cultural roots
and needs thesis, mother tongue education is also perceived as both an individual and social rights
concerns. In short the survival of the minority culture and identity has been squarely placed on the role of
vernacular schools to impart cultural education and identity. However the presence of non-Chinese
students in Chinese schools can be viewed from a favourable view of embracing different language skills
for the market as well as for future prospects in global business. The non-Chinese seeking purposeful
education in Chinese vernacular schools will not witness erosion of their cultural identity and would not
become more ‘Chinese’, as the wider landscape is multicultural in nature.
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 20
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
2) Lack of accommodation of minorities’ mother tongue education in the national school
Critics argue that if the national schools have been more forthcoming in accommodating the main
minority languages, it would have been easier to form a more inclusive education under one roof (i.e.
national school) instead of a separate roof (i.e. vernacular school). Suspicion and lack of faith in the
State’s effort in incorporating multilingual and multicultural education in the national school system has
been a key factor for the persistence of vernacular schools.
This lack of faith was reflected by a headmaster from a primary school in Sarawak who opined that the
“Chinese society is against the idea of integration school like the sekolah wawasan [vision school]. Why?
Because they are scared that they’ll lose the identity of Chinese schools. When under sekolah wawasan
[vision school], the Chinese school will become merged with other schools.”
The Chinese are against Vision school (as means of cultivating integration aka inclusive national
school) because of several reasons:
a. Suspicious of the perceived ‘Islamic consciousness agenda’ underway in national schools. This
agenda was reflected in national schools where non-Islamic students were forced to wear baju
kurung (Malay costume perceived to be Islamic) and often enticed to chant or listened to Islamic
prayers at assembly and during recess.
b. Chinese community will lose their identity of Chinese school. Losing their language is like “losing
their cultural backbone”
c. Under vision school (aka national school), Chinese schools might become a mere source of offering
only Chinese subject e.g. Mandarin language without offering other cultural component.
d. Chinese schools currently offer jobs to various segments of the Chinese educated class. This
economic opportunity will close the door for language and cultural enthusiasts.
3) Perceived higher quality and market advantage in vernacular school education
Some argue that the persistence of vernacular schools seen from the increasing demand for vernacular
schools as not for the reason of language alone but quality issue. The Chinese school system imparts extra
quality issue through discipline, values and performance which are sought after by parents. The demand
for these schools is getting higher because it is seen as an alternative to the national schools. Abolishing
vernacular schools will not solve the problem as it will only force a higher demand for alternative private
schools. Thus the issue of quality becomes the concern of parents and stakeholders at large.
4) Perceived lower quality of national schools is the politics of the persistence of vernacular schools
A common perception amongst the Chinese educators as well as comments from newspaper readers and
internet sites is that the national school has compromised on the quality of education. Three signs that
indicate the quality of national schools has declined were, firstly, when the government by its own
admission enacted and introduced the policy of teaching maths and science in English in 2003; secondly,
when Malays (considered to be nationalists) begin to send their children to Chinese schools; and thirdly, it
can be attributed to the lowering of the passing mark to enable students to secure grades in multiple A’s
which has been a phenomena of late. A related point to this third sign is that when these same students sit
for higher level exams such as foreign GCE ‘A’ levels, they struggle to pass with ease.
5) Counterpoints to the role of vernacular schools in not promoting racial or national integration
Beyond school environment or other external factors, responses from the Chinese school stakeholders
argue that ethnic integration issue is externalized and not due to vernacular schools per se. One school
board member cites as follows:
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 21
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
“If we want racial harmony/integration, it is not because we are in Chinese/Tamil schools and we
become extremists. But it is a matter of how our government provides opportunities for higher
education and employment. These are the things that make the people racialist. Not because of the
schools. If government is fair in higher education and employment opportunities, then they will
achieve more national unity”.
Besides school environment and government policy, some argue that educators, community and media
play a role in inculcating national integration. Others point out that segregative school environments exist
in other social spaces such as independent and private schools, religious schools, mono-ethnic residential
schools, mono-ethnic MARA junior colleges and even universities (such as UiTM). They question why
there were no calls to abolish these institutions. They also question whether there are more to national
integration than social environment alone.
Also some argue that vernacular schools such as Chinese schools were already multi-racial school.
This point was put forward in view of the common sight to see non-Chinese namely Malay and other
natives’ (in Sabah and Sarawak) parents sending their children to Mandarin medium schools. Besides that
a mainstream ruling component party member went on to say the following: “Non-Chinese students
studying at Chinese primary schools throughout the country now comprise 12% of the total number of
students. This means that SJK(C) schools are now more diverse than national schools” (Malaysian
Insider, 2014). Lack of access to classified data makes it difficult to validate this statement. In fact in one
rural school in Kelantan, the Chinese school is sustaining mainly because of the presence of majority of
Malay students, as the outmigration of Chinese community to urban areas have reduced their children’s
presence. In some rural communities, the proximity of a Chinese school makes it a practical choice for
Malay students. However the scale of multi-racial composition in Chinese school on average is low. In
fact a columnist even question whether a non-Chinese “because they speak Chinese [by virtue of
attending Chinese vernacular school], they are segregated from their ethnic cousins and other Malaysians
who learn in Malay” in national schools (Wong Chin Huat, 2014).
There were several reasons for non-Chinese to send their children to Chinese schools; the discipline
and quality of education, learning Mandarin as a third language for market needs, non-Muslim natives
(i.e. in East Malaysia) fearing the Islamization in national schools and convenient location of vernacular
school.
Discussion and conclusion
The idea of national school education based on English language during the colonial and early part of the
post-independence period, followed by the shift to Malay language in 1978 and vernacular schools using
the mother tongue for their respective communities have shaped the educational landscape in Malaysia.
Traces of colonial agenda in education revolve around two areas namely regulating or constructing order
in socio-cultural sphere and facilitating wider interests in economic resource exploitation. By implication,
the continuity of representation and practices of education in post-colonial period can be traced to
colonial modes of rationality.
As can be seen in this debate on the resistance to vernacular schools, the emphasis on the affirmative
position of those who support the national schools and simultaneously resist the vernacular schools was
that they appear to emphasize the goals desired i.e. inclined towards the resolution of the outcome. Their
position is that national schools cohere with the goals of national identity and there is no compromise in
their standpoint. There might be problems in the mechanism, for example lower quality of education or
hindrance to socialization, but these process elements are viewed as negotiable and solvable over time.
From a theoretical standpoint, the social identity theory partially explains the persistence of vernacular
schools. Since the mother tongue language and ethnic identity of the minority group are strong, it
suggests strong in-group identification and less likelihood to assimilate and learn the second language.
This was further reinforced by problems of quality of education and lack of inclusivity of other cultures
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 22
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
and languages in national school. An interesting point is that the national school project to use Malay
language as mode of instruction was prompted by the same social identity logic that is to inculcate
national identity where a new in-group identification and socialization is facilitated.
However social identity theory’s relevance stops there and was unable to capture the dynamics of the
social reality, especially negotiation of cultural identities in the school system, where wider power politics
and market politics interplay in influencing the resistance and persistence of vernacular schools. There are
three possible scenarios in the Malaysian context where the language policy in the education system has
evolved: emulate the colonial mould to suit the power interest (neo-colonial continuity), resist the colonial
mould and come up with a local mould and formulate a hybrid mould. Using the postcolonial lenses one
can see that the ideological forces that had pushed the colonized Malaysia to internalize the colonizers
values and norms especially among the elites. This was reinforced by the nation state formation,
schooling and planning system as well as the duplication of the administrative structures and the market
modernization and industrial process that comes with it. At the same time the postcolonial regimes were
also resisting the colonial ideologies by formulating their own structures most of which they were
emulating the colonial masters as most of them were educated in the Anglo-Saxon English education
system or models. Reasons for the justification and legitimation of Islamic education and subsequently
incorporation of the religious fervor in the national school can be traced to the colonial missionary
education where religious education was promoted. While this process was taking place in the national
school, the persistence of the vernacular school was consolidated with improved performance in the
quality of education. This process somewhat reinforced the multilingual and ethno linguistic affiliation,
though some pragmatic cross-cultural practices were in place for market reasons. The value of a particular
language variety in a symbolic market place such as national school is derived from the legitimization by
dominant group and dominant institutions.
In the Malaysian case, bilingualism and multilingualism should not be a problem if one were to
consider the diverse ethnic composition of its population. However there is a fragmented approach to the
acquisition of second and third languages with the presence of vernacular schools (i.e. medium of
language instruction are in Mandarin and Tamil) and religious schools (i.e. Arabic) which are
predominantly aligned along ethnic groups, and form an important part of the Malaysian historical roots.
Though these schools provide rich language resource but they are not accessible to the wider population.
Acknowledgement
This article is part of a research project titled ‘Social cohesion through developing the 1R concept in
Malaysian education’ (1R+3r). This research project is funded by the Ministry of Education under the
Long Term Research Grant Scheme (LRGS) [code: LRGS/BU/2011/UKM/CMN).
References
Alderson JC (2009) Setting the scene. In: Alderson JC (ed) The Politics of language education:
Individuals and institutions. Multingual Matters, Bristol.
Azly Rahman (2013) The Allah controversy and other essays on Malaysian hypermodernity. Strategic
Information and Research Development Centre, Petaling Jaya.
Homi Babha’s (1994) The Location of Culture. Routledge, London.
Bagby RM, Rector NA (1992) Prejudice in a simulated legal context: A further application of social
identity theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 22 (4), 397–406.
Banda F (2000) The Dilemma of the mother tongue: Prospects for bilingual education in South Africa.
language. Culture and Curriculum 13(1), 51-66.
Blasé J (ed) (1991) The politics of life in schools: power, conflict and cooperation. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park.
GEOGRAFIA OnlineTM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 13 (14 - 23) 23
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
David MK, Govindasamy S (2005) Negotiating a language policy for Malaysia: Local demand for
affirmative action versus challenges from globalization. In: Canagarajah AS (ed) Reclaiming the local
in Language policy and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey.
De Klerk G (2002) Mother tongue education in South Africa: The weight o history. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 154, 29–46. [Cited 15 Oct. 2014]. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl.2002.011.
Doran M (2004) Negotiating between Bourge and Racaille: Verlan as youth identity practice in suburban
Paris. In: Pavlenko A, Blackledge A (eds) Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts.
Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon, UK.
Giles H, Byrne J (1982) An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicutural Development 3 (1), 17-41.
Gupta AF (1997) When mother-tongue education is not preferred. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 18(6), 496-506.
Malay Mail Online (2015) MCA wants sedition probe on anti-Chinese school banners at #Merah169
rally, Malay Mail Online, 17 September 2015. [Cited 2 October 2015]. Available from:
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mca-wants-sedition-probe-on-anti-chinese-
school-banners-at-merah169-rally.
Mohd Izham Mohd Hamzah, Jamalulail Abd Wahab (2010) Pelaksanaan Sekolah Wawasan: Memenuhi
keperluan kepelbagaian pelajar dan perpaduan kaum. Available from: http://www.iab.edu.my.
Ong Puay Liu, Sivapalan Selvadurai, Badariah Saibeh, Marsitah Mohd Radzi, Shazlin Amir Hamzah,
Ong Puay Hoon (2013) Tracking the pathways of education in Malaysia: Roots and routes. Asian
Social Science 9 (10), 93-104.
Lai PS, Byram M (2003) The politics of bilingualism: A reproduction analysis of the policy of mother
tongue education in Hong Kong after 1997. Compare: A Journal of Comparative International
Education 3 (3), 315-334.
Malaysian Insider (2014) Don’t challenge Chinese, Indians’ rights to study in vernacular schools, says
MCA Youth, Malaysian Insider, 11 October 2014 . [Cited 15 Nov. 2014]. Available from:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dont-challenge-chinese-indians-rights-to-study-
in-vernacular-schools-says-m#sthash.cOshXB5i.dpuf.
Pavlenko A, Blackledge A (2004) Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Multilingual Matters
Ltd., Clevedon, UK.
Smolicz JJ, Nical I (1997) Languages of the Phillipines - A study of English, Filipino and the vernaculars
in the three language communities. In: Wolck W, De Houwer A (eds) Recent studies in contact
linguistics. Dummlers, Bonn.
TupasTRF, Lorente BP (2011) A new politics of language in the Philippines: Bilingual education and the
new challenge of the mother tongues. National University of Singapore, Singapore. [Cited 13 Nov.
2014]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/1456781/
A_new_politics_of_language_in_the_Philippines_bilingual_education_and_the_new_challenge_of_th
e_mother_tongues.
Stroud C (2003) Postmodernist perspectives on local languages: African mother-tongue education in
times of globalization. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6(1), 17-36.
[Cited 11 Nov. 2014]. DOI:10.1080/13670050308667770.
Wong Chin Huat (2014) Malay kids in Chinese schools. Malaysian Insider, 27 August 2014 [Cited 15
Nov. 2014]. Available from: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/wong-chin-
huat/article/malay-kids-in-chinese-schools.
Wong Chun Wai (2014) Language advantage. The Star Online, 12 October 2014. [Cited 15 Nov. 2014].
Available from: http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/On-The-
Beat/Profile/Articles/2014/10/12/Language-advantage-It-is-bewildering-that-vernacular-schools-
should-be-made-the-scapegoat-for-race-r/.
