[lg policy] UEC itself is not the problem

[Harold Schiffman]

 UEC itself is not the problem
By
FMT <https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/author/fmt/>
-
August 30, 2018
Share
<https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freemalaysiatoday.com%2Fcategory%2Fopinion%2F2018%2F08%2F30%2Fuec-itself-is-not-the-problem%2F>
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=UEC+itself+is+not+the+problem&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freemalaysiatoday.com%2Fcategory%2Fopinion%2F2018%2F08%2F30%2Fuec-itself-is-not-the-problem%2F&via=fmtoday>
<https://plus.google.com/share?url=https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2018/08/30/uec-itself-is-not-the-problem/>
<?subject=UEC
itself is not the
problem&body=https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2018/08/30/uec-itself-is-not-the-problem/>

*By Dr Boo Cheng Hau*

Exactly 34 years ago, I accompanied a fellow student who was rejected by my
alma mater to see the admission director of the American university. We
were surprisingly told that she was rejected because she had not sat for
the UEC despite having completed 12 years of primary and secondary
Chinese-medium education, which is the usual and minimum requirement for
entrance into most American universities.

We were actually shocked by the fact that the UEC, just a few years after
its inception, was already recognised as a mandatory admission requirement
by this particular university for graduates of Chinese independent
secondary schools in Malaysia.

I was even more surprised when the admission director agreed to admit my
friend conditionally based on her secondary school results. She would
automatically be considered a normal admission if she obtained a GPA of 2.0
or above in her first semester.

This small incident showed how a highly competitive, state-run American
university treated education as an opportunity to prove one’s capability
and willingness to learn instead of discriminating against potential
students to prove their worth.

The major reason for getting local public universities to accept the UEC is
to prove the government’s determination to do away with its own ignorance
and racial prejudice that (all) Chinese students can afford to study at
local private or foreign universities. It is also an inevitable part of the
process of democratising and decentralising our education system, in which
diversity will enhance the competitiveness of our students in the job
market, especially the Malays and those from less privileged social groups.

In the cornerstone case of Merdeka University Bhd vs Government of Malaysia
(1982), both the High Court and Federal Court ruled that Article 152 (1) of
the Malaysian constitution merely maintains the use and learning of mother
tongues in schools, but they are not to be used as mediums of instruction
in learning any other subjects.

Article 152 (1) of the Federal Constitution expressly states that it is a
right to learn one’s mother tongue but the government of the day is not
obliged to allow any other subjects to be taught in one’s mother tongue or
any language other than the national language. Our Federal Constitution
does not affirm that one’s right to learn in one’s mother tongue is a
constitutional right.

The courts further ruled that no language other than the national language
can be used “as a medium of expression or communication for the nation as
such but only to the extent of preventing the erosion of their use as a
medium of expression within their respective communities”.

It was apparently ethnocentric to classify all other “non-national”
languages as communal or tribal, distorting the fact that languages are
tools for communication in today’s ever-globalising society. Non-Chinese
can speak fluent Mandarin and vice-versa. Some Chinese can speak Tamil,
English, Iban or Kadazan. One has to accept the fact that the constitution
drafted by an elite Reid’s Commission composed of foreign judges and law
experts is basically dysfunctional in an increasingly diverse Malaysian
society in terms of education reform.

Peninsular Malaysia has never stopped being a multiethnic society. One can
hardly imagine that 110 languages were actually spoken among the traders in
Melaka 600 years ago. Malay has naturally been the lingua franca. There was
no legal restriction on the use of other languages to make Melaka an
international entrepot then, neither was there a need to make Malay the
national language to make it the most prominent language. This history
tells us our Federal Constitution in regards to preserving a fair and
multicultural society is now outdated in bringing Malaysia forward as an
advanced nation.

The High Court and Federal Court’s decisions in Merdeka University vs
Government of Malaysia (1982) prompted the constitutional experts for
post-apartheid South African constitutional reforms in the 1990s to be
specifically inclusive of 11 official languages, notwithstanding an
individual’s right to learn in his mother tongue, as opposed to two
official languages during the apartheid rule – that is, Afrikaans
(practically a Dutch-based creole) and English.

Nonetheless, our policymakers’ perception towards language is still highly
communal, tribal and nationalistic. English became an international
language after the rise of the British empire and colonialism, and it has
maintained its status as one of the world languages for science, technology
and socio-economic advancements. No one would treat it as the language of a
single race or give it a communal identity. For the same reason, Mandarin,
Japanese and Korean have become important languages in many countries due
to those nations’ increasingly leading role in science, technology and
socio-economic advancements.

In Malaysia, many non-Malays speak Malay fluently and the number is rising.
The number would rise even faster if Malaysia and Indonesia became newly
industrialised countries. Like any other world language, Malay would become
a popular choice for a second language in the future if Malay
internationalist views rebranded it as a language of socio-economic
importance worldwide.

Many have misperceived the US as a monolingual country where English is the
only “official language”. They argue that English being the only medium of
instruction in the American education system has elevated its leading role
in science and technology advancements. It was even cited as a vital piece
of evidence by the author of “The Malay Dilemma”, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, for
his argument that since the US is a great monolingual nation, Malaysians
would be great and united as a nation if we embarked on a Malay
language-only education policy and “satu bangsa satu bahasa” as a slogan in
his Umno’s propaganda.

In reality, one-language policies and race-based nationalism do not unite
any multiracial, multicultural nation. Instead, they often divide nations
severely as evidenced by the civil war in Sri Lanka. On the other hand,
South Africa, Switzerland and Canada rescued their nations from civil war
with constitutional reforms by permitting multilingualism and
multiculturalism.

Switzerland went through a 400-year civil war before various “tribes”
agreed on a constitution permitting four official languages and a
multilingual education system. Similarly, Canada faced separatism from
French-speaking Quebec until both divides agreed on peaceful referendums to
decide on Quebec’s independence and to form a bilingual government. South
Africa went through a civil-war state under the apartheid regime based on
Afrikaner Nationalism and Afrikaan-language dominance until the situation
was resolved through democratic constitutional reform instilling equality,
multilingualism and multiculturalism constitutionally.

The US Federal Constitution has never defined English as the only official
language although English is the de facto language of documentation for all
state and federal governments. There is an English-only movement to make
English the only de jure official language despite the fact that 13% of
Americans speak Spanish as their native or second language and 7% speak a
language other than English and Spanish.

Furthermore, Spanish is granted a special status in education in the state
of New Mexico. In fact, the power to administer the education system is
under the jurisdiction of state governments in the US. Even though the
language used in government documentation in 32 states is English, the
American courts view the language of government documentation as a separate
entity from the use of language in education, which is seen to be more of
an individual constitutional right that cannot be entirely dictated by the
state.

There are examples showing that state governments which administer a
diverse education system produce more competitive public education systems.
Besides being known for “public Ivy-League” universities such as UC
Berkeley and the University of Minnesota, California and Minnesota
administer competitive public education systems by investing in
multilingual and diverse public school systems.

There are even state-administered “immersion schools” in Minnesota that
teach all subjects in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Some are
bilingual schools. The public education system is not confined to the
purview of “tolerance towards diversity”, but instead utilises diversity as
a strength to make the public education system more competitive. It is
factually wrong to view the US as having a monolingual education system
even though it is predominantly in English.

Our leaders should view our language policy from an international
perspective instead of a race-based nationalist perspective. In regards to
an international perspective of our language policy, we could view
ourselves as respective governments in resolving peaceful constitutional
reforms with southern Thailand and the Philippines’ Moro separatist
movements. Perhaps both countries should adopt the Canadian approach in
resolving Quebec separatism and consider a constitutional reform which
admits the language and culture of Patani Malay Muslims and Mindanao’s
Moros as the constitutional rights of the respective countries rather than
suppressing them.

If Patani Malays and Moro Muslims as minorities in each of their respective
countries should be allowed to have their languages and cultures
constitutionally recognised in order to bring about the peaceful settlement
of a long-standing civil war, can local Malays be open-hearted enough to
allow other native cultures and languages to be officially and
constitutionally recognised? This can happen only if they view themselves
as Malay internationalists rather than narrower race-based Malay
nationalists.

Strictly speaking, it is a dysfunctional, unrealistic constitution more
than the UEC itself that is causing the actual problem. Not only are we a
multilingual and multicultural nation, the ever-changing world scenarios
have made us learn languages other than English and Malay in order to catch
up with the latest tide of globalisation. The UEC represents the foresight
of those who created it as it has become a well-recognised alternative
pathway to both English and Mandarin-medium international universities for
even Malay and other non-Chinese students.

There are myths about the UEC which should be clarified before any further
meaningful discussions can take place:

   1. UEC subjects are conducted not only in Mandarin but also in English
   and Malay;
   2. UEC English grading has been pegged with GCE O-Levels English;
   3. Initially, UEC Chinese language grading was not recognised by
   universities in PROC, and UEC holders had to sit for Han Yu Shui Ping Kao
   Shi or Mandarin Standard Examination like any other foreign students who
   spoke a second language. As a modus operandi, UEC Mandarin was recognised
   as a direct admission standard after some years of pegging study.
   4. Interestingly enough, GCE O-Levels Bahasa Melayu as either a first or
   second language is recognised by Malaysian authorities as on par with SPM
   Malay despite all other subjects being conducted in English,
   notwithstanding the fact that UEC’s Malay papers are tougher than that of
   GCE O-Levels.

The former administration’s refusal and the present Pakatan Harapan
government’s reluctance to peg UEC Malay to SPM Malay reflects the very
much ingrained racial prejudice and politically motivated ignorance of the
powers that be towards the multilingual UEC, the sociocultural and economic
values of which have been recognised by many foreign universities.

It is its investment in diversity that has made the US stay ahead of many
other nations in terms of technological innovation and economic
advancements. As Mahathir’s beliefs have had great influence on the highly
centralised Malay nationalist education policy implemented so far, it is
important that we correct certain misperceptions and misinformation in “The
Malay Dilemma” before we move forward with a far more effective and long
lasting education reform.


-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

 Harold F. Schiffman

Professor Emeritus of
 Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone:  (215) 898-7475
Fax:  (215) 573-2138

Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/

-------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20180901/a3b38530/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list