On Balance, is it Better?

by Maznah Mohamad

One of the rewards of national independence was the opportunity to re-fashion an inherited educational system — an outmoded one, according to many, as it favoured the furtherance of colonial rather than local interests. But at the end of colonialism, the history of our educational revamping was actually fraught with many irreconcilable compromises. Many are not sure whether what we have now is better than what we had before.

Nevertheless the majority of Malaysians accepted the idea that racial unity through schooling was necessary, that education must be made widely accessible for the masses and that education must be geared for economic and social progress.

Hence, political attention given to the education issue was intense. The survival of our ethnic-based political parties depended strongly on how they articulated and promoted the cause of education in their campaigns. Unfortunately, this resulted in the educational system being a reflection of the political accommodations, negotiations and bargains struck between political interest groups, rather than of competent and careful technocratic planning.

There were clashing concerns occupying politicians and educationists in their struggle to reform education. One was the obsession to use education as a basis for ethnic, and thereby national unity. The other was the competition by many parties to look upon the education system as safeguard and promoter of cultural and religious traditions.

Education was also looked upon as an instrument of social mobility. The expansion of schooling was one of the top policy concerns of the post-colonial government. In Malaysia, every level of schooling from primary to tertiary was expanded, resulting in a tremendous increase in the number of schools and student enrolment.

Democratisation

The NEP speeded up the above process. Educational places, assistance, scholarships and special schemes were made widely available to the Bumiputra. With the scrapping of ‘qualifying’ examinations at the standard six and Form Three levels more and more people were also able to remain in school for a much longer period. This is known as the democratization aspect of education, in which the benefits of schooling were spread out among a larger population.

The social and economic disparity based on ethnicity, which was previously reinforced through a colonial education system was in many ways narrowed through these educational ‘democratization’ processes. But the question of national integration remains an uncertain issue, if not an obscure goal.

Whither National Unity?

The latest statistics showed that only 2% of Chinese primary-school-going children are in national schools. This speaks loudly about the shortcomings of the ethnic unity function of schooling.

Furthermore, between using education as leveler of socio-economic opportunities and as the ‘theoretical’ basis for national integration there emerged a social trade-off, even an economic cost. What was overlooked in educational policies aimed at achieving the goals of integration and democratization was the question of quality of education.

The measure of education standards of excellence was seldom deliberated as a variable in educational planning. It was either treated as something that would naturally ensue with educational expansion or that it was a concern that could be postponed to a later period.

Three decades after the NEP and several educational legislations later, we are forced to debate the fundamental issues of education; something basic but which was probably heresy before.

Unanswered Questions

The questions that need to be addressed by the government of the day are, first, whether, and how far, meritocracy should be used as criterion for educational placement and achievement.

The second question is whether, and how much, to restore English education to keep up with so-called “global competitiveness." The third question is whether, and how, to produce high quality graduates with technological, scientific, creative and innovative skills but who should never be critical and autonomous at the same time.

On the other hand, and as if to undermine the above there are still other parties who are concerned that educational reforms should largely enhance the values and identity of each individual community.

Today, even when Malay is already accepted as a medium of instruction in national schools, the widespread Islamization process has spurred Islamic educationists to still aim for more within the education system. There is a continuing stress that the national curriculum must reflect a more moralistic and Islamic-based education.

Similarly, an argument can be made for Chinese educationists who used to defend the preservation of Chinese medium schools as a continuation of a cultural tradition. However, today, the symbol of Chinese education may stand for something else – could it be that it is being defended as a better alternative to quality education than what is provided by national schools?

Or, could it be that non-Malays are running away from national schools which they see as being increasingly “mono-ethnicized” rather than universalized? If so, there is an irony to this situation. If national schools fail to provide a common and universal platform for unity and integration they will ultimately lead to the creation of more mono-cultural edifices.

Added to the above difficult demands is the pressure for institutions of tertiary education to operate as profit-making business entities. More and more high quality education is becoming an unaffordable commodity. Soon, education will cease to be what it was meant to be – the means for social mobility, bridging the ‘rising expectation’ divide between the rich and the poor. Already there an emerging ethnic divide in the enrolment of students in public and private universities, with the latter heavily skewed towards the non-bumiputra.

Our education system is thus torn in many directions – it is expected to be the leveler of socio-economic and racial disparity, while at the same time be maintained as the site for all manner of cultural claims and finally as a ‘factory’ which churns out high productivity human resource.

Not Much Different from Colonial Days

But yet, analyzing deeper, our educational system is not much different from that offered under colonialism. Schools continue to be the mainstay of ethnic-segregation, high quality tertiary education is only affordable by the elites and the poorest and disadvantaged population, regardless of race, are still betrayed by the promise of education as their stepping-stone out of destitution.

Do we know, as Malaysians what we really want out of the education system? How many people are concerned that schools should be a place where true learning can be done, where the mind can be left unfettered to explore and enquire, and where the full potential of every individual (for creativity, intellectual development and scientific excellence) can be realized?

Some solutions to the present malaise in the educational system should be expected to be harsh and unpleasant. The re-introduction of English as a medium of instruction in some schools and universities might be unavoidable but problematic and unpopular.

Some solutions should be met without sacrificing the ideals of equity and balance. Places for university and special school entrances can be awarded both on the basis of merit and affirmative-action – this time not based on racial but on socio-economic criteria.

Some solutions are long overdue. Mediocrity in our educational institutions bred out of excessive political control and intervention must make way for the principle of meritocracy. In assessments, in examinations, in employment, and in promotions, all Malaysians deserve no less than to be rewarded and recognized for their real achievement and not be victimized (or deluded into false grandeur) by ascription and patronage.

Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.