03/01/2010
By DATUK SERI DR FONG CHAN ONN
Vernacular schools give meaning and support to our motto “Unity in Diversity” and the variety of choices for primary education should be our strength instead of weakness.
SINCE my days as Deputy Education Minister in the 1990s, I have heard many debates on vernacular schools, ranging from them being blamed as the source of racial disunity and for stifling creativity to their inability to produce outstanding scholars and even for espousing communism.
Let me try to debunk some of these arguments.
At independence in 1957, it was agreed by our forefathers that vernacular primary schools should continue to operate with government assistance, the aim being the children would study in primary schools in their own mother tongues but merge in government secondary schools using Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the medium of instruction.
However, the 1961 Education Act specified that the Education Minister could convert the medium of instruction of vernacular schools into BM at any time he deemed fit (clause 21.2). This clause was removed in 1996 by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the then Education Minister, under the 1995 Education Act, making vernacular schools a permanent component of the education system.
IT savvy: The integration of computing teaching methods in the classrooms have enabled the SJKCs to excel in Science and Mathematics.
In 1970, the Chinese primary student population numbered 439,681 in 1,346 Chinese primary schools (SJKCs). Today, the number of SJKCs has fallen to 1,285 but they provide primary education in Mandarin to over 700,000 students, with about 70,000 (10%) being non-Chinese.
In 1957, the number of teachers in the Chinese schools was 10,984 compared with 14,366 teachers in national schools. Since then, the teacher population in national schools has grown six times, whereas the teacher population in Chinese schools has increased only two-fold despite the overwhelming demand for teaching resources.
One might ask what drives the present X-generation parents, who are middle class and are likely to be IT savvy, to send their children to an over-crowded and painfully competitive environment. Presently, over 90% of Malaysian Chinese send their children to SJKCs.
Prior to independence, the death knell had already been sounded for Chinese schools in Malaysia. Yet, they have risen and thrived even in the face of globalisation.
Perhaps, we have been myopic about how Chinese schools are viewed.
Some have said SJKCs do not give students the chance to interact with students of other races, and therefore induce some extent of racial disharmony.
The vernacular schooling system is not a source of racial disharmony. How can it be when they use the same curriculum and teaching methods as the national schools? Negara Ku is sung passionately, and the Rukun Negara emphasised at every assembly. Vernacular schools, of course, also emphasise BM and English strongly from Standard One. In fact, when we listen to their students speaking in BM, we can’t differentiate them from other students.
SJKC students also have many opportunities to mix around and the schools are also required to organise regular activities with other stream schools (such as sports and open days) by the ministry under its Program Integrasi, so students and parents can inter-mingle.
Moreover, over 90% of SJKC students go to Government secondary schools where they then spend their most formative years (12 to 17 years).
Furthermore, our primary education system is a diverse system including national, national-type, religious, and private schools. Erasing the vernacular (national-type) schools does not automatically imply that all students will then study under the same roof at the primary level.
Is the creativity in our young ones really stymied by the so-called rote learning or by our stereotyped image of a disciplinary master with black-rimmed glasses carrying a cane at SJKCs?
It must be pointed out that all SJKC teachers are the same products of the teachers’ training colleges that any other school teacher-trainee is sent to. They are taught to use the same teaching methodologies and, of course, the same contents.
If rote learning is a flaw, it is a flawed part of the Malaysian education system not limited to vernacular schools. To change this requires a transformation of the entire teaching regime and pedagogic approaches, and yes, definitely also in the SJKCs.
In fact, many SJKC school boards have realised this, and have assisted in the formation of computer clubs. SJKCs such as Lai Ming in Kuala Lumpur, Kwok Kwang in Johor Baru, and Machap Baru (in my constituency), and many others, are using computers to teach and foster creativity.
It is the overwhelming integration of computing teaching methods in the classrooms that have enabled the SJKCs to excel in Science and Mathematics, and not rote-learning as expounded by my ex-Universiti Malaya (UM) colleague Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim.
Outstanding alumni
If it is the Chinese education that is to be baggaged with the past, of being the language of the imperial courts and deemed irrelevant and non-creative in the modern world (as suggested by my good friend Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing), how is it that Silicon Valley is filled with engineers and inventors of IC (Indian and Chinese) origins?
How is it that many of the new inventions associated with the IT world, such as the sound card (created by Sim Wong Hoo, a Ngee Ann Polytechnic graduate) and the pen-drive (created by our own Pua Khein Seng), have among their inventors engineers who were Chinese-educated?
And how is it that some of them have gone on to win Nobel Prizes, including Lee Yuan Tseh in Chemistry (1986) and Charles Kao Kuen who, just a month ago, won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physics for his pioneering work in fibre optics?
Surely we cannot ignore the fact that classical Chinese education has long changed from its emphasis on Confucian ethics to modern science and technology since the early 1900s.
And are the products of Malaysian Chinese schools as undistinguished as claimed by Khoo? Has he forgotten that his own esteemed UM colleagues such as Prof Tan Chong Tin (neurology), Prof Saw Aik (orthopaedics) and Prof Cheong Soon Keng (haematology), all respected members of the Malaysian medical profession, were from Chinese schools?
As a council member of TAR College, I can testify that it has, since 1960, groomed many Chinese students into professional accountants, engineers, builders, IT personnel and managers much sought after by employers. In fact, 70% of Malaysian professional accountants are TARC graduates.
And has he also forgotten the entrepreneurial contributions of YTL, Genting and the KLK (Tan Sri Yeoh Tiong Lay, the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong and the late Tan Sri Lee Loy Seng)? Lest we forget, these founders were from humble backgrounds, but raised in a predominantly Chinese-educated environment. Tan Sri Lee Kim Yew (a product of Batu Pahat Chinese schools) has been praised for his success in winning the international bid for the London Millennium Dome and completing it, in spite of the financial crisis in 1999.
More than 80% of owners of Chinese-owned SMEs in Malaysia are from Chinese schools. Many of them have ventured far and wide around the globe (such as Green Packet, and Kurnia Asia).
I think we should not underrate these Chinese school products as being non-creative.
I agree that more parents should be encouraged to consider the national schools as their choice. To make the convergence happen, the pull factor must come from a choice made in the quality of education that the national schools provide, rather than compulsion.
Consider the case in the 1960s when over half of Chinese primary students attended missionary schools. This was not because the parents wanted them to study Christianity, but because these schools had dedicated teachers and provided the education (mostly in English) deemed important for subsequent employment.
The ministry’s new approach of enhancing the image of national primary schools should be applauded. There is no shortage of parents (including non-Malays) who want to send their children to national schools such as Bukit Damansara, Sri Petaling and the PJ Convent Primary School.
At present, Chinese (and some non-Chinese) parents prefer to send their children to SJKCs not just to learn Mandarin but also because these schools have dedicated school boards where the parents are actively and purposefully involved in the running of the schools.
The variety of choices for primary education should be our strength instead of our weakness. The competition among the various school streams will only result in more commitment among the teachers to teach their students better and more effectively.
The presence of vernacular schools, with the continued assistance of the Government and the various communities, gives meaning and support to our motto “Unity in Diversity”. From independence, this has enabled Malaysia to evolve into a peaceful plural society, proving wrong the prediction of many international pessimists.
This also demonstrates that a plural society can be developed through interaction and integration, as opposed to assimilation that was once strongly advocated by nations like the United States and Australia.
SJKCs have also resulted in a substantial number of Malaysians (including non-Chinese) being fluent in three languages – BM, English and Mandarin – since the 1960s.
These trilingual Malaysians have contributed to enhancing Sino-Malay understanding. I can still remember when I applied for my first passport in December 1963 for overseas study. The officer (a Malay) asked me to write out my name in Chinese characters as well. I was amused but he explained that he was from a Chinese school and conversed with me in Mandarin. Imagine the assistance he would have given to (and the gratitude he would have derived from) many other applicants who could not converse in fluent BM or English then?
Of course now in government front-line offices, non-Chinese officers conversing in Mandarin (or at least Penang Hokkien) with applicants is not uncommon.
These trilingual graduates have enhanced the competitiveness of our domestic environment. Many FDIs from Taiwan (such as Acer), Singapore (like Creative Technology), Hong Kong, China and even Japan are attracted to Malaysians because of their flexibility and employability.
These Malaysians have also enabled many local enterprises to successfully venture into the China and East Asia markets. The success of enterprises such as Hai-o, LBS, and Parkson speaks volumes for their contribution in expanding our export base.
Many multinational corporations such as Intel, Motorola, and Dell have actively sought out these trilingual graduates and placed them in charge of their subsidiary offices or plants in China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and even in Britain or the US because of their ability to work in a multi-cultural environment. Singapore and Hong Kong companies are especially keen to recruit our trilingual graduates to help them entrench themselves as front-liners to the China market.
Certainly, Malaysia benefits from their international presence as it demonstrates globally the quality of our work force. Ultimately, many of them can be attracted to return, and with their experience, help to propel our country out of our current middle-income trap.
>Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn was Professor of Applied Economics and Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Administration, Universiti Malaya, in the 1980s. He served in the Government as Deputy Education Minister (1990-1999) and Human Resources Minister (1999-2008). He is currently the MP for Alor Gajah.
Arkib Akhbar Pusat Sumber BTP 