Single Streaming: What do you Suck?
If you want illiterate people to tell you what their “mother tongue” is, how do you phrase the question? Some say the best way to put it is “what language did you suck?”
Rama Ramanathan
I’ve been thinking about mother tongue education after attending a dialogue last week about single streaming of education in Malaysia. Since the Umno General Assembly is coming up, Umno leaders who are clamouring for attention and votes have again begun running down vernacular schools.
They say Chinese and Tamil schools are places where disunity is sown; therefore these schools should be shutdown. They however don’t provide any evidence to support their views.
The evidence actually points in the opposite direction. There are many reports of non-Malay students being abused in schools where the medium of instruction is the national language, Malay. Every so often we hear news reports of non-Muslim children in these schools being told to “go back to China,” etc. by teachers and principals.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has also joined the fray. Today he said Chinese should be grateful to Umno for allowing vernacular schools to continue. He said “We give you your identity, culture, language, schools, religion – everything you wanted.”
Another thing the PM is reported to have said is probably correct: aside from China, Malaysia has the largest number of students in Chinese medium schools. We could probably say the same for Tamil medium schools outside of India.
But to focus on gratitude and numbers is to miss the point.
The dialogue organized by Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) reminded participants that the Federal Constitution (Article 152) guarantees the right to use, teach or learn any language.
Speakers at the dialogue also pointed out that the Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013 – 2025) – compiled by a group comprised overwhelmingly of members of the Malay community – guarantees the continued existence of vernacular schools, and that the decision was based upon research.
They pointed out that the national average for non-Chinese students enrolled in Chinese medium schools is 13%. Since that is the average, it’s clear that in 50% of the Chinese schools the enrolment of non-Chinese is in fact much higher. (The enrolment of non-Indians in Tamil schools is near zero). Both non-Chinese and Chinese ‘bananas’ – I mean no disrespect – send their children to Chinese medium schools.
Bananas are Chinese who rarely use Chinese, while ‘mangoes’ are Chinese who often use Chinese. Yet many bananas send their children to Chinese schools. They do so despite the fact that they know their children will begin school with a disadvantage, since they don’t speak Chinese at home.
They increasingly enrol their children in Chinese schools because they think poorly of the quality of education and the treatment of their children in national schools.
Some proponents of Chinese and Tamil schools use the “mother tongue argument” to advocate for vernacular schools.
When I was in primary school the medium of instruction was English: it was not the mother tongue of any of us; yet many of us did well and went on to be productive citizens. Also, many today send their children to schools where the medium of instruction is not their mother tongue. So what should we make of the mother tongue argument for vernacular schools?
I have not been a proponent of Tamil schools. In the last year I have moderated my position.
I have come to realize that there are many Malaysian Indian homes where Tamil is used almost exclusively – partly because the parents are much more fluent in Tamil than in English or Malay. I have also come to realize that many of the bottom 40% of the population by earnings are Indians, and they – both parents and children – are often not treated with respect in Malay medium schools.
