It seems the decision is final. The Government has decided to abolish the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (PPSMI), ignoring the protests of the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), and even ignored the idea of providing options for those who wishes to learn the two subjects in English. Needless to say, many people are unsatisfied with the ‘explanation’ and ‘rationale’ of the government, which seem neither properly explained nor even rational, myself included. I know this letter might be ignored by the policy-makers, but I think it’s quite right for one who disagrees to point out why they do so, without being stifled under the pretence of ‘accepting the abolition with an open heart’ (refer to comment by the Kedah GPMS, NST 1 Nov 2011, page 6).
First, the decision of the government to abolish PPSMI was done after ‘considering all views’, according to our current Deputy Prime Minister. He never really told us if all views were fairly represented, or even those who voiced out their views are even qualified to do so. PAGE has good reason to voice their support for the policy, as they are parents concerned with the future of their children’s education, and are valid interested parties. Undoubtedly, there are also parents who are against PPSMI due to concerns for their children, but what business has Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, A Samad Said, Gerakan Mansuhkan PPSMI (GMP) and the Malaysia Linguistic Association (PLM) to make comments on this issue? Anybody is entitled to their opinion, but it seems quite stupid of the government to agree to the opinions of these groups, who are not even involved in the teaching of Maths and Science, and who, other than the pretentious title of ‘defenders of national language’ (refer to argument below), have nothing to contribute to this debate. This is true in the case of DBP, whose lack of production or even translation of proper scientific works for the past 30 years caused this dearth of Malay-language scientific reference books in the market and pushed Dr Mahathir to propose PPSMI in the first place.
And the decision to replace PPSMI with another policy is done without proper thought. What exactly does Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the Command of English (MBMMBI) mean? How does it differ from what we have today? Mastering language requires proper exposure to the language in conversational use, yes? Under PPSMI, students are more exposed to English, as they use and utilise the language in three classes (Maths, Science (and its branches Physics, Additional Mathematics, Biology and Chemistry), and English), while other subjects are taught in BM. So it seems PPSMI would achieve MBMMBI’s goals better than that policy itself, which means nothing more than ‘teaching Malay and English’, like we have always done.
Second, the opposition to PPSMI is argued by A Samad Said, DBP and other language groups as being a matter of ‘defending national language’, or BM. What a shameless thing for these people to do, standing behind the façade of ‘national’ language pride’. It would have been much easier to call it as a political move to score brownie points. Because it is political: simple as that. For one, these people, for all their talk about how the national language is suitable to teach all Malaysians, fail to censure politicians that support them for sending their children to study in private or International schools that teach in English, while labelling supporters of the policy from among the middle and lower class as ‘pengkhianat bangsa’. A different standard for the rich, it would seem…Second, their argument of defending BM as the national language for education means nothing as they voice no opposition to Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools, where BM is only used in teaching-well, BM, I suppose. Are they not worried about the scant use of national language there, especially when more Malay parents are sending their children to Chinese vernacular schools? Or is their silence regarding vernacular schools linked to the strength of the Chinese educationist movements and supporters? Regardless, their ‘defence’ of the national language rings hollow.
Third, the government’s arguments for abolishing PPSMI seem to have been based on flawed and false arguments. First, the argument that Dr Mahathir intended for PPSMI to be used to master the English language. What a blatant lie! Which government policy or speech did they cite to prove this argument? Dr Mahathir never intended PPSMI to be a tool to teach English. He only argued that mastery of Science and Maths are necessary for the development of a nation, and most advanced scientific and medical discoveries and works are available in English (unlike Dewan Bahasa, the Americans and English publishing companies voraciously translate works by leading German and Japanese scientists into English as well, making it available to a wider audience). Second, the argument that rural students could not cope with PPSMI as their parents and surroundings could not speak in English is baseless and patronising, to be honest. Is the government suggesting we teach English in BM as well? Obviously parents who can’t speak English at home can’t help their children in that language. That is what teachers are for. To teach the students, and help them understand the subjects. There have been some arguments that it is difficult to teach the students Maths and Science in a language they don’t understand, but seriously, how difficult is it to teach “one plus one equals two?” The way the opponents of PPSMI argue, you’d think they are teaching rocket science to Primary One students in the English of the King James Bible, which is not the case. They teach simple formulae to students in simple language when they are in primary school before proceeding to more difficult and complex formulae according to their levels.
Why was PPSMI introduced in the first place? It was because Dr Mahathir’s administration understood that it is important for a society to master Science in all its branches and Mathematics in order to become developed, and English is the language in which these advanced works are written in. One of the better ways to do so is to expose the young to Maths and Science in English early on, with an understanding of the complex scientific and mathematical jargon: an element which English, with its focus on grammar and literature, could not possibly address.
I do, however, concede to the government one strong argument against the PPSMI option. PAGE’s efforts for are noble, but I fear it’s not going anywhere. The government is right. It is quite difficult to provide the option of PPSMI in schools, as it would cause the swelling of teaching staff in schools merely to teach two subjects, and would force the cumbersome task of setting up different classes for the teaching of the two subjects in English for the students that opt to do so. PAGE should instead change their goal: they should propose the introduction of an English-stream school system for all subjects, including the subjects that form the Social Sciences and Humanities in university such as History, Geography, Islamic Studies, Moral Studies, and Economics. This proposal would provide PAGE with a more solid ground, as the language chauvinists that use ‘pengkhianat bangsa’ one too many times have no reason to oppose this proposal without opposing vernacular schools in principle as well, which they fail to do before due to politics. The English-stream school system is one option that would have my support.
