Bogeyman Politics

A bogeyman is something or someone that is used to scare children when they are misbehaving. We have equivalent bogeymen when it comes to our education system. For UMNO and the radical Malay nationalists, it is the spectre of Chinese medium schools which represent the bogeyman. For the Chinese educationists, it is the looming presence of anything that threatens the 'character' of Chinese medium schools. Both sides need to open their eyes and dispel the myth of these bogeymen.

The latest salvo in this long standing debate was fired by Deputy Higher Education Minister, Ong Tee Keat and right on cue, Minister of Education, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, fired right back. The issue in question was the misallocation of funds for the upgrading of two Chinese primary schools in Johor.

But let us take a step back from that particular issue. The larger issue in question is the long standing demand from the Chinese community for more Chinese primary schools. I don't have the numbers here but if I recall properly, the number of Chinese primary schools in Malaysia has not changed significantly since the 1960s. Some schools have been 'transferred' from low demand areas to higher demand areas. Some have been closed down for a variety of reasons - lack of demand, funding problems, poor infrastructure etc...

It's ludicrous that the number of Chinese schools have stayed more or less the same for the past 40 years when the Chinese community in Malaysia have grown by almost 3 times during that period. Average class sizes in Chinese primary schools in urban areas are approximately 55 a class.

But yet, the federal government has been adamant in not building additional Chinese primary schools (with the exception of Vision Schools, more on this later). For UMNO and for Malay nationalists, the existence of Chinese medium primary schools are an affront and a threat to Malay dominance and the dominance of the Malay language. Chinese primary schools have been blamed for many things including being the main reason for national disunity, why people of different races don't mix together and so on.

The spectre of Chinese medium schools as the bogeyman to Malay nationalists should be dispelled. The position of the Malay language is no longer in question. (If it is under attack, it is from the widespread use of English among certain quarters, rather than Chinese) The dominance of the Malays in the political system is also unquestionable. The 'defacto' outmigration of Chinese students from the national primary schools to the Chinese medium primary schools have not affected the character of the Malaysian state nor has it led to an increase in national disunity. It is hard to imagine that even with a 10% increase in the number of Chinese primary schools that the structure of our society would be changed in any significant way.

It just doesn't make much sense for the federal government to deny the demands of the Chinese community for more Chinese primary schools.

What is needed is a wholesale change in the way primary education funding is allocated. According to an entry in Wikipedia, "Between 1995 and 2000, the Seventh Malaysia Plan allocation for primary education development allocated 96.5% to national primary schools which had 75% of total enrolment. Chinese primary schools (21% enrolment) received 2.4% of the allocation while Tamil primary schools (3.6% enrolment) received 1% of the allocation."

The announcement by the Minister of Education, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, that two new Chinese primary schools will be built in Johor under the 9MP is an appeasement strategy, not a long term solution. The 9MP, to my knowledge, does not state the exact number of new Chinese schools to be built, but sets out broad expenditure patterns which does not envision any substantial increase in the number of Chinese primary schools. The building of 2 new schools is akin to throwing bones to the dogs and hoping that they will stop barking, at least for now. It does not solve the long term problem of hunger, in this case the hunger for substantially more Chinese schools.

For the Chinese educationists, any move to alter the status quo of Chinese primary schools is interpreted as an attempt to change the 'character' of Chinese schools. Hence any attempts to introduce reform into Chinese primary schools have been met by fierce resistance on the part of these Chinese educationists, represented by the influential Dong Jiao Zhong (董教总). While the DJZ probably have good reasons not to trust the government, given that they have been betrayed in the past (notably in the 1961 Education Act), their close-mindedness have caused them to pass up on some opportunities to increase the number of Chinese primary schools.

One of the examples I have in mind is the issue of Vision Schools. I think that the underlying premise of Visions Schools is sound. You have a national school, a Chinese medium school and a Tamil medium school sharing the same facilities (school fields, canteen facilities) with the hope of facilitating greater inter-ethnic interaction but with each school keeping its own medium of instruction (BM, Chinese and Tamil). Many Chinese educationist interpreted the creation of these Vision Schools as an attempt to undermine the 'character' of Chinese primary schools. I fail to understand why this is the case.

I've heard some say that canteens in these Vision Schools would not be allowed to serve pork. But since when is the ability to consume pork an inherent 'character' of Chinese primrary schools? Since when is mixing with students of other races who speak other languages bad for the 'character' of Chinese schools? Perhaps, it's because I'm not fully aware of the other arguments presented by DJZ on this issue but it seems to me that they've let this opportunity slip by.

To date, only 5 vision schools have been built and the momentum to build more seems to have died, perhaps partly due to the strenous objections of groups like DJZ. It seemed to me that it would have been an excellent way to lobby for more Chinese primary schools by arguing that one is for national unity and at the same time, one is also for teaching and learning in one own's 'mother' tongue.

For the Chinese educationists, dispelling the myth of the inherent unchangebility of the 'character' of Chinese schools would have lead to more opportunities to expand Chinese primary education.

I'm not sure what if there was anything new offered at the recent Chinese Education Form publisized by Tony here but I suspect that the Chinese educationists are probably offering up more of the same - complaining against the federal government without proposing any alternatives or putting forth a reform agenda to change the current state of primary education in Chinese medium schools. I suspect that some of the younger leaders / members in DJZ might have some more interesting ideas and alternatives but have not been given sufficient space to air their views to the larger public.

In the meantime, let's try to minimize the practice of Bogeyman politics when it comes to discussing education matters.