PPSMI was formulated to improve the students’ command of the English
language through the study of Science and Mathematics. The Ministry of
Education intended it to allow easy understanding of information in
these fields and indirectly strengthen the students’ command of the
language.
The policy had its set of objectives to achieve, but I wish to point out its fallacies.
The subject knowledge and the command of language should be treated
as two different objectives, and not be lumped together in an attempt to
kill two birds with one stone. Science and Mathematics are rigorous
technical disciplines, while English as a language is a linguistic
discipline. No doubt there will not be the study of theories if not
conveyed through languages. However, to combine both objectives together
to achieve the best of both worlds is not the best approach, even
though the objectives of PPSMI may be noble.
Our students have the benefit of learning different languages at
school. Every student should understand both Bahasa Malaysia and
English, while some students have the additional command of vernacular
mother tongues such as Mandarin and Tamil. If a student’s command of
learned languages is competent (as taught by the schools), there should
not be a problem in learning any subjects in whatever language. Language
is a medium to communicate, and is not part of the subject’s knowledge.
Hence, if a student is well versed in the languages he/she learns at
school, there should not be the problem of understanding knowledge of
the subject field in his/her learned languages.
My classmates and I had no problems learning Science in Mandarin. The
terminologies and terms are but obstacles to overcome, the most
important factor in determining one’s grasp of the subject knowledge is
the depth and understanding of the subject itself. It matters not which
language the subject is being taught in, as long as the student
comprehends the subject.
Therefore, the quality of education is what is most important in
order to equip our students with a solid academic foundation. To have a
high standard of education quality is to provide students with the
opportunity to acquire subject knowledge as well as the command of
language.
Some examples that can be derived is the success of the inventor of
the pen drive, Malaysian Pan Jian Cheng. He is a student of a Chinese
school in Klang and has contributed to the benefit and advancement of
computer science. Besides, Dr Tang Hai Chang, a product of Nanyang
University education was a research fellow in nuclear physics at the
Rutherford Laboratories of Manchester University, UK in the seventies.
Furthermore, there are numerous Nanyang University graduates who are
luminaries in their academic fields in universities in Malaysia,
Singapore and abroad, all students of Chinese schools. Having learnt the
Science and Mathematics in Mandarin, and not English, was not a
deterrent for them to excel in the field of science.
Year after year, many students apply for places at the various
Chinese Independent Schools, but thousands are rejected because of
insufficient capacity. Studying the subjects in Mandarin is not a
deterrent, as indicated in the number of applications. The common
aspiration of most students is for the quality of education provided in
order for them to excel in their studies.
I am by no means trying to disregard the importance of English in the
field of scientific knowledge, and the importance of the English
language as a lingua franca. Yet I feel the English language
should be taught and learnt in school as a language subject itself. The
PPSMI policy which seeks to improve students’ English through the study
of Science and Mathematics appears to be an ambitious initiative, too
daring and difficult to succeed in practice. Some students’ grasp of the
English language is not even proficient enough to study other subjects
in that language. It would be ideal to provide parents a choice for
their children to learn Science and Mathematics in whichever language
they prefer.
It would not be an easy task to provide options for schools to choose
their respective preferred languages for the teaching of the subjects.
However, the demands for a choice mean that this issue has to be looked
into it and cannot be ignored simply because of the challenges. The
Ministry of Education should first focus on improving the quality of
teachers by providing more training. Indeed, currently there is a dearth
in the number of teachers but these problems can be solved with enough
resources. Better benefits and higher salaries will attract more people
to become teachers.
We can learn from Finland where teaching is highly regarded and
respected in terms of quality and prestige. Bottom line — let there be
choice of learning Science and Mathematics in either English or Malay.
Let the parents decide what is best for their children.
The Ministry of Education cannot sweep the problems under the carpet
if it believes in providing the best education for the future generation
of this country. Lack of proper commitment and working policy will only
result in never ending flip-flop policy changes in the future. As the
problems and challenges have been identified and are foreseeable, there
is no reason why we cannot improve the quality of our education system.
The nation’s education policy has a tangible effect on the future of the
children and thus the progress of our country. We cannot afford any
further delays and be dogged by further uncertainties.
Some might argue that the disparity in language usage might affect
the unity of the nation as the students do not learn in the same
language. One of my ‘favourite quotes is from former Prime Minister Tun
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: “It is true nationalists who want their people to
possess more knowledge, not just be able to speak in Malay.”
Indeed, education should focus on providing excellent standards of
knowledge, and not be dragged into an endless debate of superiority of
one language. Dr. Mahathir later contradicted himself by stating that
the existence of vernacular schools, such as Chinese education, poses a
threat to national unity. Nonetheless, it is important to reflect upon
that unity is not a matter of all the citizens speaking in the same
language, but that everyone is speaking about a multitude of things in a
plethora of languages, in harmony.
The problem of unity does not arise merely due to the medium of
instruction used in schools. The people can still communicate with other
races using Bahasa Malaysia and English. These languages are compulsory
subjects in all types of school, are they not? If so, why is there an
issue of unity? The problem of unity arises because of inequality —
inequality in terms of opportunity, status and class. Elimination of
double standards based on races is the key to unity.
How then to eliminate double standards? Beyond equality of
educational opportunities, the government must give the rakyat the
opportunity to choose. This can be done by acknowledging PAGE’s call for
a choice to study in English. Furthermore, the government should
allocate resources fairly to all schools, from primary to secondary.
Then, parents have the right to decide with certainty that the choice of
education for their children, be it national type or independent type,
is a choice between excellence in quality.
In order to improve our nation’s education, our policy makers must
take the first step and set clear objectives that for the benefit of the
country’s future. Is the Ministry doing enough in this regard? Parents
have been calling for a choice of languages while it is a general
sentiment that our nation’s education standard is not up to mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment