M. Bakri Musa
[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, "1Malaysia Towards Vision
2020," Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized
by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com
(search under "Bakri Musa RIT") or through this link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/alchemistar ]
Part Five of Six: Q&A Con'td:
Q 4: How can we unite Malaysians when we have these separate school
systems?
MBM: The underpinning of the national school policy, as articulated in
the Razak Report of 1956, was that if young Malaysians were to learn the
same language, read the same books, study the same history, then we would
all idolize the same heroes and subscribe to the same values. With a
common base and shared goals, national unity would be that more readily
achievable.
It was not an unreasonable assumption. Tun Razak's national
schools were a definite improvement over the then existing vernacular
schools. At least Malaysians now know more about Tunku Abdul Rahman than
Nehru or Chiang Kai Shek, and can speak the national language, an
achievement that should not be belittled.
Instead of building on that, we have over time corroded the
noble values of the Razak Plan such that today we are even more
segregated racially then we were during colonial rule. There are many
factors contributing to this sad affair, among them the increasing
Islamization and the de-emphasis of English in our national schools. I
have elaborated on this in my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia
and elsewhere. Today young Malaysians may be reading the same books or
learning the same facts, but they are not doing it together in class as
they have voluntarily segregated themselves, with the Chinese attending
Chinese schools and Malays, national schools. That is the crux of the
problem.
I have a different perspective. I could not care less if we
have a thousand school systems, as long as young Malaysians from the
different races are learning together in class, playing together on the
school fields, and participating in the same school plays and bands, then
we would more likely end up as a nation less segregated and consequently
more united. I would focus on making our schools integrated; the student
body must reflect the general community. How that is done is for each
school to decide. To encourage that effort, I would reward through
generous funding those schools that are fully integrated so they could
enhance their programs to attract a broad spectrum of Malaysians.
Q 5: What school system is best for Malaysia?
MBM: I do not know. That is not an attempt at false modesty on my part.
I cannot honestly say that I know what is best for the children of a
fisherman in Ulu Kelantan as compared to the needs of the children of a
diplomat at Bukit Tunku.
This certainty I do know. Our schools must have a function
beyond only educating our children; they should also serve as an
instrument to bring our young together; dwifungsi (dual functions) as the
Indonesians would say of their military. Otherwise we would have a highly
educated but divided society, another Northern Ireland.
So if we were to have a single school system, then it should
have only the two requirements. One, the enrolment must reflect the
community; two, its curriculum should have the core of Malay, English,
science, and mathematics. Beyond that, each school should be given the
latitude to chart its own course, including choosing its language of
instruction.
Q 6: Can you comment on the recent policy reversal with respect to the
teaching of science and mathematics in English?
MBM: I do not wish to go over the various arguments except to point to
two incontrovertible facts. One, we are better off knowing two languages
instead of just one. Quite apart from enhancing our marketability, being
bilingual offers other significant cognitive advantages, like being able
to see things from different perspectives. I would leave it to the
professionals on how best to make our children bilingual.
Two, the bulk of the literature in science and technology is
in English. If we have to depend on translations, that means we are
putting an unnecessary barrier in getting to the forefront of scientific
knowledge. I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English
because of these two realities.
There is no point in saying that the Japanese learn science in
their language. They have had centuries of experience; we do not.
Besides, they are already so far ahead of us. If we were to "Look East,"
the Japan we should emulate would be the Japan following the Meiji
Restoration. Then realizing how far behind they were as compared to the
West, the Japanese sent thousands of their senior officials abroad for
extended study tours to learn and absorb the best practices.
Additionally, Japan imported massive number of teachers and scientists
from the West. Even today thousands of young Americans go to Japan to
teach English (the JET Program).
I question the relevance to Malaysia of the UNESCO report
favoring the use of mother tongue. That report was concerned with the
languages of small tribes and the fear that those languages would
disappear. Malay is the native language of over a quarter billion
people; there is no likelihood it would suffer such a fate.
I would go beyond being bilingual and make Malaysians
trilingual, or at least have a working knowledge of a third. Non-Malays
are already trilingual: Malay, English, and their mother tongue. Malays
could too: Malay, English, and Arabic. In truth I could not care less
what the second and third languages are, but I presume for most Malays,
English and Arabic would be the easiest to learn.
Apart from the cognitive advantages, there are other benefits
of knowing another language. According to the Sapir-Whorf theory of
linguistic relativity, the way we look at reality is shaped by our
language. Thus we think and behave differently because of the
differences in our languages. I will illustrate this with a seemingly
unrelated account.
A few years ago Korea Airlines suffered through a series of
terrible crashes such that the authorities were considering banning the
airline from American airspace. These accidents were all due to pilot
errors. The tragedy was that often the first officer and flight engineer
were fully aware of the dangers they were in but were too scared of
contradicting their captain. This fear subordinates have of their
superiors is a feature of many Asian cultures, ours included.
To remedy the situation, the airline hired an American
consultant; he immediately recognized this major cultural impediment to
effective cockpit communications. As a foreigner he had little hope of
changing Korean culture. Instead, he prevailed upon management to impose
an all-English rule in the cockpit. Once the crew enters the plane, all
communications must be in English. He justified that on the basis that
English is the language of aviation. He also instituted other changes,
like enhancing their communication skills.
A remarkable thing happened. He found that junior officers
were now more open, direct and most importantly, clear when communicating
with their superiors. Whereas before they would convey their
disagreements with their superiors in the most indirect and obtuse way,
now those junior officers had no difficulty expressing them forthrightly.
How did that happen? Apparently in Korean language there are
multiple ways of referring to "you" and "I" depending on the status of
the speaker and the person addressed. Just like Malay language, when a
commoner addresses a royalty, he would refer to himself as patek (slave)
while the sultan refers to himself as beta (royal "we"). In English, it
is only "I" and "You," so the status barrier, or what cultural
anthropologists refer to as power distance, is eliminated. Today,
directly as a consequence of the English-only cockpit policy, Korea
Airlines is one of the safest airlines. A remarkable transformation!
Recently Mahathir lamented that his greatest failure was not
being able to change Malay culture. It is pure hubris on his part to
think that he could change our culture. If he had been more modest, he
could have effected significant changes in Malays by making us learn
English. At least then we could address ourselves as "I" or "we" and not
as slaves when addressing a member of the royalty. Then we would not have
witnessed the incongruity of our language as demonstrated by Mentri Besar
Nizar of Perak when he respectfully disagreed with his sultan, "Patek
memohon derhaka … " (I, your slave, beg to be treasonous with Your
Majesty!) Malay language is just not equipped for such direct or frontal
communications.
Many of our sultans sit on the governing boards of important
institutions. How could there be robust discussions in such meetings
when everyone would be deferring to the sultan? Senior scholars,
seasoned politicians, and hard-nosed corporate captains suddenly become
meek and genuflect to the sultan. That cannot be good. One way to
overcome that would be to communicate in English. It would be so much
easier to say in English, "I am sorry Your Royal Highness, I respectfully
disagree!" I challenge anyone to say that in Malay and then be brave
enough to say it to a sultan! It just cannot be done; that is the
constraint of our language and culture.
Q 7: You have these wonderful ideas like air-conditioning our schools
and equipping them with modern laboratories. Those are expensive
propositions. How can we afford them?
MBM: You are sounding like a politician or civil servant already! "No
funds lah!" is their chronic excuse. We have the money, but we spend it
foolishly, as in the billions wasted bailing out those GLCs.
I will illustrate the misplaced priorities of our officials
with this small incident. A senior official was visiting California
recently. At a private conversation I noted to him that our officials do
not carry laptops when they travel abroad and wondered how they would keep
in touch with their offices back home. Besides, what do they do on the
long trans-Pacific flights and the hours waiting at airports?
His response was to blame the government for not supplying its
senior officers with laptops. My rebuttal was that that if they had
traveled business instead of first class, the government would have
plenty of leftover cash to buy them fancy laptops! That demonstrates the
priorities of our officials at the micro level and involving only a few
thousand ringgit. The same misplaced priorities occur at the macro
level, and with a price tag of billions.
Along the same point, if we have open competitive biddings,
our schools and their laboratories would cost considerably less. We have
the resources if only we use them wisely.
Q 8: How can we use our schools specifically and education system
generally to open up Malaysian minds? Malaysians today are better
educated than ever, with many ministers having impressive degrees from
leading universities, but their mindset is still kampong.
MBM: That is a profound question and observation. I will try to answer
by stating a few simple and obvious facts. First, schooling does not
equal learning. If you were to ask the many who dropped out why they did
so, invariably their answer would be that they were not learning anything
at school.
Second, the classroom is not the only place where you can
learn. The boy who helps his father at his kedai kopi is learning many
things, like customer relations, cash flow, and inventory control. He
may not know them through such terms but he is still absorbing the
essence of those concepts. If he had stayed in a Malaysian school he
probably still could not balance his checkbook.
There was a study many years ago of those kampong girls
working in the factories of multinational companies – the Minah Karans
(Hot girls!). Most had attended only primary school, hence the
derogatory label. Yet after a few years of working, those girls had a
social profile associated more with those who had completed secondary
schooling. Meaning, they marry late, save more, and have fewer children.
Obviously working in a factory taught them many lessons such as to be
punctual, value time and money, and be independent. Those are useful
lessons of life, and they will never learn that in school, at least not
our schools. Working in those factories of multinational companies made
them escape their kampong mindset far more effectively than had they
completed their local schooling or even attended local universities.
As for opening up Malaysian minds, you would automatically
achieve that if you are not intent on closing them. What goes on in our
schools today, especially religious schools, is nothing more than
indoctrination masquerading as education. We are intent on closing
minds. Children are by nature curious; they have an innate desire to
explore. All we have to do is leave them alone; we would of course go
further if we equip them with the necessary tools.
One such tool is language skills. I would like our students
be fluently bilingual for reasons discussed earlier. The two natural
languages for us would be Malay and English. Then we should ensure that
they have the necessary quantitative skills so they could think with some
degree of precision and not merely agak agak (wild guesses). Meaning,
emphasize mathematics. Lastly, I would encourage critical thinking
through reading literature, even our simple folktales.
Consider my favorite childhood story, Batu belah, Batu
melangkup. You know, the story of the mother who sulked and ran away to
disappear into a cave because her children had eaten all the food and
left her with nothing. If after reading that story in class, the teacher
would ask the girls to imagine themselves as the mother. She is now in
the cave alone and a jinn would appear to grant her one final wish: to
deliver her last letter to her children. Now ask the girls to write that
letter. For the boys, imagine that you, being the eldest and now
responsible for your siblings, the jinn too had also given you a similar
wish. Now write that last letter to your mother.
Imagine the different responses! That is the sort of
classroom assignments that would encourage students to think creatively
and explore their inner world. You can be sure that the answer is not
given at the back of the book! Nor would there be any "prep" essays
available for download! Such an exercise would really challenge and
bring out the intelligence and creativity of your students.
Literature is exciting and helps develop our powers of
critical thinking, but only if we go beyond the "who said what and to
whom," and, if I may add, on what page!
Our education system today succeeds only in creating an
obsession with paper qualifications – credentialism. I am stunned at how
many chief ministers and corporate chiefs who unabashedly display their
"doctorates" from known degree mills. They are not even embarrassed.
Worse, nobody in the media exposes their fraud.
Q 9: [Question from a hearing-impaired student; his question and my
answer were translated by a sign language interpreter.]
When I was a student in Malaysia, my teachers would always ignore those of
us at the bottom of the class. The teachers focused only on the top
students. So I was pleased with your allocation and in not ignoring the
bottom decile.
First, I want to make one point clear. When I label a part of the
population as being at the bottom or top decile, I am merely referring to
a particular attribute that I am measuring. It does NOT make any judgment
on the whole person or his other abilities and attributes. I want to
emphasize that, and that is why I specifically choose an attribute – the
ability to fish – that has no emotive or other association.
In focusing on the "top" students, your teachers were making a
value judgment, presumably based on test scores. Let me make a confession
here. If I were a student in Malaysia today, I would have long ago been
kicked out of school. In fact that nearly happened to me at my afternoon
religious school, for misbehaving in class per the ustad's standards.
Fortunately my wise father saw something in me and took me out before I
was expelled! If you live in a kampong, you know that took considerable
courage on his part.
Your teachers back home assumed that you, being hearing
impaired, were also dumb; hence their reactions to you. Here in America
and specifically RIT, we do not use the label "deaf." I am told that
there are nearly a thousand hearing-impaired students at RIT diligently
preparing to be productive citizens. If they had been Malaysians,
ignored by their teachers, they would end up as Mat Rempits. They would
be perfect for that as the roar of their machines would not bother them
in the least!
Yesterday at Friday prayers on campus, there was a sign
language translator interpreting the khutba. What a wonderful sight! I
challenge anyone to cite a similar example anywhere in the Muslim world.
To Muslims who are hearing-impaired, the Imam's prayers and sermons are
nothing but lips quivering and hands gesturing. Here on the campus of a
private secular university in a Christian country, a hearing-impaired
Muslim gets to 'hear' a khutba!
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment