Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

Nation-building strategies all over the world have education as a central element. Malaysia is no different. However, the multicultural nature of the population means that education has always been a hugely controversial and highly sensitive subject. The latest blueprint must also consider the question: is diversity a benefit or a dilemma?

By Tricia Yeoh

(First published in Penang Monthly’s October 2012 issue).

The Deputy Prime Minister recently launched the draft version of the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) with great fanfare. With that, the Education Ministry seeks feedback prior to launching its final version in December this year. I had the privilege of attending a focus group session at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) earlier this week to discuss how the education system can better cater to the objectives of national unity and multiculturalism, in light of the blueprint. This article explores only issues insofar as these twin objectives are concerned – what the blueprint contains on the matter, and the role of the Penang and Selangor state governments in this matter.

The discussion at Isis centred on what emphasis should be given to language and cultural education at schools, when in fact the elephant in the room – how national-type or vernacular Chinese and Tamil-based schools would be treated – was not given sufficient attention. Granted, this is always a tricky issue to handle, but one must tackle the subject squarely and rationally.

The issue at hand is whether or not vernacular schools will continue to exist in the long run, as well as what proportion of state funding will be allocated therein. The blueprint obviously places an emphasis on ensuring that national schools become the “school of choice”. Although the current structure is to be maintained, Wave 3 (2021-2025) will see “SKs and SMKs emerge as schools of choice for all parents, irrespective of ethnicity or socioeconomic background.”

This objective is placed against the context of reported statistics, such as the fact that the proportion of Chinese students enrolled in Chinese-type primary schools increased from 92% in 2000 to 96% in 2011; the increase in Tamil-type primary schools was even greater, going from 47% to 56% enrolment over the same period. The blueprint states that these statistics suggest a “risk of declining diversity and ethnic mixing across all school types”, which “reduces the ability of schools to effectively foster unity through inter-ethnic interaction”.

Photograph: Jeffrey Hardy Quah

Dr Denison Jayasooria in his column, “Reflections on the Education Blueprint” (The Malay Mail, September 17, 2012), criticises this target of making national schools the school of choice, as he considers that a greater appreciation of diversity could have been incorporated into the blueprint. He argues that vernacular schools should be recognised as a “heritage to be cherished… contributing to nation building”.

On the one hand, national schools ought to be the ideal space for inter-ethnic interaction, as experienced by many in the past, myself included. However, on the other hand, due to the lack of trust in the quality of education offered in national schools (a combination of teacher quality, poor syllabus content and an increasing emphasis on Islam without sufficient recognition of other religions’ roles in society), parents who can afford it have increasingly chosen to place their children in alternative schools.

As a result, statistics show that ethnic diversity within Chinese-type primary schools is greater than within national primary schools at present, with nine per cent of students in SJK(C) schools being Bumiputera (12%, when combined with Indian and others), compared with six per cent non-Bumiputera students in SK schools (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2012). One might then argue that vernacular schools should be given an even greater proportion of funding, for this reason.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons that support the argument that national schools create the most natural environment in which inter-ethnic interaction can take place, if indeed national unity is the foremost target. First, they simulate real-life societal ethnic breakdown and therefore increase the chances for inter-ethnic relationships to develop in such a manner. Second, the national language is the medium of instruction in national schools, used by the majority of the country, allowing for easier communication amongst the largest numbers of the population. Finally, multiculturalism can be maintained by ensuring more languages (Tamil, Chinese and others) are taught in national schools, as part of compulsory syllabus.

Diversity as a policy does have its plus points, since it is also natural that individual communities peppered across the country would organically form to start their own schools eventually. This includes religious schools, schools started by non-government organisations and so on. However, the issue is what kind of state funding should be given to such schools that are initiated by private means.

State governments have little jurisdiction over the education policy, where circulars are even distributed to disallow Pakatanelected representatives from entering national schools. Nevertheless, the states of Penang and Selangor have contributed where they can. The Penang government contributed RM12mil to Sekolah Agama Rakyat, Chinese, Tamil and Mubaligh schools in 2012. Similarly, the Selangor government contributed RM16mil to Chinese, Tamil and religious schools in 2012. Selangor also allocated RM30mil to its Education Support Programme (Program Sokongan Pendidikan) for schools that need help to provide basic education facilities.

Photograph: Daniel Lee

There are no equivalent figures that show the amount of allocation given to national-type schools by the federal government (Estimates of Federal Government Expenditure 2012). This is unusual since allocations to sports schools, integrity schools, vocational schools and so on are published. A healthier, more transparent publishing of such information would help the policy debate tremendously.

What is the role that state governments can play in promoting national unity vis-à-vis the national education system? Very little, since states do not oversee policy. However, the education blueprint proposes for an informal structure to encourage national schools and national-type schools to engage in greater co-curricular activities and community service, and to instil patriotism amongst students. The BN government could, by allowing state government representatives access to national schools in Pakatan-run states, do this programme a great favour. State governments, together with local councils and neighbourhood communities, would then organise activities in common geographical areas between national and vernacular schools.

To abolish vernacular schools altogether would be political suicide for either coalition at the moment. But in the long run, policymakers must sincerely consider which options are the most feasible in achieving national unity whilst embracing multiculturalism.