In the latest faux pas by yet another senior politician in Singapore, Minister for Environment and Water Resource and Minister in-charge of Malay/Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim said that teaching Malay as a foreign language rather than mother tongue would help to arrest the declining fluency in the language among the community. This sparked a flurry of comments and criticisms from netizens who have gone to the extent of questioning “whether this guy has lost his mind”.Since the topic of language could be rather sensitive, I’ll try as best to not be emotive and as always said by Minister himself, “supaya bertindak secara rasional dan tidak terburu-buru” (to act rationally and not hastily).
As such, I took a look at data provided by MOE on the percentage passes of Malay students for their mother tongue for both PSLE and O Level results.
Take a look at the results for Mother Tongue.
GCE ‘O’ Level Performance by Subject
If one were to look at the data provided, since 2003-2009, the percentage passes for MT in PSLE has seen a decline. However, the decline for each year is lesser than 0.5%. Malays have always topped the cohort in MT each year. A look at the O level results shows a fluctuating trend and that too never dropping below 99% since 2001. So my question is, what does he mean decline in fluency? While the trend in PSLE suggests that, we are still comfortably above the national average. While we must acknowledge that indeed MT fluency may be declining as the years go by ,in part made responsible by the bilingual policy in Singapore, it is not an issue that demands an immediate arrest of the situation. So I really question the ministers definition of declining fluency. Does it mean lesser A’s, A*’s, A1′s and A2′s? If that is the case, the solution is not by making Malay a foreign language but to step up the game or assistance in teaching Malay as a mother tongue language.
The issue of lack of proficiency in the mother tongue language is NOT a Malay issue. It is a Chinese issue. What I mean by a Chinese issue is that it is the Chinese community which has seen the proficiency of her people declining despite the many national efforts to boost proficiency in Mandarin. That is why, if we remember, there were talks of wanting to lower the percentage of the MT component in PSLE to allow students access to better schools and not be hampered by their MT language. I have commented on this issue some time last year. (see:http://muhdhaikal.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/psle-revamp/). Also, mother tongue languages have been made easier for those who are not so proficient in the language. We have Chinese ‘B’, Malay ‘B’ and Tamil ‘B’, to allow students to do an easier standard of MT to fulfill the language component. I remember when I was in JC, there were only 2 students who took Malay ‘B’; and one of them was a Nepalese! Hence, I really question as to who such policies were intended to affect? Because as far as I am concerned, this problem does not affect the majority of the Malays.
Dr Yaacob’s imposing of another community’s problem upon the Malays is a classic example of confusion on what are the problems that plague the Malay community. Another community’s problem may only be unique to their own community and by applying the same standards and diagnosis of problems to the Malay community, reflects a lack of understanding in diagnosing a problem. In Ortega Y. Gasset’s “The Revolt of the Masses”, he terms this mode of thinking as one of the mass man. It is a mass man thinking because it is uncritical of the problem and assumes similarity and homogenity within society. What’s worse is the Minister is in a position of power and has the power to effect policies for problems that he clearly has misdiagnosed.
I have always argued that structurally, there is a semblance of the marginalization of the Malays. The access to equal or better resources is hampered by the fact that the community is always tasked to tackle the community’s problem instead of looking at it from a national point of view. The community slowly has been socially engineered to think that they should always be responsible to tackle most if not all of the community issues even if those issues are beyond our means and expertise. The social engineering process have compartmentalized the way the community has approached, diagnosed and tackled seemingly “Malay community” issues. What’s worse, the blatant sinicization of the Singaporean community under the guise of uplifting culture and heritage to the extent of making it a national project seems to further alienate the minority communities from the majority. I’m sorry but who’s making integration a difficult process again? Also, what kind of integration that is championed should be asked.
At the risk of being labelled an ultra-Malay (wow, I should join UMNO and brandish a keris), it is saddening that the Malay community’s bastion of language has been suggested to be made into a foreign language. Even more heart wrenching, it came from the community’s own leader himself. Already in Singapore’s history books, the Malay community’s stake in the early days of Singapore has been reduced to “about 150 or so Orang Laut” which clearly does not take into consideration the island’s importance prior to the coming of the British in which the Malays were central. Now, Dr Yaacob wants the Malays to see themselves as foreign talent elsewhere and to be global competitors. I have a stake in this country and see this place as mine; why do I have to be a foreigner elsewhere and seen as second class? Slowly, the indigenous has now been made to be the foreign. In his own land nonetheless.
The day the national language or national anthem is no longer in Malay, that would be the day the community lost its dignity.
Awesomely written. My sentiments exactly. Nice to find a very bijak Melayu. =)
Good read.