Pupils must be free to pick up third language - Prof Khoo Kay Kim's respond to The Star's article.
SINCE your paper has given me some attention in the last few days, I hope you can spare some space for me to correct and to clarify.
Malaysia is a plural society, more complex than many other plural societies in the world and we have branded ourselves as “truly Asia”.
Ever since the initial attempts made to turn the country into a nation-state way back in the late 40s, it was thought urgent that the country ought to have a single system of education to integrate the people.
The importance of integration via education was also stated in the Razak Report of 1956.
Singapore does not have vernacular schools.
But while the medium of instruction in all its schools is English, every pupil must also study his/her own ethnic language.
In Malaysia’s case, since the time the British planned the establishment of a nation-state, it was recommended that, given the country’s unique society, the young generation should be made to acquire three languages: a national language, an international language and the pupil’s own ethnic language.
When interviewed, I had voiced my support for what was recommended more than 50 years ago, and I specifically said that “Singapore’s model should be adopted” but allowing more flexibility.
The pupils should be free to pick a third language.
But the state cannot be expected to make so many languages available in school, which would have to be the case in Malaysia if the third language must be the mother tongue.
In the case of Malaysia, primarily from a pragmatic point of view, three languages stand out: a language from East Asia – Chinese; a language from South Asia – Tamil; and a language from West Asia – Arabic, which is also the language of Islam.
How could I have said that the non-Malays in Malaysia must forget their ethnic languages when their languages are among the most important in the world and English is the leading international language?
Our leaders in the past did not successfully solve the language problem in this country.
As such, it has become from time to time a bone of contention. This cannot go on if the country is to progress and maintain stability.
There is somehow a misapprehension that I am quite ignorant of the Chinese perception of things cultural and historical.
Far from it, I am more knowledgeable than the average Chinese here because I have studied them.
Too many Malaysians, I am afraid, are prone to draw conclusions based on vague impressions. They (this includes the highly educated) are inclined to be ruled by emotion rather than the intellect.
Some of the problems being debated by our politicians date back to the days when ethnic representation to official bodies was introduced for the first time after World War I. They have been left unsolved till now.
PROF KHOO KAY KIM,
Kuala Lumpur.
SINCE your paper has given me some attention in the last few days, I hope you can spare some space for me to correct and to clarify.
Malaysia is a plural society, more complex than many other plural societies in the world and we have branded ourselves as “truly Asia”.
Ever since the initial attempts made to turn the country into a nation-state way back in the late 40s, it was thought urgent that the country ought to have a single system of education to integrate the people.
The importance of integration via education was also stated in the Razak Report of 1956.
Singapore does not have vernacular schools.
But while the medium of instruction in all its schools is English, every pupil must also study his/her own ethnic language.
In Malaysia’s case, since the time the British planned the establishment of a nation-state, it was recommended that, given the country’s unique society, the young generation should be made to acquire three languages: a national language, an international language and the pupil’s own ethnic language.
When interviewed, I had voiced my support for what was recommended more than 50 years ago, and I specifically said that “Singapore’s model should be adopted” but allowing more flexibility.
The pupils should be free to pick a third language.
But the state cannot be expected to make so many languages available in school, which would have to be the case in Malaysia if the third language must be the mother tongue.
In the case of Malaysia, primarily from a pragmatic point of view, three languages stand out: a language from East Asia – Chinese; a language from South Asia – Tamil; and a language from West Asia – Arabic, which is also the language of Islam.
How could I have said that the non-Malays in Malaysia must forget their ethnic languages when their languages are among the most important in the world and English is the leading international language?
Our leaders in the past did not successfully solve the language problem in this country.
As such, it has become from time to time a bone of contention. This cannot go on if the country is to progress and maintain stability.
There is somehow a misapprehension that I am quite ignorant of the Chinese perception of things cultural and historical.
Far from it, I am more knowledgeable than the average Chinese here because I have studied them.
Too many Malaysians, I am afraid, are prone to draw conclusions based on vague impressions. They (this includes the highly educated) are inclined to be ruled by emotion rather than the intellect.
Some of the problems being debated by our politicians date back to the days when ethnic representation to official bodies was introduced for the first time after World War I. They have been left unsolved till now.
PROF KHOO KAY KIM,
Kuala Lumpur.
No comments:
Post a Comment