The issue of segregation along ethnic lines has for long been a taboo subject in multiracial Malaysia which in its history, has seen deep-set prejudices exploited for narrow political interests.

Therefore, the current allegations of racial streaming in schools hit a sensitive nerve raising the question of whether such segregation had been quietly sanctioned by the government of the day.

The controversy over racial streaming in schools unfolded late last year when parents of several students of a Selangor school complained that their children who qualified among the top five in their classes were relegated to the second best class.

The parents lodged their complaints with the National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP) whose secretary-general N Siva Subramaniam later revealed the matter to the press.

In the midst of the ensuing public outcry, Education Ministry asked for details, which Siva submitted in a memorandum listing down 210 schools which were said to practise racial segregation.

With the announcement of the independent committee set up to investigate the allegations that only minimal and unintentional segregation had taken place, the media furore returned but this time focused at the whistle blowers.

Mono-ethnic classes

Few, however, stopped to question several contentious findings of the committee.

The committee, in its report summary released last Thursday, said segregation had appeared to have taken place in the majority of schools because of students participation in special programme classes and elective subject packages.

However, special programmes, which were started in the 1990s, only sought to place rural students who did not qualify for residential schools in urban schools. Despite the misleading term used to describe the programme, students may not be enrolled in any unique courses.

Therefore, the committee has failed in its duties by not questioning why some schools had found it necessary to segregate the mainly Malay special programme students from other students.

In the remainder of the cases, the committee acknowledged that there exist classes which are comprised only of one ethnic group and top classes which are reserved for students of one ethnic group.

It attributed the existence of mono-ethnic classes to poor timetable scheduling and said the shortage of moral and religion teachers did not allow for schools to organise classes where moral/religion time slots coincide.

Low enrolment

Another reason for single-ethnic classes was the low number of non-Malay Malaysian students in several schools.

The committee cited statistics that of the 2.2 million students enrolled in national primary schools, only 2.1 percent are Chinese Malaysian and only 4.3 percent are Indian Malaysian.

Yet it did not consider if the existence of mono-ethnic classes had instead been the causal factor behind the low enrolment of non-Malay Malaysians in national primary schools.

However, a glaring omission is any attempt to address why timetables for some of the top classes were set to accommodate only students from one ethnic group.

In doing so, the committee has failed to investigate the key issue which had driven frustrated parents to lodge their complaints in the first place.

The committee had also failed to make a proper investigation into why several top classes were also made into special programme classes.

By not addressing this matter, it is sanctioning the practice of some school authorities to stop deserving urban students from attending the best classes in their own schools.

Another finding which is at odds with the committees denial of segregation in schools is the fact that state governments have been funding tuition classes for bumiputra students.

The committee attempted to justify this by comparing it to tuition classes organised by external organisations for Chinese and Indian Malaysian students. However, it failed to address why state governments were funding classes for specific ethnic groups while others were required to rely on private funding.

Justification based on majority

The committee also failed to clarify the benchmark used to make their assessments.

In accounting for its assertion that there was no racially-biased reward system, the committee merely cited the example that there were instances of school prefects being non-Malay although the majority of the students were Malay.

By using this form of justification, the committee had limited itself to disproving NUTPs claims using a majority measure. This neglects the cases, in minority, in which discrimination by school authorities may well exist.

In fact, in another section of the report summary, the committee indirectly conceded that discrimination by school authorities is a real concern, since it could not totally dismiss the possibility that teachers may bear personal prejudices against students based on their ethnicity.

More cause for concern is the expressed view of the committee that all the problems would not have surfaced if parents have brought their complaints to the schools parent-teacher associations and not directly to the NUTP.

The committee, by making this statement, has not taken into account parental concerns that their children may face harassment for bringing up their grievances.

Instead, the committee has, in effect, issued a warning to parents that in future, such matters should be kept within closed doors of the schools as opposed to an open discussion in the public arena.

Evidence not strong

The interpretation of the committees findings based on the report summary suggests that its members may have overlooked hints of segregation which could not be justified using timetable arguments or teacher shortages.

It could well be otherwise, but until the release of the full report and comprehensive findings of the committee, the public may do well to reserve their judgment until more information is made available.

It ought to be noted as well that during the press conference held to reveal the findings of the study, the committee said that evidence of racial segregation was not strong as opposed to there being no evidence as has been reported in the newspapers.

Racial segregation may occur in a small number of schools (from the pool of 210 schools investigated) but whether we can afford to ignore the problem in these schools or the possibility that it may exist in other schools, is another matter that needs to be examined.

YAP MUN CHING is a malaysiakini journalist.