COMMENT It is wrong to condemn those who oppose the Dual Language Programme (DLP) in Malaysian schools. They have every right to oppose the system, a modified version of the PPSMI (Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English and Malay). If they think that DLP might alter the character of the both the national and vernacular schools system, then they have all the right to question it and urge alternatives.

These language nationalists are not opposed to strengthening the use of English language in schools, but they are merely questioning why introduce it at the expense of other languages as the medium of instruction.

Will the implementation of the DLP safeguard Malay as the national language, strengthen the use of English language and respect the vernacular schools system?

At a broad level, it is about whether parents and teachers accept the teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-related subjects in either Malay or English. Since choice is given, no one can accuse the government of being overtly biased.

But at a more specific operational level, the government willy-nilly seems to be moving in the direction of making English more important rather than Malay in national schools or Mandarin or Tamil in vernacular schools.

Some critics of the DLP are thinking that the DLP is essentially a device for the government to bring English as the medium of instruction in national and vernacular schools. This is a kind of gradual and step-by-step approach that might wipe out language nationalism among the Malays, Chinese and Indians.

One may criticise the Malay nationalist groups that are opposed to the DLP as being impractical and out of touch with reality, but they have the democratic right to oppose the programme if they sense that DLP might end up diluting the usage of Malay in national schools.

Similarly can you fault the Chinese and Indian parents and teachers if they sense the DLP might have the potential effect of replacing Mandarin and Tamil as the medium of instructions in their respective vernacular schools system?

Yes, for the moment DLP is intended to for the teaching of science and mathematics-related subjects, but what guarantee is there that this initial step might not go beyond that and English may become the medium of instruction in schools?

This is what many parents, teachers and educationalists fear about the harmful effects of the DLP or sometimes we can refer to as the ‘unintended’ consequences of the programme.

I agree wholeheartedly that DLP, unlike PPSMI, is not a top-down undemocratic approach. The DLP provides ensures that certain mechanisms are provided for the participation of schools and for parents and teachers to provide the necessary consent.

Cannot expect smooth sailing

I also agree with the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE) that for the DLP to see the light of day, much work has gone into the contents necessary to elicit public support. But at the same time, I disagree with PAGE and that it cannot expect smooth sailing in the ‘rough ethnic and religious waters’ of Malaysia.

PAGE might be working with the government for the success of the programme, but such a working relationship does not quality PAGE to expect slavish acceptance of the DLP proposal from Malays, Chinese and Indians in the country.

However, I regret to note that those who are working closely with the government are premising their support for the DLP on the grounds that with the introduction of English as the medium of instruction in schools, students would be well-prepared to enter employment where language skills in English are much needed.

This might be so, but then can we put an economic or monetary value to language, identity or culture? Can we abandon a particular language and replace with some others that are deemed to have monetary and economic value?

I am not saying that the gung-ho language nationalists are right, but surely we must accept their right to dissent and look for alternative measures. I don’t think they are out to oppose the English language, but merely concerned about the fate of Malay, Mandarin and Tamil.

It is wrong or arrogant for PAGE members to call those oppose DLP as “hypocrites”, “reckless” and “opportunists”. It is important for the federal government as whole to understand the sentiments of those who oppose the DLP. It must understand the sugarcoating of the DLP might not simply work as seen in how the members of the Chinese schools associations have out rightly rejected the DLP.

The Indians are not pliant either. More and more groups are coming out to distance themselves from the DLP and questioned the MIC and some Indians members in the government service for providing a false picture of the DLP and its effects on the Tamil vernacular schools system.

Those who are opposing the DLP are not opposing the government or the use of English language. On the contrary many of these groups do realise the importance of English language in preparing the country for development and modernisation.

However, they are not prepared to have English language replace Malay as the medium of instruction for STEM subjects in national schools. Similarly, there is fear amongst vernacular educationists, that introduction of English as the medium of instruction for STEM subjects in vernacular schools might alter the character of their vernacular schools.

P RAMASAMY is Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang and the state assemblyperson for Perai.