Unlike other countries, Malaysia is unique in that it has a multi-education system.
This system is the result of the myopic vision of policymakers at the time of independence, who were unable to perceive the effects of divergent educational streams that would pose problems of integration among the different ethnic groups, and their loyalty and patriotism to the country based on the tenets of the Rukun Negara.
The authorities had, either out of political expediency or simply through ignorance of the future implications, allowed the proliferation of vernacular schools. It thus encouraged chauvinistic sentiments in the selection of schools for their children.
Chinese and Indian parents registered their children in their respective vernacular schools, while Malays enrolled in mainstream national schools. Such a situation negated the integration of children from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, as they were segregated from day one. Such segregation engenders a divisive society divided along racial lines.
Proponents of divergent education streams proffer the mantra that diversity is our strength to justify their chauvinistic intent. But this negates the convergence of identity, unity, loyalty and integration through a common language and socio-cultural imperatives. Vernacular schools tend to emphasise their cultural and ancestral origins over the socio-cultural matrix of the country of which they are citizens.
A country’s educational system is designed to foster unity through the national language as the medium of instruction (eg Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China and Japan), using a common syllabus and evaluation process. Besides unity, the educational system is geared to serve other important facets of a country’s needs, such as manpower requirements, creating a literate society, the development and exploration of knowledge, and inculcating ethical and moral principles in developing citizens of good character who would contribute positively to the physical and spiritual development of the nation.
A single unified education system is essential to achieve unity and serve the needs of the country according to its ethos and national aspirations. Almost all citizens of a country follow an education blueprint designed by the government. However, there is no restriction on those who prefer to follow a different educational path, usually in a foreign country, with its own syllabus and medium of instruction geared to that country’s needs and which may not be consonant with the national educational spirit.
This is not something extraordinary because the government has sponsored Malaysian students to study abroad, first ensuring the compatibility of the programme with the needs and aspirations of the country. However, all government-sponsored students have the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) as their basic qualification, having gone through 11 years of schooling with Malay as the medium of instruction.
However, the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) controversy and polemics are different in that local citizens choose to enrol in an educational system outside the premise of the national educational blueprint. It uses a different syllabus and Chinese (Mandarin) as the medium of instruction.
The point here is not so much that local Malaysian citizens opt for a different educational programme. There is no prohibition on choosing one’s preferred educational system. But when a programme such as the UEC seeks recognition and accreditation, it has to be vetted to determine whether it is in line with the national educational blueprint and aspirations of using the Malay language as the medium of instruction, and a syllabus designed by the Ministry of Education to serve national needs.
The chairman of the United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong), Datuk Tan Yew Sing, said last year that the UEC was formulated based on the national curriculum and aligned with the national syllabus. Dong Zong prepares the syllabus and conducts the Unified Examination Certificate for its students.
But is it aligned in terms of the subject curriculum, or merely the philosophical aspirations of the educational system?
For sure, it uses Mandarin as the medium of instruction and Malay as a single subject at Chinese Independent High Schools. But does it offer the Malay language subject at the primary level?
The Higher Education Ministry deemed that the UEC Malay language standard is not at par with the SPM. Tan further claimed there was extensive use of Malay in the schools. But how extensive is its use in the curriculum, and are other subjects taught in Malay?
Up to now, the government has declined to recognise the UEC because of the differing syllabus and the use of Mandarin as the language of instruction. Thus, it does not conform to the national educational policy.
We do not actually know the true position regarding the curriculum, textbooks and Malay language proficiency.
In a 2017 news report, Dong Zong said some 8,574 students from Chinese Independent Schools registered as SPM candidates in 2016. Did they sit for the entire SPM examination in Malay or just the Malay language paper? If they sat for the entire examination, it would suggest that the schools run parallel syllabuses – the national syllabus in Malay and the UEC syllabus in Mandarin.
The recent entry prerequisite of passing SPM Bahasa Melayu and History for UEC holders is not based on sound educative considerations but on political expediency to justify entry into Malaysian universities.
One should not handle the UEC accreditation issue by way of half measures simply to alleviate political pressure. The acceptance of any educative system and qualifications must be based on their alignment with the sanctity of national educational blueprints that imbue national ethos and aspirations.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.