LETTER | Abolishing the vernacular school system is not the solution

LETTER | The statement released by Bersatu Youth chief Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal reflects an elitist individual wishing to maintain a privileged position in the country by language policing.

It does not reflect an individual that wishes to unite the citizens of Malaysia as what Wan Fayhsal wishes to be portrayed as. Even worse, his argument is detrimental to the discourse on plural society unity, for he argued that the fluency in the national language reflects individual nationalism.

This gives Wan Fayhsal the impression of being in the know, while in reality, it’s just nonsense spewed biasedly, referencing researches to fit a narrative that will be proven futile in actualising any effort towards unity.

While it is agreed upon that any effort in forming a united plural society starts from the most primary level of education, the vernacular school system is collateral to the plural society itself, rather than a plague to the system.

The vernacular school system has been embedded deep within the tapestry of the Malaysian education system. It has been a means of cultural identity preservation, just as how the Islamic religious school is a means to preserve and strengthen the Islamic religious identity of the students enrolled.

Thus, to abolish the vernacular school system on the basis of the lack of national language fluency, in reflection to individual nationalism, will be counter-productive to the initial effort.

To take away a means of cultural preservation is to take away what Malaysia has been portrayed as: a multiracial plural society tolerant of one another’s identity. Conformity with national language fluency is not a magical solution to all the problems of unity in Malaysia.

Even if all the students within the education system are put under a roof with the jigsaw classroom model, unity will still be out of reach - as long as the Armada chief does not reflect inward on the causes of a disruptive discourse on unity.

Wan Fayhsal may give out a narrative of language as the basis of unity and argue that the vernacular school system embraces differences in language usage, which will consequently disregard the prioritisation of the national language.

He is speaking from a viewpoint of a politician that is playing on the sentiment of the people and not from the viewpoint of an individual that values the education system itself.

Linguistics and literary consultant Sarah Gudschinsky posited that a student’s fluency in his or her mother tongue can be transferred to a second language, thus allowing a beneficial exposure to a second language. For C Eastman, native language usage will foster a good home working relationship.

Learning difficulties were also documented among minority children with an inadequate grasp of the medium of instruction by multiple linguists, from C Bowen to J Macnamara, to name a few.

Does Wan Fayhsal even have the best for the citizens at heart, or is he simply revisiting sentiments that had existed since the release of Barnes Report to fulfil the requirement as a politician?

If fluency in the national language is reflective of one’s nationalism, can this statement by Pemuda PSM, written in English, be reflective of a collective that is going against the best of the Malaysian people?

Pemuda PSM wishes for a united Malaysia, as well, but unity should not be built on the basis of erasing the cultural identity of the minorities. The vernacular school wasn’t built to be divisive for the people, but any narrative that painted it as such is.

If education is the main concern in the development of a united plural society, Wan Fayhsal should have been aware of the establishment of Islamic religious schools in Malaysia as the breeding ground for religious fundamentalism, resulting in the decline of the Malays’ cultural identities while being the major race itself.

In relation to the education system itself, why should the vernacular school system be the target of the narrative of a disruptive system when our tertiary education system allows for universities to prioritise only the majority race on the basis of affirmative action?

Why should education be the target when individuals like Wan Fayhsal freely stoke the flame of racial issues through racial politics?

It should have been obvious that Wan Fayhsal’s statement was built on an unsubstantial ground. The referencing of the 1996 Education Act and the work of Prof Dr Teo Kok Seong (of Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia), is only to build a narrative that the vernacular school system that does not have a correlation to the issue of unity in Malaysia.

Wan Fayhsal is just another player in the political arena seeking to blame a system that is not within his capability to understand, yet he could not help but cling on to it in order to gain pity points for his pathetic climb towards securing a position in already turbulent racially-driven politics.

The writer is with the PSM Youth Education Committee.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.