malaysiakini: Smoke and mirrors...... by Rom Nain

Smoke and mirrors

Rom Nain 12:26PM Jun 28, 2012

For many, certainly among the educated, urban middle class, it has become quite apparent why this administration has become increasingly unpalatable. 

There have been the barefaced lies and arrogant disdain in response to scandals such as the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) and Scorpene and controversial projects such as the Lynas plant. 

There also have been the crass accusations and misrepresentations of important and meaningful events like Bersih 3.0, the ongoing blatant buying of the peoples’ votes using public funds and, of course, the continuing, unprovoked character assassination of people and parties who, for some inexplicable reason, seem to scare the living daylights out of the members of this regime. 

Tuesday’s call by the BN’s Seri Gading MP, Mohamad Aziz, for Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan to be hanged for treason is a perfect example of this desperation, this stupidity, this insanity.  

All this, evidently, has contributed to a general feeling of revulsion among many at the antics of a regime that appears to have gone mad with power. And will do anything to cling on to it, especially at a time when its legitimacy is evidently at an all-time low and is rapidly sinking further. 

Indeed, things seem to have all gone wrong for PM Najib. 

He started off with grand talk of reform and giving Malaysians more freedom. Just a few days after becoming the prime minister, on April 7, 2009, he boldly declared: “If we are truly to build a democracy that is responsive to the needs of the people, we need a media - both old and new - that is empowered to responsibly report what they see, without fear of consequence.”

Of course this was three long years ago, before the personnel from some of the media he was talking about were soundly beaten to a pulp by his boys in blue one Saturday afternoon in April. 

But, nonetheless, over these years, as if to constantly divert our attention, these words have been supplemented by even more words, empty slogans and even emptier promises. 

The 1Malaysia spiel, for example, has certainly been flogged to death, despite his deputy and an assortment of his ‘ketuanan Melayu’ mates continuing  to make a mockery of the slogan.

Seemingly empty talk

But even if he’s not been consistent, Najib has certainly been persistent, especially with his seemingly empty talk about ‘transformation’, ‘freedom’, and Malaysia’s ability to become ‘the best democracy’ around.

And not surprisingly, despite the continuous missteps, there are those in his administration who evidently feel that something, anything, needs to be done to stem the tide, to help make the regime look acceptable, even if it’s nothing more than just smoke and mirrors.

One such person who tries but evidently isn't very good at it is arguably the PM’s chief propagandist, the Information, Communication and Culture Minister, Rais Yatim. 

In his latest foray,  Rais announced in early June that ‘for the first time ever’, non-BN political parties may promote their manifestos on RTM or other broadcasters. 

But before we could all go out and celebrate this ‘great’ breakthrough, the old man went and spoilt it all - reminding us that this, after all, is Malaysia - by outlining various rather ridiculous conditions.

This includes the condition that such broadcasts can only begin once Parliament is dissolved and the campaigning period starts.

The fact that Rais ‘did not state how much airtime would be given or the conditions that parties had to comply with to access the facility’, really should make us cautious about this ‘opening’ up of the media to all parties concerned.

Indeed, firstly, why are the ‘guidelines’ - government imposed at that - being provided only at the beginning of the campaign period, without any discussion with the interested and affected parties?

Second, will all parties be given equal time in the same time slots? It would make a mockery of the facility if, for instance, the opposition coalition and other non-BN parties are provided time slots that have small audiences, hence minimum reach, to promote their manifestos.

Indeed, more conditions have now been imposed. The most insidious is the one that disallows live broadcasts of these manifestos and that the recorded ones may indeed be subject to editing - read manipulation, read distortion - by RTM.

And, of course, it has gotten sillier. Rais has since been quoted as saying that “the manifestos would be aired depending on their newsworthiness”. And you can be sure he said all that with a straight face, as comedians do.

Insulting our intelligence

By no stretch of the imagination can what is being proposed - with the conditions imposed - be interpreted as ‘free and fair access’ to the media. Indeed it yet again simply insults our intelligence for the minister and even the chairperson of the Election Commission to suggest so.

Even a first year media studies undergraduate could tell the PM and his toadies that to begin even thinking about ‘free and fair access’ we would need to look at media ownership patterns, indeed, the concentration of media ownership in the hands of BN political parties. 

We would also need to come up with ways to dismantle these undemocratic ownership structures. Equally, we would need to consider getting rid of undemocratic laws that impede free and fair access.

And looking at recent developments, we would certainly need to rethink the amendments to the Evidence Act.

So when we begin to look at it seriously - and not in a vacuous manner - ‘free and fair access’ really means much more than the handing out of ‘free’ airtime during the campaign period.

More and more of the Malaysian population are quite aware of this. Unfortunately, many of these dinosaur politicians are not, especially after all these years of not being able to recognise ‘democracy’ even when they tripped over it.

---

ROM NAIN is a media analyst and  academic who is weary of incompetent, unethical leaders and their apologists and spin doctors in the media who try to get away with murder while professing to rub shoulders with God’s angels.

TMI: Does Malaysia need democracy? — by Dennis Ignatius

Does Malaysia need democracy? — Dennis Ignatius

June 28, 2012

JUNE 28 — “Government of the people, by the people and for the people would result in a stalemate, in no government at all, in anarchy.” — Dr Mahathir Mohamad 

In the Philippines recently to accept an honorary professorship by the University of Santo Thomas, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in his usual provocative style, drew attention to some of the weaknesses of democracy and warned that we should not put too much stock in democracy to solve our problems. 

If his goal was to highlight the difficulties inherent in a democracy, we will all do well to pay careful heed. If, however, his objective was to make the case that democracy, because of the weaknesses he highlighted, is not suitable for developing countries like Malaysia, which I suspect is his intent, then I must respectfully beg to disagree. 

Democracy — a recipe for disaster 

Dr Mahathir complained that people don’t understand that freedom must be balanced with responsibility, that they are too divided to agree on anything, too incompetent to elect good leaders and that they invite instability by constantly changing governments. 

In other words, people are basically too irresponsible, too incompetent, too poor a judge of character and ability, and too fickle to govern themselves. Quite a damning judgment of the common man. 

It is not a novel idea and neither is it the first time that Dr Mahathir has made the case for greater executive power and stronger government at the expense of democratic rights and institutional checks and balances, a kind of benevolent dictatorship, if you will. 

To prove his point, he quoted the example of an unnamed democratic country where successive governments have been brought down by strikes and demonstrations which have resulted in paralysis, instability and economic stagnation. 

He might have been referring to one of the Arab countries though his description might well fit the very country he was speaking in. 

It is interesting that he should choose to rest his case against democracy on this unnamed and admittedly poor advertisement for “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Why take the worst-case scenario when there are so many good examples of successful democracies in the world? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to take a broader perspective and judge on the basis of overall results?

The thesis of Mahathirism 

It is hard to escape the conclusion that at the heart of his political thesis is the notion that the Malaysian model, the model he essentially created and bequeathed to us, an illiberal democracy as he admitted, where untrammelled authority and power is basically vested in one man who knows what’s best for the nation, is far more effective than the liberal democracy that so many Malaysians are clamouring for these days. 

And, he seems to be saying that the proof is in the pudding — just look at Malaysia today and the amazing transformation that took place under his leadership. 

His unspoken message is that if we want to keep on growing rapidly and enjoy the good life, we ought not to press for greater freedom and minority and human rights, which he deems subversive and counterproductive. 

His idea of a good democracy then seems to be one in which the people elect a leader and then get out of the way and let him do whatever he wants for as long as he wants to. Respect for fundamental human rights, accountability, transparency, constitutional checks and balances, separation of powers between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, etc, have no place in this scheme of things. Indeed, they are a hindrance to effective and productive governance. 

Are the alternatives any better? 

There is no doubt that democracy has many flaws and is admittedly a difficult system to manage because it tries to balance the rights of the individual with the common good. It is true that citizens are sometimes unmindful of their responsibilities and, yes, people do not always make the right decisions and, as a consequence, straddle themselves with mediocre leaders. Dr Mahathir is also right when he points out that frequent changes in government do not make for continuity and long-term planning. 

Winston Churchill famously declared that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." And really that is the issue. What are the alternatives? Is a more authoritarian governance system, the kind that Dr Mahathir seems to favour, a better alternative to liberal democracy?   

I suggest, for any number of reasons, that it is not. 

One has only to survey the political landscape of much of the developing world, for example, to see the utter folly of non-democratic systems of governance. Many Third World leaders have near absolute power to govern but how have they used their power? Which autocratic leader has been able to meet, on a sustainable basis, the expectations of his own people for a good and decent life? 

Dr Mahathir quoted Lord Acton’s famous dictum that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If he saw its application at work in so many of the Third World countries he visited during his long tenure in office or suspected that it might have been at work even in his own backyard, he doesn’t say.

It’s true, of course, that some nascent democracies continue to struggle politically and languish economically. One Filipino commentator enthusiastically said that Dr Mahathir’s assessment of democracy was an accurate description of the situation in the Philippines and went on to lament the paralysis and ineffectiveness of democratic government there. But with a long history of dictators and quasi-dictators, is the Philippines really a good example of a working democracy? What the Philippines needs is not less democracy but more democracy. 

The other thing that should be noted is that democracy, unlike tyranny, cannot be imported wholesale from abroad. It takes time to grow roots of its own, adapt and evolve. The Americans like to say that their democracy, more than 230 years in the making, is still a work in progress. It is not an argument to curtail democratic governance but rather an exhortation to keep pressing on. 

The fact remains that democracies, while not perfect, are overwhelmingly better than autocracies at providing the kind of political, social and economic environment that is necessary for sustained stability, prosperity and social harmony. It is not for no reason that hundreds of thousands of migrants leave their own non-democratic societies each year and head for democratic ones. They are voting with their feet because they cannot vote with their hands. 

Democracy and mediocrity 

Dr Mahathir’s comment that democracies tend to throw up mediocre leaders is also puzzling. Seeing as how he himself was elected to office, is he proving his own point about the mediocrity of elected leaders or is he suggesting that somehow we got it right when we elected him to office? 

And if citizens in Malaysia and other developing countries make poor choices, perhaps it might have something to do with the system of censorship, control and manipulation of news and information. The answer to an ill-informed citizenry is education, discussion, debate, and the dissemination of ideas and viewpoints that help citizens make informed decisions and choices. As Hubert Humphrey noted: “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate.”   

Leaving that aside, the law of averages would suggest that mediocrity will be found in equal measure in both non-democratic and democratic systems; the only difference is that the citizens in one are stuck with mediocrity for a lifetime while in the other there is at least the prospect of peaceful change in the not too distant future. And that makes all the difference in the world especially if you are stuck with a Mugabe or a Mubarak, or, worse still, a Kim Jong-Un. 

Even great leaders are not infallible 

And even if we were so fortunate as to find a great, wise and benevolent dictator to lead us to the Promised Land, what guarantees are there that the dictators that come after will be as wise and benevolent? Greatness, unlike tyranny, cannot be inherited or passed along. 

More to the point, even great leaders are not infallible and neither do they have a monopoly on wisdom. 

Dr Mahathir, for one, despite his many successes and innovative ideas, left behind a nation in deep disrepair — poorly managed, corrupt, disunited and divided, and uncertain of its future. 

Many Malaysians will also argue that he was a serially poor judge of character. Several of the men he handpicked or endorsed to lead national projects turned out to be either corrupt or incompetent, or both, and the nation lost billions upon billions of ringgit in the process. 

Even his choices of political successors were, by his own admission, huge mistakes. He later found them to be either inept or unfit for office and felt compelled to oppose them in varying degrees of intensity. So much of the political instability that we face today is a direct consequence of the political choices he made. 

What price progress? 

Sure, we made huge strides economically, but at what price? In the process of Malaysia’s own “Great Leap Forward” corners were cut, corruption flourished, national institutions were weakened and checks and balances on executive power diluted. And now the chickens have come home to roost. We might be better off economically but we are certainly poorer in the things that make a nation truly great. 

And besides, what might have we been able to achieve if not for all the corruption, mismanagement, the abuse of power and the stifling of different viewpoints and ideas? My guess is that we would, today, be one of the most dynamic and prosperous nations in the world — strong, stable, more democratic and at peace with itself. 

Lessons of the Arab Spring 

The reality is that non-democratic regimes, because they are unaccountable, have little or no checks and balances, and are essentially closed systems, tend to quickly degenerate into corrupt, abusive and inefficient governance systems that are simply unsustainable. 

Take the case of Egypt, which is so much in the news today. President Hosni Mubarak took power at a chaotic and difficult time in his country’s history. He promised reform and offered hope to his people but his government succumbed to the corruption of power, and Egypt soon became synonymous with instability, stagnation and oppression. While the people struggled to make a living, he and his cronies lived in pharaonic splendour. 

As Robert Heinlein noted: “A managed democracy is a wonderful thing… for the managers.” 

In the end, with nothing to lose, desperate people rose up and overthrew him. And who can blame them? 

The Arab Spring has certainly been disruptive and people are arguably no better off today than they were before, at least in economic terms. Those who favour the status quo are quick to play up this aspect of the Arab Spring and rail against street demonstrations. 

Of course, evolutionary peaceful change is always preferable to revolutionary upheaval. It would have been nice if leaders like Mubarak and Ben Ali, and their foreign backers, had had the common sense to see that their regimes were unsustainable and worked to effect peaceful transformation and change but dictators rarely do so. Don’t blame the people of Egypt or Tunisia for the messy situation they are in today as a result of revolution; blame the dictators who gave them no other option. 

In the wake of the Bersih demonstration last April, accusations have been made that opposition and other civil society groups are conspiring to overthrow the government through Arab-style protests. That is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The tens of thousands of people who turned out to demand free and fair elections were not trying to foment an Arab Spring in Malaysia but were trying to avoid one through democratic reform and peaceful change. 

Not great men but great institutions 

In the end, when it comes to governance, the lessons of history over the last few centuries are simply these: 

● First, people are, on the whole, better off governing themselves; when they surrender this right to the wise men who claim to know what’s best for the rest, they invite disaster upon themselves and their nation. 

● Second, universal values of freedom, equality and justice are an important prerequisite for progress and prosperity. It is also morally right and reflects our highest and noblest aspirations. We can argue about details but we must never compromise on the principles. 

● Third, our best hope rests not in the infallibility of great leaders but in the sanctity of great institutions — a fairly and freely elected Parliament, an independent judiciary, an accountable and non-political police force and civil service, and a free press — rightly founded upon just laws. 

Though the challenges ahead of us are many, there is no doubt, not any more, that we the people of Malaysia have it in us to rise above our differences, to overcome misunderstanding and prejudice, to marshal the talents and skills of all our people to build a better nation and a better democracy.

* Dennis Ignatius is a retired diplomat. He was with the Malaysian foreign service for 36 years. This included postings to Beijing, London and Washington. He also served as Malaysia’s ambassador to Chile and Argentina, and High Commissioner to Canada.

fmt: Beer, boobs and books.... by Mariam Mokhta

Beer, boobs and books

Mariam Mokhtar

 | June 22, 2012

Umno and the Islamic departments seem oblivious to their abuse of authority and power.

COMMENT

The Malays are doomed, and Umno together with the various Islamic departments will have a hand in their downfall. From beer to boobs and body art to books, the mind and morals of Malay Muslims are subjected to continual heavy bombardment.

Is it any wonder that the Malay has ceased to be a critical analyst? He feels burdened when he tries to think what is best for him and for society as a whole.

The Malay with an alternative viewpoint fears being branded by the rest of the Malay community and is frightened of expressing his views in public. Anyone who thinks Malays are privileged is sadly misguided.

It is a fact that the non-Malays are treated unfairly. They are denied opportunities in education, finance, business and housing, yet their issues are systematically being addressed.

Likewise the plights of the migrant workers who are abused by their employers, people who are tortured in detention, or the families of men who mysteriously died in police custody, are being investigated by the opposition, civil society groups and NGOs.

It is absurd to think that Malays are superior when in fact they are being betrayed by Umno and extremist groups linked to Umno.

Malays cannot openly criticise members of royalty even if the latter are responsible for assault, have accrued gambling debts or abuse their positions of trust. Malays do not have freedom of religion, a right accorded to each Malaysian citizen and which is enshrined in the constitution. Malays are judged by two laws – civil and syariah.

Some Malay boys are sent to boot camps to toughen them up and remove their effeminate tendencies in an attempt to resolve the confusion with their sexuality.

Malays who do yoga, dance the poco-poco and who attend funeral services to pay respects at the eulogy of their non-Muslim friends, are ostracised.

The beer consumed by Kartika Dewi Sukarno mirrors the hypocritical ways of the Umno brand of Islam, practised in Malaysia. When she was sentenced, Kartika accepted her punishment and asked to be whipped in public so that others could learn from her mistake.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development at the time, and the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein were taken aback.

Stung by international criticism, they were forced to backtrack on the harsh punishment. The government machinery tried to defend their untenable position, but the damage to the image of a ‘moderate’ Muslim nation, was done.

Whilst Kartika was subjected to intense pressure, Muslim directors of beer companies have escaped unscathed and Muslim patrons of high-class establishments, who are the children of ministers, their cronies or royalty, do not get caught by the moral police.

The privileged ones

Growing up is trying for the average Muslim teenager. Holding hands is forbidden as is eye-contact. Going on a date, or sending and receiving Valentine cards are risky pursuits.

A Malay career woman living on her own, once confided that she was fearful of any household appliance breaking down because she was afraid that someone might report her to the moral police for being alone in her apartment with the workman.

Her friend had been the victim of a malicious attack, by someone whose affections she refused. He had phoned the moral police to exact revenge. Are the deaths, from people falling off balconies whilst escaping the moral police, justifiable?

When the performance of ballet dancers, the Black Eyed Peas group or Erykah Badu’s tattoos were banned in Malaysia, they made international headlines.

Muslim groups complained that the clothing of the ballet dancers was inappropriate, that Muslims should be banned from the Black Eyed Peas concert because it was financed by a brewery, and that Badu was not a suitable role model for young Malaysians.

The groups which are so vociferous in the condemnation of these artistes are silent about the antics of the MPs who both condone and commit acts of underage marriage (paedophilia), incest, polygamy, rape, corruption, fraud and abuse of human rights.

The latest act of harassment, by the Jabatan Agama Wilayah Persekutuan (Jawi), against the Borders bookshop store manager Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz is worrying. The following day, Borders was again raided and another Muslim female employee targeted.

Nik Raina, her two colleagues and a Borders’ appointed lawyer attended a Jawi investigation as requested, and were issued arrest warrants. The Home Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Islamic Affairs have chosen to remain silent about this affair.

Umno and the Islamic departments seem oblivious to their abuse of authority and power. Who will be blamed, when companies refuse to employ Muslims so that they can operate smoothly and avoid sensitive confrontational issues to do with religion?

Food and beverage, the hospitality and transport industries including publishers and bookshops appear to be in Umno’s sights. At which point will harassment also spread to the non-Muslims?

The only privileged people are the Umnoputras and their Malay and non-Malay cronies. The bottom of this heap is occupied by the Malay women who carry the angst of Malay Muslim issues but are burdened further by a Syariah court which has repeatedly failed to protect their rights.

The Malaysian activist, Norhayati Kaprawi, once said of Malaysia’s Muslim society: “It’s full of fear. If you don’t follow the mainstream you will be lynched.”

The cultivation of fear in both Muslims and non-Muslims, to control the behaviour of the population, will ultimately backfire. By then, Umno will have reached a point of ‘no-return’.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist

TMI: Wither English, wither the nation — by Thomas Fann

Wither English, wither the nation — Thomas Fann

June 21, 2012

JUNE 21 — The title of this article is inspired by a presentation I heard at an English language conference I attended recently. It was a gathering of educators involved in the teaching of English in schools and people who are committed to raising the standard of spoken and written English in our nation. Coincidentally, another article by Stephen Doss was published at the same time entitled “Whither the standard of English.”

CURRENT SITUATION

For me, a few facts stood out. Firstly, the height from which our command of English has fallen in our nation as a whole. Most of the invited speakers spoke impeccable English, especially the “dinosaurs” amongst them. But they were from a bygone era, an era where English was the main language of instruction in our schools and our proficiency in the language was among some of the best in the world.

Secondly, there is a sense of haplessness among the educators that they are going against the flow, that the political will is not there to stem the downward slide despite all the chatter from politicians about improving the standard of English in our country. The reversal in the decision to teach maths and science in English is one such example of this inconsistency.

Thirdly, that the fruit of this decline is now maturing in our society, where we heard a newspaper editor and a hotel owner bemoaning the fact that they are finding it increasingly difficult to secure employees who are able to speak and write good English, which is a vital criteria in their industries. We used to laugh at signage and product manuals from China but now we laugh with them.

But alas, all is not lost especially when we heard from some of the younger teachers who spoke. Their passion, creativity and commitment to raise the level of English in our schools and their use of new technology are encouraging and gave us hope that there are still many out there who believe that English as a language is still important in this country.

ENGLISH AND OUR DESTINY

The link I want to make in this article is the link between English proficiency and the destiny of a nation, thus the title “Wither English, Wither Nation”, that is, if we allow our command of the language to decline, we invariably assign our nation to a bleaker future.

Through advancement in communication and transportation systems, we live in a world where we are intertwined to each other economically, financially, culturally, and socially. All these connections are facilitated by languages and in most cases, it is the English language.

In Stephen Doss’ article, he listed the following data related to the use of English in different situations:

1. 380 million speak English as a second language;

2. One billion speak English as a foreign language;

3. There are an estimated 1.7 billion users of the language. English dominates the Internet, the print media, business, aviation, conferences, other international events, etc;

4. Approximately one billion are learning English worldwide;

5. Over the Internet, about 80 per cent of home pages and 60 per cent of e-mail are in English;

6. English is the medium of higher education in many countries, e.g. India, the Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey;

7. 85 per cent of the world’s knowledge is in English; and

8. 98 per cent of scientific papers are written in English.

NEW CHALLENGER TO SHAKESPEARE ENGLISH

Even with the rise of China as an economic superpower and along with it becoming a super influencer in all spheres and the fact that even now, by the sheer number of Chinese in the world, Mandarin is used by the most number of people, the place of English as the lingua franca of the world is unlikely to be displaced in the foreseeable future.

Renowned linguist David Graddol in the introduction of his book “English Next” (2006) said: “People have wondered for some years whether English had so much got its feet under the global office desk that even the rise of China — and Mandarin — could ever shift it from its position of dominance. The answer is that there is already a challenger, one which has quietly appeared on the scene whilst many native speakers of English were looking the other way, celebrating the rising hegemony of their language. The new language which is rapidly ousting the language of Shakespeare as the world’s lingua franca is English itself — English in its new global form, this is not English as we have known it, and have taught it in the past as a foreign language. It is a new phenomenon, and if it represents any kind of triumph, it is probably not a cause of celebration by native speakers.”

OPEN-SOURCE LANGUAGE

In other words, English is no longer owned by native English speakers but by the global community. Increasingly so it is no longer considered as a foreign language and in its evolving form certainly not exotic. Its development as a language is no longer determined by the native speakers and not constrained by the technical rules of English grammar and sentence construction but are shaped by practical functionality and by the global community. For the purists, this is scary and disturbing but for the rest of the world, it is our global language.

Another way to understand what is happening is to borrow a term from the IT world. English is an “open-source” language because unlike French or Arabic, I am told, it doesn’t have an official governing body to decide what can or cannot be added to the language. As a result, newly invented words are added to the English vocabulary every day by individuals and organisations across the globe.

MISGUIDED NATIONALISM

While the nations of the world are waking up to the fact that for globalisation to work they must have a global language and most have voted to go with English, including China. We as a nation have chosen to walk away from the rich heritage we inherited from the British and have systematically dismantled our advantage in this language. Why, when and how did it happen? It has to do with nationalism and nation-building.

Some may argue that our standard of English is still all right, like the gentleman from the state education department who closed the above-mentioned English conference by giving his speech entirely in Malay. He presented glowing statistics of the passing rates of English in national and vernacular schools. Impressive stats, 85 per cent passing rates, 75 per cent, etc. But these figures are meaningless! I know of a private school whose Grade 2 class (eight year olds) are able to pass the UPSR English with scores of 60 and above. Let’s not fool ourselves. English in the nation has withered! Lowering the standard to raise the passing rates fools no one but ourselves.

The ultra-nationalists amongst us may argue that giving priority to the teaching of English in our country tantamount to linguistic imperialism for we are reverting back to the language of our colonial masters. Whilst one does recognise the importance of Bahasa Melayu as the national language in forging a Malaysian identity, we must not condemn our children to a future where they are not equipped with the language skills needed to communicate with the rest of the world.

DIRE CONSEQUENCES

If we believe that learning is a life-long process and does not end with our formal education and exams, we would be severely restricting our children’s ability to access the vast repository of knowledge if they cannot understand English. The information age would pass them by if they can’t read the information. Have you ever been to a country where all the signage are written in a language foreign to you? I have. You might as well be a blind and mute man!

Another outcome of not making the English language one of the main languages in our national school system is that we are creating a new class system based on one’s proficiency in the English language. Those who can afford private or overseas education would pay top dollar for a good English education to ensure that their children have a head-start in life because they know that when it comes down to a choice between two equally qualified candidates, the one with the better command of English would have the advantage. I wonder how many of the same politicians who condemned our children to a national education policy that marginalise English also send their own children to our national schools? Or are they hypocritically sending their own children overseas to get a good English education? A new ruling class is being created at the great expense to the majority of Malaysians!

IT’S ABOUT MULTI-LINGUISM

Proponents for the reintroduction of English in our schools are not calling for the doing away with the national language but for multi-linguism. Malaysia, being a multi-cultural society, is uniquely placed on the world stage to be a truly multi-linguistic society where we can be proficient in Malay, English, Mandarin and Tamil. A typical Malaysian should be able to speak and understand at least three languages, the national language, English and his or her mother tongue. This is something many in the world would be envious of and would give us an advantage in the world.

In his book “English Next”, David Graddol saw a trend that “… in an increasing number of countries, English is now regarded as a component of basic education, rather than as part of the foreign languages curriculum. A surprising number of countries now aspire to bilingualism”. Basically, to retain a national identity, countries would continue to teach their national language but in order to be relevant in a globalised world, English is taught, not as a foreign language but as a core component of education.

IT IS NOW OR NEVER!

What should be the way forward? I believe we need to have an education system that best prepares our children for the future. By being proficient in English, we are giving them the essential skill to communicate with the rest of humanity, accessing knowledge and information, and become a contributing member of the global community.

It will take political courage and will to bring about a revamp of the education system and raise the standard of English in our country. Short-sighted and populist policies may appease some but in the end undermine the foundation for a strong and competitive nation. The longer we delay the reversal of making English a priority in our schools, the harder it would be for us to climb out of the pit as the generation of teachers who have had an English education retire or have already retired. It is now or never!

Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister once said: “Upon the education of the people of this country, the fate of this country depends.” Truer words were never spoken!