Friday, December 25, 2009

Chinese Schools and Societal Development

By Fong Chan Onn

Since my days as the Deputy Education Minister in the 1990s, I have heard many debates on the vernacular schools; ranging from they being the source of racial disunity, for stifling creativity, for their inability to produce outstanding scholars, to even espousing communism. Let me try to debunk some of these arguments.

Preamble

At independence in 1957, it was agreed by our forefathers that vernacular primary schools should continue to operate with government assistance; the aim being the children study in primary schools in their own mother tongues, but merge in government secondary schools using Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the medium of instruction. However, the 1961 Education Act specified that the Minister of Education can convert the medium of instruction of vernacular schools into BM at any time the Minister deems fit (clause 21.2). This clause was removed in 1996 by Dato Sri Najib Razak, the then Minister of Education, under the 1995 Education Act; making vernacular schools a permanent component of the education system.
In 1970, the Chinese primary student population numbered 439,681 in 1,346 Chinese primary schools (SJKCs). Today, the number of SJKC has fallen to 1,285 but they provide primary education in Mandarin to over 700,000 students with about 70,000 (10%) being non-Chinese.
In 1957, the number of teachers in the Chinese schools was 10,984 compared with 14,366 teachers in the national schools. Since then, the teacher population in the national schools has grown six times, whereas the teacher population in the Chinese schools has only increased two-fold despite the overwhelming demand for teaching resources.

Issues

One might ask what drives the present X-generation parents, who are middle class and are likely to be IT savvy, to send their children to an over-crowded and painfully competitive environment. Presently, over 90% of Malaysian Chinese send their children to SJKCs.
Prior to Independence, the death knell had already been sounded for Chinese schools in Malaysia yet, they have risen and thrived even in the face of globalization.
Perhaps, we have been myopic about how Chinese schools are viewed.

Racial Disharmony

Some have said SJKCs do not give students the chance to interact with students of other races, and therefore induce some extent of racial disharmony.
The vernacular schooling system is not a source of racial disharmony. How can it be when they use the same curriculum and teaching methods as the national schools? Negara Ku is sang passionately, and the Rukun Negara emphasized at every assembly. Vernacular schools, of course, also emphasis strongly BM and English from Standard One. In fact, when we listen to them speaking in BM we can’t differentiate them from other students.
SJKC students also have many opportunities to mix around. Besides interacting with the non-Chinese students in their own schools, SJCKs are required to organize regular activities with the other stream schools (such as sports, and open days) by the Ministry of Education under its Program Integrasi, so students and parents can inter-mingle. Moreover, over 90% of SJKC students go to Government secondary schools where they then spend their most formative years (age 12 to 17 years).

Furthermore, our primary education system is a diverse system including national, national-type, religious, and private schools. Erasing the vernacular (ie national-type) schools does not automatically imply that all students will study then under the same roof at the primary level.

Creativity or Lack of it

Is the creativity in our young ones really stymied by the so-called rote learning or, by our stereotyped image of a disciplinary master with black-rimmed glasses, carrying a cane at SCKCs?
It must be pointed out that all SJKC teachers are the same products of the Teachers’ Colleges that any other school teacher-trainee is sent to. They are taught to use the same teaching methodologies, and of course the same contents.
If rote learning is a flaw, it is a flawed part of the Malaysian education system not limited to vernacular schools. To change this requires a transformation of the entire teaching regime and pedagogic approaches, and yes, definitely also in the SJKCs.
In fact, many SJKC school boards have realized this, and on their parts have assisted the formation of computer clubs. SJKCs such as Lai Ming in KL, Kwok Kwang in JB, and Machap Baru (in my constituency), and many others, are using computers to teach, and foster creativity, in the class-rooms. It is the overwhelming integration of computing teaching methods in the class-rooms that have enabled the SJKCs to excel in Science and Mathematics, and not rote-learning as expounded by my ex UM colleague Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim.

If it is the Chinese education that is to be baggaged with the past of being the language of the imperial courts and deemed irrelevant and non-creative in the modern world (as suggested by my good friend Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing), how is it that the Silicon Valley is filled with engineers and inventors of IC (Indian and Chinese) orgins? How is it that many of the new inventions associated with the IT world, such as the sound card (created by Sim Wong Hoo, a Nee Ann Polytechnic Graduate) and the pen-drive (created by our own Pua Khein Seng) have amongst their inventors engineers who were Chinese educated? And how is it that some of them have gone on to win Noble Prizes; including Lee Yuan Tseh in Chemistry (1986) and Charles Kao Kuen who just a month ago won the 2009 Noble Price for Physics for his pioneering work in fiber optics.
Surely we cannot ignore the fact that classical Chinese education has long changed from its emphasis on Confucian ethics to modern science and technology since the early 1900s.
And are the products of Malaysian Chinese schools as undistinguished as claimed by Khoo Kay Kim? Has he forgotten that his own esteemed UM colleagues such as Professor Tan Chong Tin (neurology), Professor Saw Aik (orthopedic) and Prof Cheong Soon Keng (hematology) were from Chinese schools, and are respected members of the Malaysian Medical Profession?
As a Council Member of TAR College I can testify that TAR College has, since 1960, groomed many Chinese school students into professional accountants, engineers, builders, IT personnel and managers so much sought after by the employers. In fact 70% of Malaysian professional accountants are TARC graduates; and they have contributed towards the profession into what it is today.
And has he also forgotten the entrepreneurial contributions of YTL, Genting and the KLK (Yeoh Tiong Lay, the late Lim Goh Tong and the late Lee Loy Seng)? Lest we forget, these founders were from humble backgrounds, but raised in a predominantly Chinese-educated environment. Tan Sri Lee Kim Yew (a product of Batu Pahat Chinese schools) has been praised for his success in winning the international bid for the London Millennium Dome and completing it inspite of the financial crises in 1999.
Over 80% of owners of Chinese-owned SMEs in Malaysia are from Chinese schools. Many of them have ventured far and wide around the globe (such as Green Packet, and Kurnia Asia).
I think we should not underrate these Chinese school products as being non-creative.

Attracting Non-Malay Students to National Schools


I agree that more parents should be encouraged to consider the national schools as their choice. To make the convergence happen, the pull factor must come from a choice made in the quality of education that the national schools provide, rather than compulsion.
Consider the case in the 1960s when over half of Chinese primary students attended missionary schools. This was not because the parents wanted them to study Christianity, but because these schools have dedicated teachers, and they provided the education (mostly in English) deemed important for subsequent employment. The Ministry of Education’s new approach of enhancing the image of national primary schools should be applauded. There is no shortage of parents (including non-Malays) who want to send their children to national schools such as the Bukit Damansara, or the Sri Petaling , or the PJ Convent Primary School.
At present Chinese (and some non-Chinese) parents prefer to send their children to SJKCs not just for the learning of Mandarin, but also because these schools have dedicated school boards where the parents are actively and purposefully involved in the running of the schools - such as fund raising, sports and speech day organization - and this greatly motivate the teachers to go the extra mile to look after their children better.
The variety of choices for primary education should be our strength instead of our weakness. The competition amongst the various school streams will only results in more commitment amongst the teachers to teach their students better and more effectively.

Impact of Vernacular Schools on Societal Development

The presence of vernacular schools, with the continued assistance of the government and the various communities, gives meaning and support to our motto Unity in Diversity. From independence, this has enabled Malaysia to evolve into a peaceful plural society, proving wrong the prediction of many international pessimists. This also demonstrates that a plural society can be developed through interaction and integration, as opposed to assimilation once strongly advocated by nations such as US and Australia.
SJCKs have also resulted in a substantial number of Malaysians (including non-Chinese) being fluent in three languages - BM, English and Mandarin - since the 1960s.
These trilingual Malaysians have contributed to enhancing Sino-Malay understanding. I can still remember the occasion when I applied for my first passport in December 1963 for overseas study. The officer (a Malay) asked me to write out my name in Chinese characters as well. I was amused; but he explained he was from a Chinese school and conversed with me in Mandarin. Imagine the assistance he would have given to (and the gratitude he would have derived from) many other applicants who could not converse in fluent BM or English then! Of course, now in government front-line offices non-Chinese officers conversing in Mandarin (or at least Penang Hokkien) with applicants is not uncommon.
These trilingual graduates have enhanced the competitiveness of our domestic environment. Many FDIs from Taiwan (such as Acer), Singapore (like Creative Technology etc), Hong Kong, China and even Japan were attracted to Malaysia because of their flexibility and employability.
These Malaysians have also enabled many Malaysian enterprises to successfully venture into the China and East Asia markets. The success of enterprises such as Hai-o, LBS, and Parkson speaks volumes of their contribution in expanding our export base.
Many Multinational Corporations such as Intel, Motorola, and Dell have actively sought out these trilingual graduates and placed them to be in charge of their subsidiary offices or plants in China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and even in London or US because of their ability to work in a multi-cultural environment. Singapore and Hong Kong companies are especially keen to recruit our trilingual graduates to help them to entrench themselves as front-liners to the China market.
Certainly, Malaysia benefits from their international presence as it demonstrates globally the quality of our workforce. Ultimately many of them can be attracted to return, and with their experience help to propel our country out of our current middle-income trap.

____________________________________________________________________

Dr Fong Chan Onn was Professor of Applied Economics and Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, in the 1980s. He served in the Government as Deputy Minister of Education (1990-1999) and Minister of Human Resources (1999-2008). He is currently the MP for Alor Gajah.

End.

More...

华校与社会的发展

冯镇安

我在上个世纪90年代担任教育部副部长期间,就听到许多针对母语学校问题引起的争论;议论的内容从母语学校是导致种族分裂的根源,妨碍创造,不能培养出杰出的学生,甚至到信仰共产主义不等。让我解读其中一些争论性的问题。

前言


我国在1957年取得独立时,我们的先辈就同意让母语小学继续在政府的援助下运作;目的是让学生在小学就读自己的母语,而在中学进入采用国语作为教学媒介语的政府学校就读。 不过,1961年教育法令说明,教育部长可以在任何时候,只要他认为是适当的时候,把母语学校的教学媒介语改为国语(第21.2 条款)。然而,当年的教育部长纳吉在1996年撤消了这项条款。1995年教育法令规定,所有的母语学校是教育体系中永远不變的部分。
1970年, 全国共有1,346 所国民型华文小学,学生人数是 439,681。如今,国民型华文小学减少到 1,285 所,不过,这些学校却为超过700,000 名学生提供华文教育,其中大约70,000 名是非华人,占了总数的 10%。
1957年, 华校的教师人数是 10,984, 而国民学校的教师人数则是 14,366。之后,国民学校的教师人数不断上升而增加了6倍。反观华文学校,虽然它们对师资的需求日益殷切,但是教师人数只增加两倍。

问题

也许有人会问,如今的中等收入以及可能懂得资讯科技的新时代父母,为什么都竞相把子女送进过于拥挤,而且充满激烈竞争的环境求学呢?目前,超过 90% 的马来西亚华人把子女送进国民型华文学校就读。
在国家独立之前,马来西亚的华文学校曾经宣告消灭。然而,华校现在强势崛起,甚至在面对全球化时刻更为兴盛。
到底人们怎样看待华文学校呢?也许,我们缺乏了解。

种族不和谐

一些人说,国民型华文学校没有给以学生与其他种族学生互动的机会,因而在一些程度上产生种族不和谐的现象。其实,母语教育制度并不是造成种族不和谐的原因,因为它们所采用的课程纲要和教学方法,和国民学校是一样的,所以怎么会产生这样的问题呢?
华文学校在每一次的集会上都激昂的唱国歌,并且强调 国家原则。当然,母语教育学校从一年级开始就着重于教导英文和国语。实际上,当我们听华校学生讲国语时,根本无法区别他们和其他学校的学生有什么不同。
国民型华文学校也提供许多让学生互相交往的机会。学生除了和自己学校内的华人学生互动之外,在教育部推行的融合计划下,华文学校也必须和其他源流的学校一起主办各项活动,好比体育项目以及开放日,以便学生和家长能够互相交往。尽管如此,超过 90% 的华校学生升上政府中学,接受中学教育,这个时期是最影响他们成长的年代(12 至 17 岁)。
此外,我们的小学教育体制是多样性的体制,包括了国民、国民型、宗教和私立学校。消灭母语(国民型)学校并不能直接地暗示,所有的学生届时将会在同一个屋顶下接受小学教育。

创造力或缺乏创造力

是不是所谓的填鸭式教育,或者我们过去经常在华校看到戴黑色框架眼镜、手拿着藤鞭的训导主任而留下的深刻印象侵袭了我们儿童的创造力?
我必须指出的是,所有国民型学校的教师,和其他学校的教师一样,都是经过师训学院培训出来的。他们所学习的都是同样的教学法,当然,教学内容也是一样的。如果填鸭式的教学是侵袭学生创造力的因素,那么,我们只能怪马来西亚的教育制度有缺陷,而不是母语学校出了问题。要在这方面做出改变,就必须对整个教学体制和教育采用的方法进行转型,当然,国民型华文学校也需要改变。
实际上,许多国民型华文学校的董事部了解到这点,他们扮演了分内角色,协助成立电脑学会。吉隆坡的黎明,新山的国光,马接新村(位于我的选区)以及其他许多华文学校已经使用电脑教学,促进学生在课堂的创造力。在课堂采用结合电脑教学的方法,使得国民型华文学校的数理科表现更加杰出,而不像我的前马大同事丹斯里邱家金对填鸭式教育所作的诠释一样。
如果华文教育因为华语是过去宫廷使用的语言而被视为在现代世界中不适用,而且没有创意(我的好朋友丹斯里林国荣这么认为)。那么,美国矽谷为什么汇集了这么多印裔和华裔的工程师和发明家呢?许多和资讯科技有关联的新发明物,例如音效卡(由新加坡义安理工学院毕业的沈望傅发明)以及U盘(由我国的潘健成发明)的发明者和工程师,为什么都是接受华文教育的?
此外,接受华文教育的人,为什么也能赢取诺贝尔奖呢?他们包括于1986年获得诺贝尔化学奖的李远哲,以及刚刚在一个月前因为发明光纤而赢取2009年诺贝尔物理奖的高锟。
肯定的,不容我们忽视的事实是,自20世纪初叶,古代华文教育已经做出改变,从过去只着重于儒家道德,改为了如今也侧重于现代科技。
我国华文学校培养出来的学生是否像邱家金所言那么不出色和平凡? 难道他已经忘了我们在马大的出色和受尊重的同事,例如陈忠登 教授 (神经专科医生)、 苏毅 教授 (矫形专科医生) 以及 张顺景教授 (血液专科医生) 都是华校出身,而且是马来西亚医药专业协会受尊重的会员?
身为拉曼学院的一名理事,我可以证明,拉曼学院自1960年成立以来,已经把许多华校生造就和栽培为专业会计师、工程师、建筑师、电脑专才和管理人员。他们都是雇主竞相聘用的人才。其实,目前在我国的专业会计师当中,70% 是拉曼学院的毕业生,而他们对会计行业所作的贡献是有目共睹的。
此外,难道邱家金也忘了扬忠礼集团、云顶高原集团和KLK的创办人扬忠礼、已故林梧桐和已故李莱生对企业领域所作的贡献?这些企业家来自贫寒的家庭,但是,他们是在以华文教育为主的环境下长大。丹斯里李金友(巴株巴辖华文学校的学生)的成就受到赞赏,而获得角逐国际奖项 - 伦敦千禧顶奖,并且在1999年金融危机期间赢得这个奖项。
我国80% 以上华人经营的中小型企业的业者毕业自华校。其中许多企业不断扩展以及遍布世界各国 (例如绿驰通讯公司和 天安亚洲公司).
我认为,我们不应该低估华校生,而把他们视为没有创意的人。

吸引非马来学生到国民学校就读

我同意,应该鼓励更多的家长考虑选择国民学校作为他们的子女就读的学校。然而,要吸引学生到国民学校就读,首先,国民学校必须改善质量,而不是实行强制性措施。
回顾上个世纪60年代,半数以上的华人学生在教会办的学校就读小学。这并不是因为家长要子女学习基督教,而是因为这些学校拥有真正献身精神的教师,而且它们提供的教育(多数是以英文授课)对以后的就业起了非常重要的作用。教育部目前采取新的方法,去提升国民学校的形象,应该受到赞赏。一些国民学校,例如武吉白沙罗国小、 大城堡 国小,以及八打灵 修道院小学,出现了不乏家长把子女送进就读的情形。.
目前,多数华人(当中也有非华人)喜欢把子女送到国民型华文学校就读,原因不只是为了要学习中文,同时也是因为这些学校拥有献身精神的董事部,而董事部内的家长都积极和投入地参与管理学校的工作,好比参与筹募基金、体育和主办恳亲会等活动。这些活动有助于激发教师提供额外的服务,更好好地管教他们的子女。
为小学教育提供各种选择,应该是展示我们的实力,而不是显露弱点。各源流学校之间的竞争结果,将会促成教师做出更大的承诺,以更好及更有效的方法教导学生。

母语学校对社会发展的影响

母语学校在政府和各社团继续提供援助下得以生存,发挥了我们的座右铭“异中求同”的意义,而且受到认同。自我国独立以来,这个座右铭使我国得以发展为一个和平的多元社会,证明了许多国际消极者对我国做出的预言是错误的。这也说明,一个多元社会可以通过互动和融合加以发展,因为美国和澳洲等国家一度大力鼓吹的同化受到反对。
自上个世纪60年代以来,国民型华文学校也培养了大量能够讲流利的三种语言- 国语、英语和华语的马来西亚人 ( 包括非华人) 。 这些能操三语的马来西亚人对促进华人和马来人之间的谅解,做出了不少的贡献。我还记得,当我在1963年12月第一次为出国深造申请护照时,一名官员(马来人)叫我写下自己的中文名字。我当时感到高兴,而这名官员解释说,他是受中文教育的,过后就以华语和我交谈。可以想象到,他当时为很多不能操流利国语和英语的申请者提供(他也从中得到许多激赏)了协助!当然,目前在政府提供柜台服务的办公室,非华人官员以华语(至少以槟城福建话)交谈的情形,已经司空见惯。
能够掌握三语的大学毕业生,提高了我国环境的竞争力,为我国引进许多来自台湾(例如宏基电脑公司)、新加坡(如创新科技公司等)、香港和中国,甚至日本的外来直接投资,因为这些大学毕业生具备弹性和可雇性的条件。
此外,这些马来西亚人也推动我国很多企业,成功地向中国和东亚市场进军。其中已经取得成就的企业,包括海鸥、 LBS 国际货运和百盛 。这些成就显示,它们对扩大我国的出口基础做出了大量的贡献。
许多跨国机构,例如英特尔、摩托罗拉和戴尔都在积极地物色能够掌握三语的大学毕业生,并且调派他们在中国、新加坡、香港、台湾,甚至伦敦或美国的分公司,负责当地的业务,因为他们有能力在多元文化的环境中工作。新加坡和香港公司特别渴望聘请能够掌握三语的我国大学毕业生,以协助推动公司成为中国市场的前线公司。
马来西亚在国际市场占一席之地,肯定能够从中获得利益,因为我国向全球展现了我国的优质劳动力。当中的许多员工最终会被吸引返回我国,而他们所吸取的经验,将有助于推进我国,使它摆脱目前的中等收入处境。

_____________________________________________________________________________

冯镇安博士在上个世纪80年代出任马大应用经济学教授以及经济与行政学院院长。1990 至1999年,他加入政府部门服务,担任教育部副部长。1999至2008年出任人力资源部长。它目前是亚罗牙也区国会议员。


More...