Musa should explain what he meant by “political solution” to the controversy over teaching mathematics and science  in English in Chinese primary schools – whether he implied Operation Lalang type of solution

(Kuala Lumpur, Monday): In an interview with Nanyang Siang Pau today, the Education Minister, Tan Sri Musa Mohamad said that the controversy over teaching mathematics and science in Chinese primary schools would have to be resolved by a “political solution”.   

Musa should explain what he meant by “political solution”, whether he implied Operation Lalang type of solutions with mass arrest under the Internal Security Act, as happened in 1987 when one of the controversies was over the appointment of senior assistant, assistant headmaster or headmaster not conversant in Mandarin to Chinese primary schools. 

Or does he mean seeking the views through a sort of referendum from the parents, teachers, governors and patrons of Chinese primary schools? 

In the interview, Musa said that the use of English to teach mathematics and science in Chinese primary schools is a political issue and no longer an education issue and should be resolved by the Barisan Nasional supreme council.  

DAP regrets that Musa has refused to address the issue of using English to teach mathematics and science as an education issue when it is both an education and a political issue. 

In refusing to address the educational rationale for the use of English to teach mathematics and science in Chinese primary schools, Musa is guilty of fully politicizing the issue and evading his responsibility to prove and convince Malaysians that the proposed switch of medium of instruction for these two subjects in Chinese primary schools is educationally sound and a good idea. 

The proposed use of English to teach mathematics and science should be addressed  first as an educational issue before it is addressed as a political issue. 

If the Education Minister cannot make out a case for the educational soundness of the  proposed switch in the media of instruction for mathematics and science in Chinese primary schools,  then there is no need to address it as a political issue.

The Education Ministry’s Education Development Blueprint 2001-2010 gives the following comparative performance in the UPSR in 2000 in the English, mathematics and science by the national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools:

Jadual 2.6

Prestasi Mata Pelajaran SK, SJKC dan SJKT dalam UPSR Tahun 2000 

From these data from the  Examinations Board, Chinese primary school pupils excel in all the three UPSR subjects in English, mathematics and science as compared to pupils from national and Tamil primary schools. 

With the use of English to teach mathematics in Chinese primary schools, will the very high percentage of 91.2% pass in mathematics scored by Std. VI Chinese primary school pupils in 2000 plunge to the level of that of the national primary schools of around 75% - or could the performance of Chinese primary school pupils in mathematics be lifted up further to say 95% by the switch in the medium of instruction for the subject? 

The Education Minister and MCA, Gerakan and SUPP Ministers and leaders must be able to answer this question – or they have no business to advocate or toy with the idea of the switch of medium of instruction for mathematics in Chinese primary schools. The same considerations apply to the science subject. 

Let this educational aspect of this proposal be addressed and resolved first, before its political aspect is dealt with – as the Education Minister should not evade his responsibility to prove that the proposal is educationally sound and a good idea by claiming that it is now a political issue which must be resolved by a “political solution”.

Up to now, Musa has not been able to make up his mind about the objective of the  proposal to switch the medium of instruction of mathematics and science from Mandarin to English – whether it is to raise the standards of mathematics and science or to raise the standard of English.

This is because he has been making conflicting claims on different occasions at different times.

When announcing the Special Cabinet decision of 19^th July 2002 on the use of English to teach mathematics and science in Standard One, Form One and Lower Six in all national schools next year, Musa said the move was imperative in order that students have a solid foundation in science and mathematics, purely to enhance the knowledge of students in the two subjects as the bulk of information and knowledge in science and technology is in English and not really a platform for them to learn English. (New Sunday Times 21.7.02).

This led to a local  education correspondent  to comment that Musa’s “strenuous insistence” that the move was aimed at enhancing the knowledge of students in science and mathematics and not a platform to learn English as “certainly clever” (NST 25.7.02) – except that Musa has quickly spoiled his “cleverness” as he had  not been consistent, telling  the Nanyang Siang Pau today that “the objective to use English in teaching science and mathematics is to enable students to improve their proficiency in English”!

Musa seems to be utterly confused as to whether the use of English to teach mathematics and science is to improve mathematics and science or to improve English proficiency – and he may want to extricate himself from this conundrum by labeling it as  a political problem so that he need not address its educational implications or having to   make  a case to prove that such a switch of medium of instruction is educationally sound and a good idea.

But Malaysians  must not allow Musa to abdicate from his responsibility so easily and must insist that he end his own confusion about the objective of the move and justify the educational soundness of the switch.

Can the use of English to teach mathematics raise the  standard  of the Chinese primary school pupils in this subject  because the bulk of reference material in mathematics are in English?  This is a completely baseless premise – for primary school pupils – and even secondary school pupils – do not seek out reference materials for mathematics, as they could all get brilliant marks if they can  cope with their textbooks and may be with supplementary work-books to have practice with  more questions, but definitely not reference books in mathematics unless they are in universities for higher qualifications.

DAP fully agrees that English standards in all schools, including Chinese primary schools, should be raised, as English is a global language and the language  of  science, information and communication technology – but it is not through the use of English to teach mathematics and science from Standard One, but through learning English  as a subject.

The Chinese community fully supports the government’s intention to raise the proficiency in English among students, but is not convinced that the use of English to teach mathematics and science in the Chinese primary schools is the way to go about it.

It is most regrettable that Musa has adopted the arrogant and unreasonable attitude of refusing to meet with Chinese educational organizations like Dong Jiao Zong if they “persist on their stand of using mother-tongue language to teach mathematics and science”, when he should be having dialogues with them to devise the most effective strategies to raise the standard of English in Chinese primary schools without jeopardising the character of Chinese primary schools or the academic performance of the students in mathematics and science. 

I would propose that Dong Jiao Zong take the lead, together with interested organizations, to draft a masterplan to raise the standard of English in Chinese primary schools without jeopardising the character of Chinese primary schools or the academic performance of the students in mathematics and science for submission to the Cabinet – inviting all political parties, whether in government or opposition  to give contributions.

This would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Dong Jiao Zong and parents, teachers, governors and patrons of Chinese primary schools are in full support of efforts to raise the proficiency of English in Chinese primary schools, but not through the use of English to teach mathematics and science, which could lead to a general drop in academic standards in these subjects as well as jeopardizing the character and nature of Chinese primary schools.

(29/7/2002)