Parliament will become  a joke if Education Minister allowed to answer 32 questions in one go on the use of English to teach maths and science taking about 20-30 minutes, when the  proper thing is  for Musa to make a Ministerial statement followed by a three-hour question-and-answer debate

(Petaling Jaya, Friday): Sin Chew Jit Poh today reported that the Education Minister, Tan Sri Musa Mohamad would on Monday answer  32 questions from MPs in one go on the new policy to  use  English to teach mathematics and science  in primary schools. 

Musa would be seeking the permission of the Speaker to answer all the 32 questions in one go during question time on Monday, so that he could give a “comprehensive” explanation on the subject. 

The Speaker should refuse permission for such a request, as Parliament will be reduced to a joke if the Education Minister is allowed to answer 32 questions in one go on the “hot” issue on the use of English to teach mathematics and science, taking about 20 to 30 minutes, which would deny  “comprehensive” questioning  by MPs on the subject. 

Musa may regard his answer as “comprehensive” enough, but this  may not be shared by MPs. In any event, the purpose of parliamentary  question time is to allow MPs to have the opportunity have a “comprehensive” scrutiny of the Minister’s performance and conduct, and not to allow the Minister to give what he purports to be  a “comprehensive” answer. 

The proper thing for Musa to do is one of two things:  

1. categorise  the 32 questions  into at least six groups, depending on the various aspects of the issue, to be answered on six separate occasions during question time in the budget meeting, which would mean the possibility of six Ministerial answers on different aspects of the issue, together with 12 supplementary questions instead of one “Big Bang’ answer followed by at most four supplementary questions on Monday.  

2. present a Ministerial  statement on the issue  followed by a three hour question-and-hour debate. 

The whole principle of these two alternatives is to do justice both to MPs who have asked 32 questions on the subject and to the issue, which is of great public importance to all Malaysians. 

Although there are past parliamentary precedents where Ministers had been allowed to answer some 30 questions on the same topic in one go, this is a bad precedent which should not be followed or upheld. 

There are many aspects of the issue about the new policy to use English to teach mathematics and science in schools which must be given ample time for parliamentary scrutiny of the conduct or performance of the Education Minister in the past three months, such as: 

• Is this issue being decided primarily as  an educational or political question and if the former, why had  the UMNO Supreme Council usurped not only the Education Ministry but even the Cabinet on this question? 

• Why this issue has been allowed to be such  a divisive national question, as to elicit  threats to  use the  Internal Security  Act and allegations of “extremists”, “anti-national” and “traitors” and  unprecedented media control and censorship to shut out national debate and discussion when there is a national consensus across all political parties, whether government or opposition, and communities, regardless of race or language, about the urgent need to raise English proficiency in schools and universities to restore Malaysia’s competitiveness? 

• What is the objective of the new policy to use English to teach mathematics and science in primary schools from Std. One, is it (i)  to raise the standard of English; (ii) to raise  proficiency in mathematics and science or (ii) produce  “bilinguals who  are academically better than monolinguals”? 

• Why the 10-year Education Development Blueprint 2001-2010, which was never presented to Parliament, made no mention about the objective of turning Malaysia into a  powerhouse in mathematics and science, the teaching of these two subjects in English in primary schools from Std. One, and why no Parliament reports on Malaysia’s performance at  the Third International Mathematics and Science Study – Repeat (TIMMS 1999) or the annual International Mathematics and Science Olympiads which benchmark Malaysia’s rather poor  international standing in these two subjects. 

• The four studies used by Musa to justify the new policy to use English to teach mathematics and science in primary schools from Std. One require at least three  full question-and-answer sessions, especially as the four studies are on the effects of bilingual education and academic performance of language-minority students and not language-majority students in the United States. There are over 80 diverse ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious minorities in the United States. About three-fourths of these students speak Spanish; the nine other largest groups, in descending order of size, are: Vietnamese, Hmong, Cantonese, Cambodian, Korean, Laotian, Navajo, Tagalog and Russian. A 1993 US Department of Education report estimated a total of about 2.3 million limited English proficiency (LEP) students in grades K-12. The first session should focus on how appropriate are such studies on the performance of language-minority students in the US to national primary schools where the Malays are the language-majority students in the Malaysian education system. 

• A second session on the four studies are their vindication and  implications for mother-tongue education in Malaysia, in particular Chinese and Tamil primary schools, whether the Education Ministry is prepared to review and implement a “New Deal for mother-tongue education” by according equal treatment for the development of Chinese and Tamil primary schools on par with national primary schools. 

• A third session on the four studies will focus on Musa’s comment in Malaysiakini yesterday advocating the “broader definition” of bilingual education – whether Malaysia should introduce bilingual or trilingual education to take full advantage of Malaysia’s multi-lingual and multi-cultural diversity. MPs should be allowed to question Musa as to what type of bilingual education he has in mind – whether as in some European countries which develop the children’s speaking and literacy abilities in three languages, inclusive of their mother tongue,  but do not teach maths and science in English or the American model which comprises a variety of programmes for language-minority (LM) students, such as 90-10,  50-50 or 10-90  bilingual programmes where the second language occupies 10, 50 or 90  per cent of the academic content. 

There are many other aspects of this issue which warrants fuller Ministerial scrutiny, and to allow Musa to answer 32 questions in one go on Monday is to allow him to abdicate from his responsibility to fully account to Parliament on one of the most important issues  with far-reaching implications about the future competitiveness and prosperity of Malaysia.   

(13/9/2002)