Language Policy and Planning

Interview with Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia by Prof. Dr. Saran Kaur Gill, UKM on the 16th June 2005 at the Petronas Twin Towers

Question 1: With regards to the recent change in the MOI in schools which now have impacted higher education, what were the reasons that provided the impetus for this change in language policy for the fields of science and maths?

Education is for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. The most important thing is the acquisition of knowledge. If you have to use a language which make the knowledge more easily accessible, you should use that language. Historically, the Europeans learnt Arabic in order to access the knowledge of the Arabs which was not theirs entirely because of their work but because they learnt Greek in order to access the language. So if you want knowledge you have to acquire the language in which the knowledge is available. Our education system is like any other education system …. it’s meant to enable us to acquire knowledge. If we have the knowledge available in the national language, by all means, do use it but the fact is that in science, the research that is being done is moving at a very fast pace. Everyday literally thousands of papers on new research are being published and practically all of them are in English. To translate English into Bahasa, would require a person with 3 skills. Skill in the 2 languages and skill in the subject that is to be translated and we don’t have very many people who are qualified to do that or who wish to do that. That is why it is easier if you learn English and the students can have direct access to all the knowledge that is available in English.

Question 2: We couldn’t agree more with you. But why is there a need for such a quick change, from the time of announcement to implementation, it took only 6 months?

It is actually because of the speed that knowledge is coming up. We need to chase after it if we are going to be there at all. Normally any change in education policy requires 11 years. You start with Primary 1, Primary 2, 3 and so on that it takes 11 years by which time we would be left miles and miles behind others. So we have to take a radical move. We have to change very quickly. Although a lot of people feel that this is not wise, I think we have a price to pay of course if we go the usual way taking 11 years. The price to pay then would be we would be left behind. But here the price to pay would be some people may fail to acquire sufficient English knowledge in order to cope but the majority if they really try, they would be able to do so. And today we have a very powerful instrument in the form of good software. If we have good software then the person who may not be fluent in English for example, can actually use the software to learn English even as they learn whatever it is that they are studying.

Question 3: Can you elaborate on the software?

Before, you depend upon the teacher. Suddenly you ask the teacher to teach in English and he is not very proficient in English and he will be struggling but when you have lessons in the form of computer software where the thing is explained to you and you can ask questions and get the answer (interactive software) this is available now. Depends upon who writes the software. It doesn’t matter cause we can buy imported software if they are good.

Question 4: Were there alternative models of implementation that were considered? The decision to start with Primary 1, Form 1 and Form 6. How did that decision come about? Did they think of any transitional period where bilingualism could take place?

If you do that, you are going to slow down the process. The reason why we start at Form 1 and only at certain stage is because we want to adopt it immediately. It’s because we have a need to hurry. We are already behind. We are already finding our pupils lacking in knowledge in science and technology. That is going to hamper our development. We are really forced to try and reduce the time as much as possible from 11 years to 3 years. At the same time of course we must be prepared to face the problems and to tackle. Using new technology you can overcome it. The best thing about the software is that the teachers can learn as he teaches.

Question 5: In 1993 when the first attempts at the change in the language policy for science and technology were initiated, what happened then? Why did it take 10 years before the change was finally implemented?

10 years ago we didn’t quite realize the need. We didn’t realise the speed of change. For example we look at the telephone. 10 years ago you didn’t have the capacity that you have now. Today the telephone is such a versatile instrument that you can access the internet, you can have pictures taken, you can transmit pictures. These things are happenings at intervals of almost a few months. 10 years ago we thought that the telephone would take a long time to develop. But today you can see it changing almost everyday. You just cannot afford to be slow anymore. You have to catch up.

Question 6: Wasn’t that realization there in 1993?

It wasn’t so pressing at that time. That time technology could change , shelf life was much longer.

Question 7: The Malay Congress at their recent meeting presented data that showed that students were not doing as well in the content based subjects given the change in the MOI and therefore they asked that the switch in change be altered again. Would you like to comment on this request?

If you want to promote the ability to speak Malay, yes of course, we go back. The price we have to pay is that we will be able to speak Malay very well but we will know nothing. We will know nothing about the changes, the advances being made in science and technology simply because there is no way we can have the latest change translated into Bahasa for our students.

Question 8: What do you think will be the implications of this change in MOI for science and technology on the role and functions of bahasa as a language of knowledge?

Bahasa we still learn for the other subjects. We will still be very fluent. For bahasa to be really accepted as a good language, it must be the language of a very knowledgeable people, very successful people. If the bahasa is of the people who are very poor, backwards, who have no knowledge, nothing at all, then the development of the bahasa will be very stunted and people would not want to learn bahasa. Why should they learn the language of a very backward people?

Question 9: When I delivered a keynote address to a Japanese audience at a conference in Tokyo with regards to language policy change, they were amazed. They said that none of their political leaders would survive if they had made such a move. How is that your PM could do that?

I think Malaysians by and large realize and support this. There will be some small groups who are so fanatical about language that you cannot do anything at all. But all over the world this is happening. In 10 years’ time there will be more English speaking Chinese than there are English speaking Englishmen. In North Korea they are learning English because they say this is the language of the enemy. To understand him and to be able to deal with him, you must understand the language of the enemy. In Japan, every executive makes an effort to speak English or just to read a prepared text in English. Everybody realizes this and it is countered through the extreme form of nationalism which concentrates on being a language nationalist only, not a knowledge nationalist, not a development oriented nationalist. I feel that we should be a development oriented nationalist. We want our people to succeed, to be able to stand tall, to be respected by the rest of the world. Not to be people with no knowledge of science and technology, very poor, very backwards, working as servants to other people. If we have no knowledge we will be servants to those with knowledge.

Question 10: In our research, we interviewed 39 members of academic management from the 9 public universities. One of the areas investigated was the channel of transmission of policy change. We found out that there was no documentation instructing on the change in MOI. Why was this so for such a major change in language policy?

We do not want to be involved in an academic exercise. You know how it is; when the government decides and writes a paper on it, people will study the paper and criticize the paper and give their own ideas and all that and we will be bogged down by academic discussions and not do things and we want things done. So we minimize reasoning and polemic as much as possible.

Question 11: For Chinese schools, why the change in MOI from Mandarin to English for Science and maths when they have been very successful in the teaching of these content subjects in Mandarin?

Not quite. Even in China they are switching to English. They may have more people to do the translation but they realize they cannot cope with the speed of research that is going on today. The number of papers, the new ideas, the new discoveries, they cannot cope. They too have these ideas. I would say the Chinese in Malaysia are more Chinese than the Chinese in China. They have no problem in China about losing their identity. Here they are afraid they might lose their identity.

Question 12: Talking about identity, what will be the impact on national identity of this change in language policy?

Nothing very much because all over the world people are speaking English no matter what race they are. We will be Malaysians and they will be from whatever country they are. There is no way because we speak English we are going to become Englishmen. In fact the Englishmen accept that their language is no longer their language. There is Malaysian English, Singaporean English, Canadian English, Australian English ….all kinds of English. So it is not going to change us. We are going to be Malaysians who speak Malay, but we are able to communicate in our English which fortunately will be understood with people who communicate in their language.

Question 13: Still on Identity: the post 1969 period led to a very strong assertion of the dominant ethnic group on what national cultural policy is. The Vision 2020 says that when the whole concept of bangsa Malaysia evolves, there will be greater liberalization of cultural policy in Vision 2020. Should there therefore be a change in the national cultural policy because if one looks at the present National Cultural Policy, there is a strong dichotomy between what’s existing there and what’s articulated in Vision 2020?

There was a time when national culture was defined as Malay culture. Anything else would not be Malaysian. But over time we cannot deny the influence of other races in Malaysia. For example, eating with chopsticks. Today at Malay functions they serve Chinese food with chopsticks. The fact is that we are beginning to absorb the cultures of the different races in Malaysia. So there is not that much feeling anymore. I remember the days when a lion dance was not permitted. Now we have lion dances. On top of all that, we have to promote Malaysia in foreign countries and we chose Malaysia to be truly Asia. Why are we truly Asian? It’s because we have the 3 major races in Asia and they are all here. We cannot do that and deny the existence of Chinese and Indian culture.

Question 14: We have been talking about English and Bahasa. Should the government support or enhance the teaching of minority languages in this country?

That will end us into a lot of problems because we have about 30 different dialects in Malaysia including Tamil. We cannot do for one minority without doing for the rest. In the end, of course we will become vegetable soup. Such a mixture that we find ourselves being divided. You want to learn you own language ….no country has been as liberal as Malaysia. If you look at other countries in the region, you will find that they give no support at all except to the language of that country. Other immigrant communities they are certainly not allowed….. That is why we see some of them coming to study in Malaysia. Other communities do not have their own school. They go to their national school or not at all. That is the policy but we are liberal. We have Tamil schools, Chinese schools and the government pays. We are liberal but to keep on chipping away at the national policy will end in us so mixed up that we really cannot identify ourselves.

Thank you very much, Tun!