I was asked to appear before a task force set up by Maszlee Malik on the issue of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) and its impact on nation-building. The main concern, as I understand, is that the UEC has not been recognised as a positive development in nation-building because it originated from the Chinese school system which has refused any nationalisation efforts.
It was a unique situation, for me to be asked for my opinion in this matter, because I did not know much about either the UEC or the Chinese school system.
But I went because of one simple reason: I think there is a huge problem with our public schools in relation to nation-building. It is very strange, from my point of view, that the Malays are finding fault with the UEC and the vernacular school system and philosophy when the main problems stem directly from the public schools themselves.
I will make four arguments on how I find the public school system has jeopardised the very foundation of our nation-building philosophy and approach. I will speak about the culture of administration, then about the level of religious and cultural sensitivities between races, the subject of History and the subject of Bahasa Melayu.
First, the culture of administration. As Dr Mahathir Mohamad himself has said many times, public schools in Malaysia already resemble religious or Islamic schools. To many Malays in Umno or PAS, or even PKR and Amanah, this may be a welcome assertion. Unlike in my days, most teachers now comprise Malays in what is a racial imbalance in the teaching force.
Next we have administrators who are also mostly Malays, and they determine the culture and value system in schools, such as the insistence on the so-called Islamic dress code and the reading of Muslim prayers during events and assembly.
When Christians once did the same at missionary schools, the Malays complained of religious pollution in education institutions. But when the Malays do it, it seems all right because the education ministry is full of pious Muslims.
Events such as Qiamulail and Yaasin reading to ask for Allah’s help in examinations are rife. These events are fine if conducted outside of school compounds and hours. This kind of culturalisation frightens non-Malay and non-Muslim parents away from public schools.
Have the UEC and Chinese schools introduced a non-Islamic administrative culture? I have not heard of any Bible reading or Confucian wisdom and Buddhist meditative practices being part and parcel of the day-to-day activities of any school. From the administrative culture perspective, Chinese schools using the UEC have no ethnic preference or religious impetus.
Secondly, there is a proliferation of Muslim religious rituals like prayers at school, halal canteens or stalls. Students who are not fasting must eat in the toilet, there are halal and haram drinking glasses, issues with saris and many others.
Parents are understandably frightened at these acts of outward religiosity and have moved their children to private or vernacular schools. I have not heard of any religious rituals of incense burning or processions of deities in Chinese schools, thus I assume that such outward shows of religious piety or reverence do not exist.
The school environment of those taking the UEC seems, to me, more balanced in respecting religious sensitivities. This would be a point in favour of accepting the UEC as a good nation-building effort.
The argument against accepting the UEC comes to a head over the subject of History. Although the UEC has been accepted by overseas and international universities of worth all over the world, Malaysia rejects it on grounds that its history syllabus does not contain “adequate” local content.
I accept the fact that the UEC History subject covers a more global perspective as well as some local content, showing the idea of globalisation and localisation at the same time. We must get used to the idea that our children will likely not be working in Malaysia. They will spread their wings outside the country of their birth.
I learnt about Christianity and the Greeks in my day, and it was useful when I went to the US for my architectural degrees. On the other hand, the public school curriculum, to my mind, contains too much historical content that may be skewed towards creating a narrative of one race over the others.
I would prefer that both the UEC and the national school History curriculum concentrate more on the history of different peoples rather than one of them being a long-winded narrative of colonialism and the political struggle for independence with heroes being ministers and prime ministers as well as political leaders, most of whom were Malays.
I would prefer that our children know about the rise of each people – the Chinese, the Indians, the Orang Asli, the Kadazans, the Muruts – and their anthropological make-up of social values and rituals in the past as well as adaptations and innovations of the present.
If I were to ask pupils about the history of Christianity or the Buddhist faith in Malaysia, would they be able to answer? There is also the history of technology and the rise of cities that form important aspects of history and would help us better perceive the present social and environmental issues.
My conclusion here is that both the UEC and the national curriculum are flawed in their understanding of history in a narrow construct. Our present curriculums fail miserably in educating our youth about the history of their own peoples.
The other point of contention is the subject of Bahasa Melayu. The so-called unacceptability of the UEC is also on grounds that curriculum expectations of the certificate are apparently lower than those of the national curriculum. I would like to present a totally different view of this matter.
First of all, I assume that most public universities with the exception of perhaps UKM and one or two others, require students to attend lectures and complete assignments in English. Even UiTM, the bastion of Malay-only education, strongly insists on this matter. So students of the UEC should steer away from UKM and apply only to UTM, UPM, USM, UM and others which emphasise English over Bahasa Melayu.
What is the problem here? It was not the Chinese educationists who decided on this line of medium of instruction. It was the Malay vice-chancellors who opened up their universities to foreigners thus dealing a death blow to Bahasa Melayu as Bahasa Ilmu. They should close down Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka for it no longer has any academic relevance. The rug was pulled from under its feet by the Malay educationists themselves, for the sake of international rankings and the idea of a “world-class” education.
Secondly, what level of Bahasa Melayu do we expect from our children? I took the Standard Six exam and the LCE and MCE, but the level of Bahasa Melayu doubled in complexity in my children’s time. I have been writing books, articles and even journals using my MCE Bahasa Melayu, which is “lower” in quality than that of my children. Can UEC students carry out a conversation with a Malay? Can they write a simple job application letter in Bahasa Melayu? If yes, what else should we be asking for? Do we want the Chinese to spout classical Malay or speak in proverbs all the time, in addition to understanding the intricate novels of Malay national laureates? Tak payah lah. I pun tak faham. I do love the classical language of Hang Tuah and Munshi Abdullah. Such beautiful and soft expressions, not mechanical like modern Malay. But the question remains: what level do we or should we expect of an 18-year-old looking for a clerical job in the public service?
In conclusion, I do not see the relevance of the arguments against accepting the UEC as part of a nation-building curriculum. If my arguments still appear lacking in substance, I ask Malaysians to remember that Azwandin, Jamal Yunos, Zamihan, Ibrahim Ali, Tajuddin Abdul Rahman and Bung Moktar never sat for the UEC examination. They all came from the national or religious school system. Need I say more?
Pictures：from internet
******************************************
(中文版）来源： 本站 supportdap.online【独家翻译】
我国教育部部长马智礼为了探讨独中统考(UEC)对国家建设是否带来负面的影响课题而设立的特别小组曾邀请我对此事提供意见。
我了解UEC 最令人担心的事是，这考试源自于华文教育制度，而这制度被视为不利于国家的建设。
对于UEC和华教制度我没有多大的了解，但我还是接受这特别小组的邀请。对我而言，在国家建设方面，存在着巨大问题的是国民学校或政府学校(public schools).
我感到奇怪的是，这样一个严重的问题马来人没有去关注，竟然去怪罪于UEC和母语教育制度。
我从四方面来说明国民学校如何危害国家的建设。
一， 学校行政。
首相马哈迪医生曾多次说过，我国现今的国民学校已经类似宗教学校。对于很多巫统和伊斯兰党甚至是公正党和诚信党内的马来人来说，这也可能是他们喜欢的决策。
现今国民学校的师资阵容有别于我的学生时代。种族不平衡是现今师资阵容的现象，因为绝大部分的老师是马来人。
其次，学校行政人员绝大部分也是马来人。他们对于学校的文化价值观有决策权。例如，他们坚持所谓的伊斯兰穿着规范以及在周会或一些活动场合念经祷告。
然而，当基督教徒在教会学校念经祷告时，马来人就投诉说教育场所被宗教污染了。
为什么马来人念经祷告，一切没有问题？ 原因是教育部里面的人都是虔诚的回教徒。
考试来临之际，集体诵经祷告，向真主阿拉求助是国民学校里很普遍的现象。如果这活动是在校外时间及校外场地进行，那是无可厚非。在校内进行这类“文化侵略” 的举动，怎不令非巫裔和非伊斯兰家长对国民学校退避三舍呢？
独中和华校有实施非回教的行政文化吗？ 我从没听说过这些学校的日常活动有涉及圣经的诵读或者是佛教的冥想打坐。从行政角度衡量，独中没有种族和宗教的倾向。
二，国民学校内的回教仪式或礼节日益膨胀，例如在校内祈祷，设定清真食堂，没有斋戒的非回教徒必须在厕所内用餐，清真和非清真茶杯必须区分, 非回教徒的衣着限制等。这些措施都是令非回教徒家长对国民学校望而生畏的原因。
我从没听说过华校有类似的充满宗教色彩的活动或措施在校内进行。
对我来说，独中在尊敬各宗教信仰及顾及宗教敏感性方面做得更为周到。在这方面而言，独中对国家的建设是有其积极的一面的。
三，历史科课程纲要
承认独中统考的另一项争议跟历史科目有关。虽然UEC已经广受世界各国的知名学府接受及认可，马来西亚仍旧拒绝它，原因是它的历史科纲要没有足够的本地色彩。
事实是UEC的历史科更具全球视野，同时也没有完全忽略本地的重大历史内容。我们必须认清一个事实，我们的孩子将来未必一定在马来西亚就业，他们也会冲向海外的。
我在求学时代所学的历史包括基督教和希腊文明，这方面的知识对我日后到美国深造时有很大的帮助。反观现今的国民学校历史课程，内容着重于描绘某个种族如何比其他种族优越。
对我而言，无论是独中或国中，历史科的纲要应该涵盖地球上不同民族的历史，而不是局限于马来领袖对抗殖民主义者的长篇论述。
我更希望我们的孩子学习的是各族人民 – 华人、印度人、原住民、卡达山人、毛律人等的奋斗史，他们过去的社会价值观和宗教仪式以及对现今社会的适应和所作出的各种革新。
如果我问现今的学生有关佛教和基督教的历史，他们能够回答吗？此外，有关工艺和世界大都会的发展史都是历史科目应该学习的重要事项。这方面的知识让我们对目前所面对的社会和环境课题有更深的了解。
四，国语政策
UEC之所以不被承认的一个主因是它的国语程度被认为低于国民学校。对此，我有不同的看法。
我国目前的大学课程大部分都以英语授课，同时学生的功课也以英语完成，也许国大(UKM)和一两间大学除外。即使是马来知识分子的堡垒 UiTM 也不例外。因此，UEC学生可以舍弃UKM，选择UTM,UPM, USM和UM等以英语为重的大学。
所以，因国语问题而拒绝承认统考的问题出在哪里？ 决定大学课程媒介语的不是华教人士，而是巫裔大学副校长的决策。他们要将他们的大学开放给外国人，要提升他们的大学在世界的排名，要他们的大学提供世界级的课程。
我们期望我们孩子的马来文达到什么程度？我曾以我MCE的马来文程度发表文章和写书，而我的国语程度肯定比我孩子的低。
独中生有能力以马来语跟马来人对话吗？ 他们有能力以国语书写求职信吗？如果能的话，我们还要求些什么?
我们要求他们口操标准又经典的马来语及经常使用马来成语？要求他们欣赏马来文学家以艰涩语文所写的小说? 不需要吧？ 我自己也看不懂。
我喜欢看古典小说HANG TUAH 和MUNSHI ABDULLAH， 它们的语文优美纯朴，不像现代马来语那般刻板。
还是这个问题: 对于一个有意在公共领域求职的18岁青年来说，到底我们要求他的国语水准到达什么程度？
总的来说，我看不出拒绝承认UEC的论点跟国家建设有何关系。
如果我的论点还是缺乏说服力，我恳请大家记住，Azwandin, Jamal Yunos, Zamihan, Ibrahim Ali, Tajuddin Abdul Rahman 以及Bung Moktar 这些惹事生非及丑闻缠身的人物都不曾报考UEC。 他们都毕业自国民学校或宗教学校。
我还需要多说吗？
达祖丁拉斯迪
本地大学教授
没有评论:
发表评论