1Language won't make 1Nation? Look at Thailand, Indonesia ...

Boo Cheng Hau

The Malay supremacists have consistently characterized efforts by non-Malays to maintain vernacular schools as 'anti-national'. Why so?

'Anti-national' was, in fact, the same term used by the South African apartheid regime against other mediums of instruction in school aside from Afrikaans.

And Malay supremacists keep citing Indonesia and Thailand as examples of the one-language school policy to unite the races. Yet in Thailand, we can see that there is a secessionist movement by its Malay minority in the southern provinces not only because of discriminative language policy but religious policy too.

The Jakarta riots still occurred at the height of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 where the ethnic Chinese minority was targeted. The Chinese were victims of mob violence even though by then Indonesia's forced assimilation had already deprived this minority community of their Chinese names, suppressed expression of Chinese culture as well as caused many Chinese to lose the ability to speak their dialects.

However, after the 1998 reformasi movement, Indonesia has in recent years eased its strict imposition of Bahasa Indonesia and Mandarin has begun to pick up again. Our 'big brother' has gone one step forward and ahead of Malaysia by abolishing the segregation of its citizens into Pribumi and non-Pribumi.

Many Indonesian students learning Mandarin are not only Chinese but of other ethnicities who want to capitalize on growing economic ties between Indonesia and China. The post-Suharto Indonesian authorities no longer discriminate against Chinese Indonesians who wish to reconnect with their own culture through language.

The questions to ponder on, from the experience of our neighbours, are: Would allowing multilingualism and multiculturalism have prevented Thailand's militant insurgency? Another question is why the Chinese in Indonesia -- in spite of having Indonesian names and speaking Indonesian -- were still singled out as a distinct people in the Jakarta riots?

Likewise, Canada was confronted by Quebec separatists who wanted to establish an independent French-speaking republic. To avoid the secession of Quebec, French was declared additionally an official language in 1969.

Evidence has shown that monoligualism and one-race supremacy has resulted in racial polarization and ethnic conflicts around the world.

Is 'oneness' key to unity?

Integration can never be realised with Malay supremacy being the predominant ideology. When racial discrimination is deeply ingrained in our official education policy, how do we expect ordinary citizens not to propagate 'reverse' racism at interpersonal and social levels?

It is not inaccurate to say that racist connotations are often found at these informal levels. However institutionalized racism is the culprit for its creation. Is it thus unfair to blame non-Malays for being unwilling to be assimilated by Malay culture and subjected to religious indoctrination?

But let's look beyond Asean region countries on their experiences. Previously in the United States, the various ethnic groups had tended to live within their own ethnic enclaves but governmental institutions and policies encouraged inter-racial integration through 'bussing' to mixed-race schools following the success of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.

American affirmative action is for its ethnic minorities yet in the truly unique and one-in-the world Malaysia, it is for its dominant majority!

The US has been wrongly quoted as an example of success in monolingualism by Dr Mahatir Mohamad in his book The Malay Dilemma. English was never made an official language by the American constitution whereas attempts to impose English as such had actually failed.

According to the country's 1990 Census, 13.8 percent of US residents speak some non-English language at home. Another 2.9 percent, or 6.7 million people, did not speak English at all, or could not speak it well.

Over there, the Hispanics have fought most earnestly for bilingualism where Spanish has been effectively used as language of instruction in schools together with English. There are even bilingual colleges that use both English and Spanish. This approach has effectively integrated Spanish-speaking Americans into the mainstream.

Moving away from supremist ideology

Dr Mahatir misrepresented English as the only official language, and language of instruction in American schools. There is no actual restriction in the use of any other language of instruction even though usage of English is predominant in schools, government agencies and more importantly as the de facto lingua franca. In the USA, multilingualism has gained ground as the way forward.

Another famously polyglot country Switzerland not only designated four official languages but also mandates funding for development of mother tongue education.

Despite having its four languages, national identity is strong among the Swiss who predominantly regard themselves as Swiss rather than German, French or Italian as per the native languages they speak. Four languages of instruction including English are allowed in schools and up to tertiary level. Multilingualism has contributed to Switzerland's position as a global financial centre.

The Swiss also live in their own ethnic enclaves but cross-interaction is free without any institutionalized racism, unlike the 'nativism' of South African apartheid and the Bumiputera-ism of Umno. Institutionalised racism in official education policy has caused severe brain drain over the years in both apartheid South Africa and Umno-ruled Malaysia.

Malaysian public universities and teacher training colleges do not accept the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) although this A-level equivalent is accepted by universities in other countries. Students who complete their education in the independent Chinese secondary schools are therefore denied the opportunity to converge into Malaysia's mainstream tertiary education system.

Yet these are the very students who are able to integrate themselves into British, Australian, Canadian and American universities. After graduation, they can hold top positions in multinational corporations but ironically, they could not have earned a seat in their own kampung universities earlier.

Therefore any hope of ameliorating our country's severe brain drain lies in a reformed education system, whereby students from vernacular schools are integrated into mainstream public universities.

Monoligualism is a myth

It is a myth that monolingualism promotes integration. South Africa is one example where a monolingual education policy, closely linked to white supremacy, worsened racial animosities.

South Africa's revamped constitution post-apartheid recognizes as many as 11 official languages as well as equitable allocation of funding for mother tongue education, moving the country away from the Afrikaner supremacy of the past.

Multilingualism is shown in many multiethnic countries to ensure integration at all levels of the society. It especially cultivates cultural sensitivity among the majority ethnic group towards the minorities. Ethnic integration can, in fact, take place through any common language but cultural sensitivity must be the pre-requisite for integration in schools and in the wider populace.

In the apartheid regime of South Africa, English and Afrikaans were the only two official languages. The Malay supremacists have taken a leaf from their book with tacit approval of English as the de facto second language and common language in the private sector.

Needless to say, the Malay elites and GLC top professionals are comfortable in English. Former Lord President Mohamad Suffian made it clear that use of other languages in the private sector is allowed. It is the Umno firebrands complaining about Mandarin in the private sector that is going against the spirit of the constitution.

Diversity under threat

The spirit of voluntary integration in the form of universal participation is granted in the federal constitution, which also recognizes the need for a lingua franca, and hence we had the formulation of Article 152. Malay has logically been accepted for official purposes. Nonetheless, the use and learning of other languages are not only permissible, but the state has also to preserve and sustain these endeavours.

The constitutional right of non-Malays to their mother tongues must be translated not only into non-discriminative legislation but also their impartial implementation in the form of affirmative action for the minorities. Legislation alone is not enough to sustain the ideals of promoting integration and diversity if the majority ethnic group refuses to accept co-existence of cultural diversities.

Being the dominant majority in the country, the Malays must also accept that non-Malays would like to learn at their best capacity, and this would be in their mother tongues in school although not at the expense of national language proficiency.

Assimilative language and cultural policies have entrenched the supremacy of the dominant ethnic group. Their worship of the 'one language, one culture, one nation' policy, manifested through discriminative education policy, has understandably turned off non-Malays.

That Chinese and Indian parents have lost confidence in the national schools is patent. But why have they rejected too the Sekolah Wawasan concept of the different language streams grouped under one umbrella in terms of physical location?

In truth, with all that's been going on in national schools and their negative culture and bullying that has come to light, one can hardly blame the non-Malay parents for distrusting the authorities to treat vernacular schools with some decency. They are afraid -- and rightly so -- that once the vernacular schools fall under the influence of the supremacist bureaucracy, Chinese and Indian pupils will suffer discrimination.

Malaysia has been a multiracial society in reality since the Malaccan Sultanate where hundreds of different tongues were used. Malay scholar Munshi Abdullah in his famous work Pelayaran Munshy Abdullah gave a vivid account the multilingual and multicultural Malayan societies in olden times.

Historically speaking, despite Malay having been the lingua franca since the Malaccan Sultanate, it was nonetheless acceptance of diversity that made the entreport a cosmopolitan haven for international traders.

On the other hand, it is the Umno culture of chauvinism and linguistic policies that have made Malays lose the trait of their adventurous ancestors as gifted seafarers and outward-looking travellers.

Malaysians today should view our own diversity as a valued asset rather than a threat to further advance our beloved nation. The Malaccan Sultanate is a good example. - CPI

(Dr Boo is a DAP leader and the opposition head in Johor state)