How does the UEC jeopardise nation-building?

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 Qia mu lail 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? - FMT