Ramasamy wonders how’s English medium UiTM coping with BM, History made compulsory SPM subjects

 

THE new education policy announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim intends to make Bahasa Malaysia (BM) and History as compulsory subjects at the SPM level in all categories of schools.

This includes public schools, private schools, religious schools and those private Chinese secondary schools having United Examination Certificate (UEC).

Since the UEC has been incorporated into this new system, the issue of its recognition might not be problem anymore for those wishing to enter the civil service and public universities.

It is certainly laudable that the private and religious schools in the country have been imposed with the language and history requirements.

I really wonder why it took the government so long to introduce BM and History in the private and religious schools.

Does this mean that BM was never enforced as a mandatory requirement of those schools outside the public ones even after so many years of political independence and the compulsory introduction of BM as the national language?

Subtle way of recognising UEC?

What is the point of political leaders lamenting the lack of BM in certain private institutions when the government was dragging its feet on the BM matter for so long.

I hope that the new standardised policy on BM and History is not introduced to address the language lacuna in the private Chinese secondary schools in the country.

Recently, there was much opposition to the recognition of the UEC because of the lack of BM requirement.

It appears superficially that the standard national education policy might be way to recognise the UEC examination by the government.

A typical government response is tackling the issue of non-recognition of the UEC in a roundabout manner.

BM and History at the SPM level could have been imposed at the UEC level for its recognition. The question is why the convoluted way in the recognition of the UEC.

I believe there should be no compromise on the teaching and learning of BM at the SPM level. While the language requirement is non-controversial, I am not sure about the History subject.

Policy coherence or politicised reform?

Anwar never pondered on the question of History as a subject at the SPM level as what kind of history is the government is going to teach and promote.

Unlike BM, History is highly a subjective subject, hence the government’s version of history might differ from other versions.

There is no such thing as neutral history in the country. History cannot be written by the victors alone. There are alternative interpretations of the history of the country.

Maybe the education minister should explain the contents of the History subject at the SPM level. Let us see whether she can successfully execute this simple and rudimentary task.

Moreover, some public universities in the country – notably the Bumiputera-centric Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) – have English as the medium of instruction.

As such, I am not sure whether the across board BM and History SPM requirements are applicable to these public universities that have strayed away from using BM as the medium of instruction.

If the new education policy is defined by the term “across the board” application, then shouldn’t some of the public universities that use English as the medium of instruction be subjected to the new policy on BM and history?

It is well and good to have a broad-based education policy that seeks to upgrade the use of the BM and History but whether these requirements are universal or not remains to be seen.

What concerns me is not the broad-based application of BM and History at the SPM level but rather its politicised nature. 

Former DAP stalwart and Penang deputy chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council chairman.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.