Wawancara Merdeka 2005 (2) : National Language and National Unity
In this Episode 2 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005 series, Shin consults bloggers Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani, Politics 101, Nurul Izzah Anwar and David Teoh of David the Katana on the issue of National Language and National Unity.
Shin : Many including former teachers in Malay College Kuala Kangar (MCKK) hold the opinion that, the level of national unity and academic results were much better when the medium of instruction was English. Once it was switched to Bahasa, it’s downhill all the way. Does this mean the national language cannot unite the citizens efficiently ?
Fathi : I don’t think the issue is language, bahasa Malaysia or English. I
prefer to say the pivotal issue here is democratic freedom. Read George Orwell’s brief comment on this issue, ‘Politics and the English Language‘ (1946).
For the New Order’s Indonesian control of language and thoughts, we may refer to this latest book, Social Science and Power in Indonesia (2005).
If you can’t express many things, if you cannot explore your creative freedom freely (literature, for example), if you have some ideas but no effective medium of public expression and exchange (no free press or academic freedom), if our society kills debate and critical thinking, if intellectuals fails (or refused) to challenge the powers-that-be (that is, no serious debates on matters of public importance), what is happening to our language?
I tend not to agree with the former teachers in MCKK. I guess they perceive these issues wrongly or narrowly. I notice bahasa Malaysia can be a medium of excellence too.
But when our freedom and democracy is slowly eroded, a decade after another (see this important dates: post-May 13, 1969, the 22-year rule under Dr Mahathir Mohamad and post-1998 political crises), what has happened to our language use and our thoughts?
Even English-speaking Malays and Malaysians, urbanites and professionals, are ’stupid’ (or: shallow, conservative, less critical and ignorant)!
Do you read ‘letters section’ of Malaysiakini.com – and do you think these English-speaking letter writers are ‘good’? Have you noticed how people express and argue in The Star, The New Straits Times and even Kakiseni.com?
Even those who study overseas (Malays or non-Malays) are more or less inflicted with this Malaysian disease of mediocrity! Language use is not about words and vocabulary. It is about ideas and how you relate, analyse, what’s is happening around you (societal realities).
Language and excellence are not spontatenous. People, here, assume (repeat: assume) English is more superior to bahasa Malaysia because the former language is more developed intellectually and internationally recognised.
But when you try to transmit the intellectuality of English to a less democratic environment (when you are subject to unfair, conservative, undemocractic constraints) – it may have different impact. It is the context of intellectuality (or intellectual development) in a certain
political climate that provides the excellence of language use (and, thoughts).
But language can be a good (and very effective, too!) tool for thought-control, propaganda and misinformation. See Murray Edelman’s The Politics of Misinformation (2001, 2004) and Pierre Bourdieu’s Language and Symbolic Power (1991, 2001).
If you ask some Malay intellectuals, who can use equally well bahasa Malaysia and English, e.g. Rustam A Sani, Hishamuddin Rais or Khalid Jaafar — they will agree with me. That is, nothing is special in English-speaking Malays’ (or, non-Malays’) discourse and understanding.
What I try to conclude is simple indeed — it is democratic freedom, not the language use, which hinders excellence.
You said: “Once it was switched to Bahasa, it’s downhill all the way.” But can you also notice the downhill of our democratic space?
Shin : Yes, definately…
Fathi : So, I believe there is strong correlation between political authoritarism (especially the 22-year rule of Dr Mahathir’s) plus religious fundamentalism and thought-control and language use.
I try to explain, though still simple and inadequate, in some of my pieces in my Malaysiakini.com column, e.g. ‘Akar Umbi Pembodohan Umno’ (23 August 2003), ‘Politik dan Kejahatan Berbahasa’ (8 August 2005) and the most recent one ‘Kebodohan Umum di Indonesia’ (22 August 2005).
If you read my book Patah Balek: Catatan Terpenting Reformasi (Feb 2005), link , you will notice that the issues are dealt with quite extensively.
I still believe, none the less, that my analyses are still superficial. I try to remind people that we have to deal with these issues (i.e. language, public discourse and thought control) because they are equally important in our democratic struggle; not cases of human rights violations only (for instance).
BK : Historically it was true -but need not be so. In the past only very few get educated -so the academic excellence and unity was limited. Now with more people being educated the task for national unity is larger and heavier. Unfortunately the government chosed to level down educational standards in the haste to widen education access - thus the lowering of standards. They could have taken care to maintain standards. So it is not necessarily linked with national language.
Rajan : Cuba has no national language - it is one of the remaining few countries that successfully united many ethnic groups within one national identity. Same goes for Puerto Rico . Another good example is America itself. While white-coloured relations are only begining to pick up, integration between various races occured while their counterparts in Europe were killing each other. Interestingly, German-Americans form a plurarity of whites, yet German isn’t America’s national language.
We should let the people decide on their own. If they want to use Malay as their language? So be it. English? Go ahead. If half of Malaysia adopts Esperanto, be my guess. The government should accomodate to our language and not the other way around.
Habri : Saya tidak dapat menjawab soalan ini dengan baik kerana tidak berpeluang untuk merasai sistem pendidikan di dalam Bahasa English. Namun saya akan cuba memberi pandangan saya tentang isu perpaduan kaum. Bagi saya faktor uatama yang menyebabkan perpaduan kaum di Malaysia gagal dicapai adalah bermula di pihak kerajaan dengan polisi-polisi yang bersikap diskriminasi (respon kepada tragedi 13 Mei, timbul soal lain pula adakah kaum Cina begitu tamak ketika itu dan tidak berpijak pada realiti sosial ?) kepada kaum bukan Bumupitera di dalam pelbagai bidang seperti ekonomi, pendidikan termasuk juga
hiburan yang sekaligus menyebabkan unit penting di dalam masyarakat iaitu keluarga (bukan bumi, lazimnya akan turut mempengaruhi ahli keluarga yang lain seperti anak dan isteri) bersikap anti atau prejudis kepada kaum Bumi (terutama Melayu).
Sikap prejudis ini telah menjadi kelaziman di dalam keluarga bukan bumi dan juga bumi dan cara terbaik untuk mengatasi sekaligus meningkatkan tahap perpaduan di negara ini adalah bermula melalui usaha individu itu sendiri. Mereka wajib keluar dari kepompong prejudis yang merosakkan ini dan sebaliknya berusaha untuk ‘engage’. Bahasa dalam soal ini bagi saya bukanlah punca utama dan jika benar maka betullah sikap prejudis telah bersarang. Mereka yang pandai berbahasa English memperkecil-kecilkan dan menjauhkan diri mereka dengan mereka yang berbahasa kebangsaan dan juga sebaliknya.
Namun ingin saya beri penekanan bahawa semua rakyat Malaysia harus mahir berbahasa kebangsaan kerana ia adalah bahasa rasmi negara ini. Walaupun BM bukan milik mutlak kaum Melayu sahaja di negara ini tetapi kaum bukan bumi harus sedar bahawa dengan tidak mahir berbahasa kebangsaan akan menyebabkan kaum majoriti di Malaysia iaitu Melayu (BM berasal dari bahasa kaum ini) berasa kecil hati. Jadi menjadi tanggungjawab kita semua rakyat Malaysia untuk memahirkan diri dengan bahasa kebangsaan dan di dalam masa yang sama terus mempertingkatkan penguasaan Bahasa English, bahasa ibunda dan bahasa-bahasa lain
Bagi soalan keputusan akademik, saya tidak mempunyai data-data komparatif untuk membuat penilaian.
Fooji : Let us be realistic and not idealistic. Idealistically, if the Japanese and Chinese can rise so strongly with their own language, why can’t we Malaysians? However, we have to realise that Bahasa Melayu is not the mother tongue of all the ethnic groups. (The Chinese, especially, are too protective of their language, to adopt a new mother tongue). I think BM has failed to an intellectual language, a business language that can bring us forward, because besides being a fairly young unestablished language, it is also not popular among those who have a different mother tongue. However, I think BM, just like any other language would have, has succeeded to be the language of daily conversations between races in the marketplace, in the office. (But sadly not in the business world, or even the medical world). Therefore, the BM, because every Malaysian has to learn it, is effective in becoming the common language for all, and thus, as a form of machinery to drive towards unity. But of course, deep down in my heart, English, would have played a more effective role.
Emmanuel : In my humble opinion, BM should be maintained, but the focus should be towards English.Reason being, though BM seemed like a good idea at that time, where nationalism was high and singular countries were highly individualistic, international tendencies now run deeper towards globalization, regardless what opinions we may have of it, or lack thereof, or however we resent it, or how little we know of it.As such, English should be the way to go.Not just for advancement, but for survival.Of course BM must survive, as is a heritage language.In fact all these mother tongues should have institutes set up for its preservement.Perhaps in one of the universities.
Sharizal : I disagree. The level of education and national unity are too loosely correlated to each other to comment on. But to directly answer your question national unity does not solely depend on the national language. Although it is one of the major components but to solely use it as a scapegoat is bad form.
Poli : It wasn’t really due to a shift in medium of instruction. It’s just that along the same path came the Malay Agenda and it’s this agenda that divided the communities, crippled the education system and retarded critical thinking among younger Malaysians. That agenda created many useful robots programmed to say “Yes sir” without first engaging their brains !
Nurul Izzah : It goes back to implementation, as a lot of things in Malaysia are linked to well meaning agendas, unfortunately not corresponding to proper implementation.
I do not think you can pinpoint the blame of the lacking unity to the policy of maintaining Bahasa Malaysia as a medium of teaching in local universities.
Of course we will need to maintain the importance of Bahasa Malaysia as our national language, but at the same time, there needs to be an equal amount of effort in improving the level of English education taught in our schools.
I studied in the English medium as an undergraduate, and I still felt there was an obvious lack of unity between us students, butto me personally,that was more due to the existing Acts that further remind each and one of us of the importance of keeping mum, careful and distant, rather than the medium of education itself.
David : I am not from the generation when the switch occurred. It was an attempt to foster nation building yet, the reality was that as a trading nation, we were at an advantage because we could converse well in English. It was a noble move to encourage a national identity which in the end was used as a political tool for race-based politics. I think the original intention to build a national identity became distorted by politics to encourage further divisiveness within the different language groups. It is a pity. We are now a nation which can’t speak Malay or English well.
