Malaysia in Globalization: Education Reform and Dilemma of Globalization

Overview
Recent debates on whether or not science and mathematics subjects should continue to be taught in English have intensified in my home country. This has been a contentious issue because these subjects had always been taught in Malay – the official language of Malaysia and also other ethnic languages in respective ethnic-based public schools. Decision-making has been complicated by aggressive lobbying from various ethnic-based political and educationist groups which present the case with respective interests for their students and to protect the status of their ethnic languages.

A few years back, the Ministry of Education tested and implemented the move with the intention to respond to the declining command of English among local graduates and complaints made by industrial employers. Concerned about future economic competitiveness; with mastery of English and solid foundation of science and mathematics identified as the key catalyst for growth, policy makers resolved that such move would be relevant and imperative in time. But the lack of practical consideration for implementation readiness and English competence of teachers and students especially in rural areas has led to the debates to resurface again. This time around policy makers would potentially make a drastic U-turn or come up with a compromise plan.

What Exactly Are The Priorities?
The language concern has certainly been dominant in this issue. Indeed, it is critical to address it and I will take a broader look at this aspect later in my argument. However, if policy makers are obsessed by it and failed to consider major priorities in teaching science and mathematics, Malaysia will never achieve what it sets out to achieve with its education policy in response to future economic competitiveness. One major aspect that policy makers repeatedly overlook in this issue is the key purpose of teaching science and mathematics to students. Let me put it this way before further elaboration, it should not be a platform for some language experimentation with various proposals which do not serve the best interest of students. The second major aspect to address is the simplistic education model that looks at future growth and competitive human capital by restrictedly making mastery of English as the top priority. There are vital areas in Malaysian education system that have been severely lacking behind the progressive and high quality standard of public education. And the third major aspect that I will address is the language concern at the broader perspective, which is actually reflecting the deeper fear and pressure to make compromise that may result eroding local culture and values for the sake of economic progress in the age of globalization. I believe it is important to understand and address these critical aspects collectively or we risk addressing this issue superficially and hastily revisiting it once again in near future with greater complication.

Realign With the Key Purpose in Teaching Science and Mathematics
The key purpose of teaching science and mathematics is supposed to serve as a foundation for innovation progress and future economic competitiveness. Students get to hone relevant and critical skills in basic reasoning, scientific deduction, numerical and analytical work, so science and mathematics subjects are important for any future career path whether or not students progress to become scientists or mathematicians. The central question that policy makers fail to address is the readiness and competence of the current education system in equipping students with these skills for future challenge irrespective of which language is used in teaching science and mathematics. This concern has simply been overlooked and replaced by the obsession of language concern.

The biggest flaws in current education system are outdated science and mathematics curricula, and ineffectual teaching approach which hardly serve the purpose of equipping students with critical skills aforementioned. Unfortunately, a learning culture which overstresses examination achievement rather than what and how students learn is deeply embedded in Malaysia. It is reflective of our outdated science and mathematics curricula which have never undergone fundamental revamp other than superficial amendment. Needless to say, students have been studying the same curricula which fail to reflect the most current and relevant scientific progress. When policy makers decided to use English in teaching those subjects, textbooks were hastily rushed for direct translation. Quality of the curricula which explicitly impacts student ability to acquire fundamental subject expertise has never been rigorously examined before but the language concern takes precedence instead.

The problems are further compounded by ineffectual teaching approach mired in the wrong direction by treating science and mathematics subjects as mere examinations to be passed. The examination format infamously burdens students with long lists of formulas and rigid theoretical concepts to be memorized; they are also required to practice on sample examination questions repeatedly until reaching high level of familiarization. This concern is particularly prevalent in scientific laboratory experiments where students are expected to perform similar experiments and reproduce the ‘correct’ routine results. This ineffectual teaching approach directly contradicts what policy makers hope students to learn, let alone to achieve the key purpose of teaching science and mathematics. It is truly ironic that painstaking effort is given to translate outdated curricula, but there is never any urgency from policy makers to fundamentally revamp the quality and teaching approach of science and mathematics curricula.

Relook at the Comprehensive Education Framework for Future Growth
I want to reiterate that mastery of English among students in this issue should not be the sole priority; there are far too many means to promote English, and strong command of English is not going to compensate for poor analytical and reasoning competence caused by ineffectual delivery of science and mathematics to students. Such competence among students should always take precedence because it lays the foundation to build a solid intellectual capital in Malaysia in order to compete in global economy. Developed countries like Germany, France and Japan can serve as fine examples in this respect, these countries traditionally uphold tremendous pride over their national language in their education system but they are still able to stay at the forefront of scientific progress and successfully develop a strong intellectual capital to spur economic growth at the same time. We may argue they have better infrastructure and more developed human capital but the fact is they get their focus right without worrying excessively about the mastery of English. This point leads to the second major aspect that simplifying an education policy to a restricted question of whether or not to teach science and mathematics in English is far too simplistic and a superficial fix to Malaysian aspiration in economic achievement through a sound education system, which should encompass a comprehensive framework in addressing unequal access to inconsistent education quality, development of industrial relevant curricula, aggressive move in redeveloping strong intellectual learning culture and of course, raising the command of English.

Threat of National Identity at the Heart of Globalization
In order to respond to incessant lobbying from various ethnic-based political and educationist groups, policy makers will need to understand the larger forces at work in this seemingly local issue that actually has its global root. Irrespective of whether those lobby groups are supportive or against the implementation of teaching science and mathematics in English, the common consensus is that they are essentially acknowledging the need to respond to global competitiveness and local culture preservation issues posed by the globalization process. Critics against the move have invoked bigger fear other than the practical concern of difficulties encountered in implementation – that is the erosion threat of local culture and values embodied by ethnic languages especially the preeminence of Malay as the national language. The sensitivity surrounding this issue will require policy makers to directly challenge the perception of those critics who mix the wrong issues into one and address it with a biased agenda. Put it as straight forward as possible, teaching science and mathematics in English simply does not equate the erosion of national identity or the loss in status of ethnic languages.

Policy makers would need to be more resistant to manipulative interpretation when long term interests of such implementation are objectively established with future national aspiration and human capital development at the center. The fact is citizens are never asked to abandon their ethnic languages in major aspects of their life, ethnic languages are still significant and relevant in making Malaysia unique with harmonious diversity. The implementation is purely a strategic response to the fact that English is the international language of science and mathematics that students must master to be competitive. The process of globalization does not need to compel Malaysia to sacrifice ethnic languages for future economic growth. This is a key message that policy makers must convince critics or otherwise resistance on growth will be stiff. What policy makers can do is to identify the core culture and national values which guide and drive national progress, to ensure they will not be violated in any way and must be preserved. In other words, policy makers will need to address socio-cultural perspectives as much as economic perspectives in globalization.

Re-Design Solution Framework and Make It Work
My reasoning may make me indirectly supportive of the implementation, but I must stress it is purely consequential rather than intentional where my argument is started on the objective basis to examine key priorities in this issue without favoring or being against the implementation. The framework of the solution that I really want to advocate is to tackle three priorities aforementioned simultaneously. First, re-aligned with the key purpose of teaching science and mathematics to national objectives, revamp the quality of curricula and teaching approach to benefit the development of intellectual capital to support economic growth. Second, complement the first action by re-designing a more comprehensive education system which does not only stress the mastery of English as the sole key priority to spur future economic growth. And third, tackle the root of globalization in this issue by finding ways to preserve core national culture and values while stimulate future economic growth with a well-balanced and progressive education policy. If policy makers decide to continue with the implementation, practical difficulties during implementation such as English competence of teachers and students must be addressed gradually to make it work, but effort must not be abandoned no matter how challenging as it may seem during the earlier stages because final goals are objectively established and based on national aspiration, all parties involved must work together and strive to improve toward achieving future goals.

The Share of Oil Revenue

Should oil companies share excess oil revenue with resource countries? This line of argument is similar to the proposal calling for windfall tax when oil companies reap excess revenue due to rising oil prices without any extra effort. Present economic climate may not point to the urgency to address this issue; but I do not believe current falling oil prices will signal the end of oil boom because slowing global demand on oil is circumstantial due to economic crisis, demand will pick up again when global economy gradually recovers. I reason that oil prices will rebound because oil resources are non-renewable and so far the only viable source of cheap energy to fuel global economic growth, especially in developing countries. Future potential of excess revenue is still there, I believe it is really a question of time before oil companies returning to record earnings again.

Indeed, resource countries are endowed with precious oil resources. They naturally hold competitive advantages with such strategic locations that yield them the riches. On the part of oil companies, they are given permission or concession to explore, drill and refine the oil until it is ready to be distributed and utilized in the market. Rightly so, they are entitled to the excess revenue when oil prices go up because they transfer their technology, use their expertise and effort to deliver usable oil products to consumers and businesses. But in businesses which exploit natural resources and can claim no ownership of, access is equally imperative because the value of raw resources directly reflects the price of end products like in the case of oil. So logically I think it really makes sense if excess oil revenue is shared among oil companies and resource countries, which should be re-invested to benefit the citizens as well.

If we take the issue a step ahead, I think it is equally important to ask how shared oil revenue should be spent by resource countries. Oil provides cheap energy but with high environmental cost, it brings our attention to examine the implication of excessive usage and future energy dependence. So the spending ideally should be aligned with re-investment by resource countries in alternative energy development to stay in line with long-term environment conservation and energy sustainability. It is still a better assurance for continuity in economic growth with ‘green jobs’ and counteracting against declining oil resources and revenue since stabilization fund proposed by some economists can only provide short-term relief. May be it is too early to hypothetically predict when the world will eventually run out of oil resources, but the certainty is that we will not get cheap supply forever unless equally viable forms of alternative energy are available to supplement oil demand.

This form of revenue sharing & re-investing for future energy approach will not only benefit resource countries but also oil companies. They will benefit from the investment in alternative energy technology with better capacity to shift their core business when it is no longer sustainable to depend on cheap oil. Short term global demand on low-cost energy will still be provided, but the real benefit is to guarantee future supply and demand as well with viable form of alternative energy.