A Comparison Of Language Policies And Implications In , , And Brunei Gurminderjeet Kaur a/p Kartar Singh, Lee Pui Har, Angeline Chong Suet Kee & Dr. Jauriah @ juriah binti long Education Faculty, UKM

Abstract This paper will describe the language policies and the impact of the policies on language learning and teaching in three selected ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries— Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. As these three ASEAN countries are formed by multiracial and multilingual communities, therefore a range of factors such as complex linguistic and cultural factors are involve in language policies planning and implementation. The language policies towards minority languages in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are examined and the renewal efforts of these countries are also discussed. Language implementation in these countries shows how the learning of minority languages can take place in three different communities that shared the same national language which is Malay. The findings indicate that many language policies that have been implemented in these country are mainly affected by the world development or the effect of globalization and reality still potray that there are numerous side effects followed by the changes of policy and syllabus.

Keywords: language policies, language teaching, bilingualism, mother tongue, national language

1. INTRODUCTION In the setting of the South East Asia countries, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are built up by a multilingual society, whereby a variety of languages are spoken in these countries. To quote from (Cavallaro 2005), when different languages come into contact and through social or political processes one or more language(s) will become dominant at the expense of the others. Due to that, the languages spoken by minority groups in these countries are believed to be constantly under pressure. To add on, their main competitors are not only the language of the majority group in the country and also the internationally popular or dominant languages, in this case, which is English. (David, Cavallaro & Coluzzi 2009) Due to the economic, politic and cultural diversity of these countries, bilingualism and multilingualism were introduced as English, the international language, has become very important in these few decades.

______

*Corresponding author. Tel: +6016-5968604; +60169609177; +60169351276

Emailaddress: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

158

In general, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are among the South East Asia countries that have predominantly Malay-speaking populations. There are two types of language policy that exist in these countries, which are the official one-language policy and official multilingualism policy.

2. LANGUAGE POLICIES

2.1. Malaysia In the year of 1951, the Barnes Report proposed a single inter-racial type of school, the national school. It would provide 6 years of free bilingual (Malay and English) education for all 6-12 year-olds. The aim was to achieve elusive goal of educational unification based on Malay-English bilingualism. It suggested the transformation of all vernacular schools into national schools where English would be the medium of instruction and as the national language, while Mandarin and were to be taught as subjects in Pupils Own Language (POL). English was suggested as a medium of instruction to develop skills and knowledgeable human resources for economic prosperity of the new nation. (Hazita 2003) However, the English and Malay language were the medium of instruction used in the education system during the first 10 years after Malaysia achieve its independence from Britain. The government only seriously began implementing the transition from English to Malay language at all levels of the educational system in the year of 1970. The policy met with some resistance and resentment among the non-Malay as well as Malay English educated group. However, public universities such as University Malaya continued teaching technology courses and some science courses in English as it was the most important and extensively used language (Anning et. al. 2011).

The Education Act 1996 and Private Higher Education Act 1996 were introduced and approved the use of in science and technology courses in PHEI and also with overseas institutions and offshore campuses. The Education Act 1996 pointed that Malay language is a compulsory subject in private institution if the medium of instruction was other than the national language (Anning et. al. 2011). The liberalization of higher education policy led to public universities with Malay language as the medium of instruction

159 except for science and technology courses and private universities with English as the medium of instruction. (Anning et. al. 2011)

In the beginning of 2003, the government announced the implementation of teaching science and mathematics in English for all primary and secondary schools. This did not improve the PHEI’s graduates’ proficiency in English. (Anning et. al. 2011) However, a rally was held to protest against the use of English language for Science and Mathematics in primary and secondary education in 2009.

MBMMBI (Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia dan Memperkukuhkan Penguasaan Bahasa Inggeris) was then introduced to replace PPSMI from 2012, after it was found that the policy failed to achieve its objective of raising students' proficiency in English, which have affected their performance in the science and mathematics subjects, especially among rural students. To minimise the effects of the change of policy, the government had introduced the "soft landing" approach, whereby the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics could be done in two languages, depending on the capability of the teachers and pupils." This means that the examination papers will be prepared in the two languages and it is up to the students to answer the questions in the language they can easily understand." (Anning et. al. 2011)

2.2. Singapore There have been three distinct periods in the Singapore’s education policy ; a survival-driven education system (1965-1978), an efficiency-driven education system (1979- 1991) and an ability-driven education system (since 1992). According to Dixon (2005), the rising status of English started in 1966 when the bilingual education was introduced. However, The Goh Report in 1979 highlighted the ineffective bilingualism as a problem related to language education (Man-Fat 2005). Less than 40% of the student population had the minimun competency level in two languages at the time. The report also stated low literacy rate as one of the problem related to language education in Singapore. The situation was more serious in the English stream and it contributed to a lot of wastage of resources in

160 the education system. As a result, students were given the opportunity to do the 'first' languages and possibly a 'third' language to solve this problem (Man-Fat 2005). Competent students were able to maximize their potential and less capable students could at least be proficient in one language (English).

The New Education system (primary level) was introduced in 1980 where English was the medium of instruction for tertiary institutions. The system was to enable above average and average pupils to be proficient in English and least literate in Malay, Mandarin & Tamil. (Dixon 2005) Then, in 1981, the New Education system for secondary level was introduced. The system was to enable students to be proficient in English and other second languages. Finally, in 1987, English-for-all-year was implemented. The national stream of education was introduced whereby all Primary One pupils were taught in English as first language and mother tongues as second language. (Dixon 2005)

In the year of 2004, the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) was launched. The purpose for this movement was to encourage Singaporeans to have a better command of , which is key to Singapore’s economic success. English skills are relevant for academic achievement. (Kassim 2013) The SGEM was promoted by conducting language-related activities in schools, themed broadcasts in the media, readings organised by the National Library Board, an “Inspiring Teacher of English Award” and through websites. As a result, lists of “Commonly mispronounced words”, quizzes with sentences to be rendered in Standard English, and links to providers of adult language classes. (Leimgruber n.d.)

2.3. Brunei In 1984, a bilingual system of education was set up in Brunei. This single educational system was marked by a gradual introduction of English as a medium of instruction. At lower primary level, all subjects except English Language were taught in Malay while at upper primary, English is taught as a subject. In addition, Mathematics; History; Science and Geography were also taught through the medium of English while Malay Language; Islamic Religious Knowledge; Physical Education; Arts and Handicrafts; and Civics were all taught

161 in Malay. (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011) In Lower Secondary level, Malay; Islamic Religious Knowledge and History were taught in Malay, while other subjects were taught in English. In Upper Secondary level, only Malay Language was taught in Malay, though this depended to some extent on the stream that was chosen. Those concentrating on Malay language and/or Islamic religious studies would have a greater proportion of their subjects taught through the medium of Malay (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011).

In 1986, soon after the bilingual system of education was set up, an English Language Syllabus for Primary Schools was introduced. This was a structural syllabus containing over 150 items to be learned by the end of Primary 6. (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011).Three years later, in 1989, the Reading and Language Acquisition Programme (RELA) was introduced for the teaching of reading during the first three years of primary school. It was an adaptation of the successful REAP (Reading and English Acquisition Programme) previously introduced in Singapore. A fundamental aspect of this programme was the use of 'big books', read jointly by teacher and class. This approach stressed involvement and enjoyment.

A new primary syllabus was introduced in 1996. This syllabus is influenced by the communicative approach, emphasizing integrated instruction around a series of five or six themes. (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011) The government has recently taken several initiatives in the field of education to ensure that the country will be able to face the challenges of globalization and technological advances. In 1999, computers were introduced in primary schools, and in 2001, secondary schools were asked to devise plans for using computers for teaching purposes.

In November 2002, the Ministry of Education launched Design and Technology as a new curriculum in schools to bring education in Brunei online and to keep abreast with the world digital trend in teaching and learning. Access to computers and the internet, whether for English lessons or other subjects, will of necessity bring students into more constant contact with the English language (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011).

3. IMPLICATION

162

3.1. Malaysia It has to be noted that knowledge and policy making process in developing countries like Malaysia has to be studied deeply. The focus is on the policy making and the constraints that arise from the policy making consist of meta-policy issues such as technical issues, communication issues and theoretical issues. In order to overcome the challenges, knowledge utilization and learning structure is used.

English language can be connoted as a crucial medium of language to support and boost the national economy. It is a must for Malaysia to compete with other countries to embrace globalization hence policy adjustment was fundamental for nation building and economic equality among the multi-racial society. This is in line with ‘Wawasan 2020’ where Malaysia’s utmost intention is to be a developed country by 2020. This is in line with the sixth challenge which is “establishing a scientific and progressive society and a contributor to scientific and technological civilization for the future” (Anning et. al. 2011).

In most countries, the bureaucratic top down system is practiced and it reflects the interest of authorities in public policy. It is complicated and being influenced by policy makers’ beliefs, values, ideologies and long standing practices. As in Malaysia, the process is centralized and goes through various process and stages. The language in education policy is influenced by social forces; political conflicts; change in government; migration; changes in structure of local economies, globalization and elite competition (Anning et. al. 2011).

Knowledge and policy process is crucial and therefore it is codified and stored. Public policy is a process of governmental activities that are designed to find solution for some public problem which are then implemented and evaluated by authorities in a political system. Policy process consists of knowledge sharing, utilization and creation. In Malaysia the policy making process begins with agenda setting and policy formulation (Anning et. al. 2011).

3.2. Singapore

163

The Constitution of Singapore had states that in Article 153A(1): “Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the four official languages of Singapore” (Leimgruber n.d.) . The reason for choosing four can be seen to serve as pragmatic goals. Besides that, in Singapore, English is used in all content-area instruction and students are required to study their official ‘Mother Tongue’ as a single subject (Dixon 2005). The purpose of English used in Singapore is to promote unity and it is used as lingua franca (Pakir 2004). In addition, English is also used as the official working language (Puteh 2011). Malay, Chinese and Tamil were considered the second language (L2). Singapore focused on implementing the four official languages (English, Malay Mandrin and Tamil) in all debates and discussions in Parliament as stated in Article 53: “All debates and discussions in Parliament shall be conducted in Malay, English, Mandarin or Tamil (Leimgruber n.d.). English played a very significant role as the language of law and as the educational language.

The swift of language policy takes time to adapt by the learners. Numbers of programs, campaigns and competitions have been carried out in order to encourage the use of English but hoping to maintain the status and importance of their national language. However, the locals are concern that the over emphasis of English language has result in the formation of an over westernized society. Plus, there is also a risk of losing the original core values and the other elements such as the local identity (Pakir 1994). As a result, programs to retain and strengthen (Asian) values was introduced. For example, 10 schools would offer CL1 & EL1 simultaneously. Offers were also made to the Malay and Tamil communities. In addition, school principals was sent in November 1989 to Japan and Taiwan to study core values of teaching in those countries. Trips to Malaysia & Indonesia were also organized to study the countries national ideologies. The Speak Mandarin campaign was introduced in 1979 to increase Mandarin usage among the Chinese Singaporeans. Lastly, 10 “seed” schools were selected and given special aid in order to retain traditions of Chinese primary education.

English will take on more roles and functions compared to Mandarin, Malay and Tamil in Singapore. There has been a secondary shift among the Singaporeans towards Mandarin. It will remain in competition on a bi-directional basis because China has made Mandarin an important economic language. This might have some impacts on the

164

Singaporeans attitude towards using Mandarin. Malay language and Tamil, on the other hand, has no significant chance in Singapore because it is used as a school language as well as home language. In Singapore, parliamentary business is overwhelmingly carried out in English. The government websites are typically available only in English and all legislation is in English only. Besides that, the 2010 census gives the proportion of users of English as the “language most frequently spoken at home. (Leimgruber n.d. )

The future of English in Singapore in bright as it serves as a neutral language for the country, it is an official language of ASEAN, the main language represented on World Wide Web and its global future has been assured until 2050 if not later. The language policies in Singapore are more or less in line with those expected by the government. “The Speak Good English Movement”, being an ongoing campaign, has not succeeded in replacing Singlish with good English; it remains to be seen what its long-term effects will be.

3.3. Brunei A pattern one often encounters is that (1) the 'global' language comes to be used locally with local adaptations; (2) the indigenous language or languages 'borrow' vocabulary from the 'global' language, often replacing existing vocabulary, thus reducing lexical (and eventually grammatical) resources in the local language or languages; (3) parents begin speaking the 'global' language to their children (rather than the local language), so that they 'will do well in school'; and finally, (4) some children grow up as monolingual (but usually bi-dialectal) speakers of the global language. However, observation suggests that for those to whom this scenario applies who later attend university, in most cases English will remain their dominant language.

Although the majority of Bruneians learn a form of colloquial Brunei Malaya as their first language, educational success is dependent on literacy informal Malay language and English, there is unequal access to these resources among the population. However, literacy practices in classrooms in Brunei show that teachers and students evolve their own strategies to ensure that some learning does indeed take place. Essentially, what teachers and students

165 are doing is competing against the macro-political discourses through their own classroom micro-discourses.

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE AND BRUNEI According to Asmah (1988), Language is a symbol of one’s culture. It reflects the speakers’ cultural background which includes their life style, physical environment and social elements of the society. It is also a sign of identity or pride of a nation. Government plays a vital role in determinate the accomplishment of a country. The implementation of all the policies made will definitely influence the whole nation. In our research, we have analysed the implications by comparing the education policies that were implemented in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

The government since years ago, declared English as the second most important language in Malaysia after Malay language (Mohd Faisal Hanapiah 2002). English is known as the international language and it has cause a major influence in many countries. As globalization becomes more of a reality, communicative proficiency has become the focus of English language learning and teaching (Jeon 2009). The University Education Commission headed by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan recommended that English should be studied in high schools and universities to enable individual to keep in touch with the living stream of ever growing knowledge. This would also prevent the nation isolation from the world. However, the 'global' language comes to be used locally with local adaptations once it is introduce into other countries. Even parents begin to use the 'global' language (English) while interacting with their children instead of using the local language or their mother tongue. This scenario result in local children grows up as monolingual (but bi-dialectal) speakers of the global language.

The idea of implementing bilingualism or multilingualism has seems to form an ideal picture to the nation that they will be able to maintain and preserve their identity and at the same time learning a language which enables them to target a wider market (Lee 2000). Based on the result of the analysis, data shows that the gradual implementation of English from lower to higher level in education results in positive improvement in the sense of education which enables local students to further their studies and increase the chances of

166 being employed by local and international companies (Puteh 2011). In addition, by mastering English, learners can widen their horizon by accessing to a wider knowledge network via internet search engines and scholar journals at the lowest cost possible.

Most important of all, the nation’s literacy rate is depends much on the initiatives of local government in investing on education (Brunei Ministry of Education 2011). Furthermore, with the collaboration with overseas universities and institutions, countries will be able to improve the quality of educators and students by sharing knowledge, technology and culture (Brunei Year Book 2012). With sufficient authentic exposure, learners will be able to improve their language competence and confident enough to be competitive locally and internationally (Fatimah 2012).

Good command of Standard English or high competency in English is the key to economic success. However, it results in the formation of Singlish (Singapore-English) and Manglish (Malaysia-English) due to the desperation of the locals to keep up with the countries’ development which seems to promise them a wider market in the sense of business as well as employment opportunities (Zimmer 2006; Gopinathan and Becker 2000). Speaking English for survival purposes has result in the existence of hybrid English. As in Brunei, nothing has been done so far to try to slow down or reverse language shift towards Malay or English (Dunseath 1996).

The swift of language policy takes time to adapt by the learners. Numbers of programs, campaigns and competitions have been carried out in order to encourage the use of English but hoping to maintain the status and importance of their national language. However, the locals are concern that the over emphasis of English language has result in the formation of an over westernized society. Plus, there is also a risk of losing the original core values and the other elements such as the local identity. Even though Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei listed Malay language as their national or official language within the constitutions but the parliamentary business and government websites are still overwhelmingly carried out in English especially in Singapore. Many things that form the uniqueness of these countries have disappeared over the years to make way for a blander

167 westernised society. Finally even the people have changed due to social pressures (Phil 2004).

On the other hand, the formation of these sets of has form an obvious short coming in the education aspect. The practice of English is important but yet the debate does occur which involve the issue regarding the medium of instructions used in school. Students with low English proficiency will have difficulties in understanding the lesson especially when their first language or mother tongue is not English. They will have to develop their own strategies in order to comprehend the lesson (Braighlinn 1992).

Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are trying to protect the identity of the nation while injecting the use of English language in most of the important education policies (Pakir 1994). As noted by Asmah (2004) “Standardization can only happen at the formal level of language.” They are also aware of the fact that enforcing English in education is a crucial point in preparing the nation to face local and international challenges. However, the constant switch of policies and belief often result in frustration among the nation. Educators and policy makers constantly struggle to please every party i.e. Ministry of Education, school, parents, students etc. That is a need to form a short term and long term planning in order to analyze the consequences and response of the nations as they have to struggle to survive in the society under the policies. A more holistic approach is needed to maintain the values and status of a national language and at the same time promoting a potential second language within the country.

In order to encourage the use of National language and English, Malaysia government need to overcome obstacles such as the educators’ and students’ level of proficiency, drastic changes in academic achievement, lack of financial support to have innovative programs and collaboration with international institution. As in Singapore, the use of standard English and Mandarin should be formally teach in school and college to enable learners to converse with native speaker in the proper tonation and structure. The implementation of English policy in Brunei is rather systematic and the government is willing to invest in the tertiary sectors in order to boost up the literacy level and the knowledge of technology of the nation. However,

168 the transformation of knowledge to the learners in school and college still requires further research and observation.

There are numbers of policies that have been implemented in Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei in order to keep up with the world development or the effect of globalization. However, the reality still potray that there are numerous side effects followed by the changes of policy and syllabus. People nowdays is driven to be successful, to purchase western materials and products, and to imitate American norms. Younger generation seems to know little of the culture of different races who establish their homeland. It was due to the gradual construction of an over “westernized” society (Phil 2004). Last but not least, parents and students emphasis more on English or Mandarin rather than their mother tongue or first language result in the formation of informal or nonstandard language.

CONCLUSION From the discussion above, it is clear that the language policy makers as well as the community pay great attention on the political as well as economic factors in forming language policies rather than the language policy itself and the ways of implementing them. Upon all processes, policy revision is vital nowadays due to the development of complex society in the modern era. Besides the policy process making, the roles played by certain groups are essential to provide a better input in the content of the policy. To add on, the structure of the society has definitely influenced the development of the education System through various series of events in reforming the education policy just to suit the current and the future demands of a nation.

In addition, findings show that the minority languages have somewhat affected by the shift of language policies let it be in Malaysia, Singapore or Brunei. However, we can see that some efforts have been made in order to preserve some of the minority languages. For example Malaysia and Singapore have included some of the minority languages as a subject in the school curricular. Although efforts had been made to preserve the minority language, but sadly the younger generation tend to hop on to the train of globalization and shifted from their mother tongue to English.

169

In order to stop the minority languages from dying, the opportunity to use the language in the daily life should be given to the language. The main purpose of language planning is precisely to give minority languages the prestige and usefulness, both in economic and cultural terms, which will help to slow down or stop the language shift currently under way (Coluzzi 2010). What has been done so far is clearly insufficient, and if more effective and wide-ranging measures of language planning are not implemented, most of the minority languages discussed in this article are doomed, in the short or in the long term according to their present vitality (David, Cavallaro & Coluzzi 2009)

REFERENCES

Anning, F.I. & Gunggut, H. & Ramadan & Umemoto, K. Zaaba. 2011. Language-in- Education Policy: A Study of Policy Adjustment Strategy in Malaysia, International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 2(5): 157-165

Braighlinn, G. 1992. Ideological Innovation Under Monarchy. Aspects of Legitimation Activity in Contemporary Brunei. Amsterdam: VU University Press

Brunei Ministry of Education. 2011. Maps of the World.com: Brunei Ministry of Education. http//:www.mapsofworld.com/brunei/accommodation/ministry-of-education.html.htm [14 October 2012]

Brunei Year Book. 2012. Brunei Darul Salam The Abode of Peace: Education. http://www.bruneidirecthys.net/about_brunei/education.html.htm [14 October 2012]

Cavallaro, F. 2005. Language maintenance revisited: an Australian perspective. Bilingual Research Journal 29(3), 509-530.

Coluzzi, P. 2010. Iban and Lun Bawang in Brunei Darussalam: Endangered but Still Resisting ICMM. Anjuran Malaysia Modern Language Association.

David, M. K., Cavallaro, F. & Coluzzi, P. 2009. Language Policies – Impact on Language Maintenance and Teaching: Focus on Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines.The Linguistic Journal. 155-191. http://www.linguisticsjournal.com/September-2009.pdf

Dixon, L. Q. 2005. Bilingual Education Policy in Singapore: An Analysis of Its Sociohistorical Roots and Current Academic Outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 8(No.1): 25-47.

Dunseath, K. 1996. Aspects of language maintenance and language shift among the Chinese

170

community in Brunei: some preliminary observations. In Peter W. Martin, Conrad O˙z´og, and Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds.), Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam (pp. 280–301). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Fatimah, N. 2012. Pelita Brunei: SPN21 Bawa Perubahan Besar Pendidikan Negara. http://www.pelitabrunei.gov.bn/news/pelita/28jan11/tinjau.htm [14 October 2012]

Gopinath C, Becker T. 2000. Communication, Procedural Justice, and Employee Attitudes: Relationships Under Conditions of Divestiture. Journal of Management.26(1): 63-80

Hanapiah, M. F. 2002. English Language and the Language of Development: A Malaysian Perspective. International Conference IPBA 24-26 September 2002, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Hazita, A. 2003. National needs and global goals in plural lingual setting: implication for multilingual education. Soll 03. http://www.littlespeck.com/ThePast/CPast- identity060128.htm[14 October 2012]

Lee, K. Y. 2000. From third world to first: The Singapore story: 1965-2000. New York: Harper Collins.

Leimgruber, J. R. E. n.d. The Management of Multilingualism in a City-State: Language Policy in Singapore. Book Chapters. John Benjamins. Amsterdam

Man-Fat, M. W. 2005. A Critical Evaluation of Singapore's Language Policy and Its Implications for English Teaching. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/singapore.html [8 October 2012].

Mohd Faisal Hanapiah. 2002. English Language and the Language of Development: A Malaysian Perspective. http://apps.emoe.gov.my/ipba/rdipba/cd1/article113.pdf.

Pakir, A. 1994. The Role of Language Planning in Education in Singapore. Dlm. Hassan, A. (pnyt.). Language Planning in Southeast Asia, pp. 151-171

Pakir, A. 2004. Singapore. Language Policy and Language Education: The Impact in East Asian Countries in the Next Decade, pp. 284-291.

Phil, M. 2004. Uniqueness: Do we have it?

Puteh, A. 2011. Education Policy for Globalization and Multicultural Society : The Malaysian Experiences. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS) 2(5): 388-394.

Zimmer, B. 2006. Malaysia Cracks Down on 'Salad Language'. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003643.html[16 October 2012]

171