| This Issue | Articles | Instructional Ideas | Reviews | Contributors |
| Denny | Chang and Dodd | Haug | Mason | Wlazlinski |

[ Literature for Young Readers | Professional Literature | Films and Videos | Websites ]

CULTURAL STRIFE:
Development of A National Language in Malaysia

John T. Denny
National Kaohsiung Normal University
Taiwan

Introduction
Historical and Cultural Background of Malaysia
Demographics
Education
Nationalism and the Rise of Bahasa Malaysia
Language Planning
National Language
Medium of Instruction
Conclusion
Endnotes
References

Introduction

The inextricable tie of language and culture is most evident at a national stage when utilized as a mode of social planning in hopes of creating a viable national identity. In this case study post-colonial Malaysia is used as a prime example of inter-ethnic strife extrapolated from colonial policies leaving a youthful nation in the struggle of political socialization. This example reveals itself as a common and predictable pattern similar to typical post-colonial situations in which nations are left in a state of disharmony where different groups based on race, religion, history, and language compete for viability as national standards. [paragraph 1]

In this paper I will introduce the development of Malaysian language policy/planning, inherent problems, and directions as it relates to the struggles of a new nation seeking national identity through governmentally bound social engineering. In order to accomplish the task in a thorough fashion the paper presents extensive background to the ethnic and political situations leading to policy decisions with regard to language policy change and subsequent language management. [paragraph 2]

In examining the development of language deployment in a country torn with the issues of ethnic strife one must have an understanding of the historical development leading to the present policy development. In the case of Malaysia, the status of growth from a nation-state or a compilation of viable nations¹ to a sovereign country, juxtaposed with the precarious position of national identity building through language and cultural policy, will be explained as a central focus. Therefore extensive overview of the intermingling variables related to dissension in this pluralistic society will be viewed from the primary time period of late colonialism to present. The overview will be followed by the explanation of Malaysian national development, prospects, and problems and a final analysis and description of Malaysian language planning and policy as the issues relate to an effort toward nation-building. [paragraph 3]

Historical and Cultural Background of Malaysia

In reference to the expanse of British world assets in the early 1800s Rudyard Kipling wrote (cited in Wong & Ee, 1975, p. 75):

OH, WHERE are you going to, all you Big Steamers,
    With England's own coal, up and down the salt seas? 
We are going to fetch you your bread and your butter,
    Your beef, pork, and mutton, eggs, apples, and cheese.

And where will you fetch it from, all you Big Steamers,
    And where shall I write you when you are away?
We fetch it from Melbourne, Quebec, and Vancouver—
    Address us at Hobart, Hong-Kong, and Bombay. [paragraph 4]

In this portion of the poem titled "Big Steamers,"² one can get a feeling for the immense trade and vast expanses that the British commanded during their colonial era. It is with this understanding that one can begin to feel the immense indignities that colonial subjects must have felt at the hands of a global superpower with territories spanning all corners of the earth exploiting their resources, both human and natural, for the well-being of a far-off power that they may never see. [paragraph 5]

The British once had holdings across the world from the "Far West" to the "Far East" including Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, and, of great significance, Malaysia. They established ports in just about every corner of the world imaginable. By the late 1800s Britain had amassed an unquestioned superiority over trade and finance throughout the world. Factories depended on the huge trading companies to ship goods throughout the world. At the forefront in the Eastern world sat the East India Company. Influence reigned supreme, so faith was placed on the East India Company to establish British governmental control wherever the company established trading posts. Along with this influence came the English language, used in all British holdings for commerce, government and in some areas even day-to-day communication. [paragraph 6]

Due to the set of circumstances defining the world’s modern geopolitical thought and a series of events compelling colonial power to relinquish control the United Kingdom systematically began to grant independence to colonies and dependencies in the early 1900s. In Asia independence was becoming a national movement during and immediately after the World Wars.  The British territories in Southeast Asia followed the examples set in South Africa, India and other colonies. At the time, Singapore, Malaysia (including North Borneo, Sabah), and Brunei³ were a loose political amalgamation of British colonial holdings, many times referred to as the Straits Settlements and later called the Federation of Malaysia. In fact, reference to the area changed names so many times that it becomes confusing as to which name was in vogue at the time. After independence and amalgamation the name for the country of Malaysia had stayed as The Federation of Malaysia. [paragraph 7]

The place called Sarawak on Borneo island has a unique history. Preceding the coming of the Japanese and WWII (World War II), Sarawak was a kingdom ruled by the Brooke family called the "White Rajahs."⁴ After WWII Sarawak was placed under Australian administration and later changed to British as requested by the third Rajah, Vyner Brooke. This change did not occur quietly as cession was met by revolt from within the Rajah family and through the Sarawak government (Wheeler et al., 1991). [paragraph 8]

By the year 1960 the Federation of Malaya had achieved full independence and with this they had formed a fully elected house of representatives. At that time Malaysia consisted only of the Peninsular region.  With recognition that the country would be more powerful if it could join forces with Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak, and Brunei a plan was devised by the British and the first Prime Minister of Malaysia to unify the British territories of the region. If it were to succeed, all resources could be shared, therefore creating a more attractive unified state for foreign investment and internal stability. The British welcomed the development of the combined states as it would offer independence and stability in the region faster and more efficiently than it was expected with individual sovereign states. [paragraph 9]

By August 1963 agreement was finally established between Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak, and the Malay peninsular region. The new States would hold special provision in areas of education and language. Singapore would retain multilingualism and the Borneo states would gain special sovereign provisions. Less than two and half years since the initial proposals for the formation of Malaysia, the plan was realized and Britain granted full independence and support to all territories involved. [paragraph 10]

This historically unique union combined multiple religions, races, and ideological standpoints. Ten million Chinese, Malays, Indians, Ibans, Land Dayaks, Melanaus, Dusuns, Kadazans, Muruts, and Bajaus were combined to form a new nation with objectives of justice, peace, and prosperity.  Education was a major policy issue in the amalgamation of the four constituent states. "The formation of Malaysia has brought on the Central Government at Kuala Lumpur more educational problems than it anticipated: above all, the task of providing education - primary and secondary - for an ever increasing school population..." (Wong & Ee, 1975, p. 95). [paragraph 11]

By 1965 tension between the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaysia had culminated to such a point that on August 7, 1965, Singapore and Malaysia separated. The formation of the Republic of Singapore was probably inevitable due to the striking differences in treatment of racial issues. Whereas in Malaysia the Malay took an upper hand in politics, in Singapore it was the Chinese. The Chinese dominated Malaysian and Singaporean economy, posing a serious threat to the future political stability of a Malay-dominated government. Furthermore Singapore refused to extend the Malay preferential treatment policies that were instilled in Malaysian policy. Singapore preferred a more equal opportunity stance. Whereas Chinese did and still do prevail but all races have a sporting chance at advancement in Singapore, in Malaysia there have been serious blocks placed on non-majority participation, especially concerning religion, economy, and political arenas. [paragraph 12]

Brunei, previously mentioned as a possible addition to the Federation of Malaysian States, rejected amalgamation. The Sultan of Brunei, now possibly the world’s richest man, decided that his state would be better off not to join the Federation of Malaysia. He later proved this assumption right as vast oil reserves have been exploited within the territory, which made Brunei one of the wealthier nations in the world. [paragraph 13]

Demographics

Approximately 85% of the population of Malaysia lives in West Malaysia. Throughout the country is found an amazingly diverse mix of ethnicities. The majority people are the ethnic Malays (slightly over 35%), followed by Chinese (around 35%) and Indians (close to 10%), and the rest of the population consists of over twenty ethnic indigenous peoples of which most are found in East Malaysia where they are the majority (Random House Encyclopedia, 1990). It must be noted that in many demographical figures for ethnic diversity in the country the minority indigenous groups are lumped with the Malays, as they are sometimes considered to be of similar ethnic background. Due to Malay political dominance in the country little can be done to separate statistically between the groups, as more Malays means more power for their causes. [paragraph 15]

Table 1. Ethnic groups in Malaysia (Ward & Hewstone, 1985, p. 274)

Historical ties with Britain and the British educational tradition had previously instilled elitist ideology. The elitist tradition held true until recent times when more opportunities for educational attainment are available at all levels and, in particular, at tertiary level. The Malaysian government has developed the educational sector at a steady and yet calculated pace, so as not to infiltrate the working sector with a large number of the educated unemployed. [paragraph 15]

With the National Education Policy of 1967, Malaysia has gone forth with great expansion in all sectors of education. It must be noted that the major stumbling blocks have included the changeover from vernacular to Bahasa Malaysia and the influx of the previously undereducated portions of the populous (mainly Malays) in schools. As it stands today, all government-aided secondary schools have fully switched to Malay as a medium of instruction as have the universities for the better part. In primary education, vernacular education is still allowed up to the equivalent of grade 6. As student attending such an institution would be required to take an "out year" before proceeding in order to prepare for the Malay Language requirement in upper grades. [paragraph 16]

"In developing societies like Malaysia, universities have been concerned with the training of administrative and professional elite who will occupy leadership positions in society" (Marimuthu, 1984, p. 4). Unlike a developed country, Malaysia must use its resources more wisely by placing educational budgets in the correct area of need. Universities therefore serve to place elites in positions of authority. The first Prime Minister’s goal for higher education was to fulfill national needs by producing "...graduates who possess relevant skills to participate in the technological and economic development in the country" (Marimuthu, p. 4). [paragraph 17]

Lack of access to higher education has greatly affected the racial makeup of Malaysian institutes. In 1980 over 70% of total enrollment in Malaysian universities was Malay. This figure represents a gross inequity as the Malay make up only 40% of the total population. If the indigenous people (around 20% of total population) are counted as Malays, the figure would be more equal. But the reality is that indigenous people are largely rural and traditional tribal peoples have low levels of formal education. It is quite likely that very few indigenous people attend universities. [paragraph 18]

As for the Chinese and Indians, enrollment in higher education is far from their total racial representation in Malaysia. This phenomenon lends to severe "brain drain" as those who cannot attend higher educational institutes in Malaysia but have the desire and funds to do so have looked overseas for further education. Singapore, Australia, Great Britain, United States, and New Zealand have typically been hosts for predominately Chinese Malaysians in search of further education. It cannot be denied that Malays are also attending foreign institutes but it must be noted that the majority of Malays attend with governmental aid that is not given to non-Malays (Marimuthu, 1984, Altbach, 1985). [paragraph 19]

Nationalism and the Rise of Bahasa Malaysia

When the British came to Malaysia in the late 1800s, the peninsular region was no more than a number of loosely associated nation-states, each with its individual form of self-government. The British invasion could be seen as the pinnacle for impetus in a united Malay peninsular area, as a need for unity was realized. Omar (1979) suggests three factors in the promotion of a nationally unified Malay nation:

The common traditional features of these states could not be denied, as these features set the foundation of the national culture that the Malaysian government promotes. The language spoken by the settled Malay population, the sultanate form of government, and the unique culture practiced through the relationship to Islam are features that form the basis of ethnic communities in the Malay populous. [paragraph 21]

With an influx of millions of immigrants throughout the history of colonialism in Malaysia starting with the Portuguese⁵ in 1511 the Malays felt pressure on their way of life. A feeling that the Malays were becoming second-class citizens in their "own" country arose. The Chinese and Indian immigrants spoke their own languages which are unintelligible to the Malay, while the British colonials used and promoted English as a mode of communication between all groups. The weakening of emphasis on the Malay way of life along with the British governmental intrusion surely has lead to nationalistic feeling amongst the Malay citizenry. [paragraph 22]

The Malay nationalism of the WWII era consisted of more of what was coined the Malayan Union. The Malayan Union (called Melayu-Raya⁶ in Bahasa Malaysia) was to be the amalgamation of territories comprising today’s Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. The British did not support this union although the occupying Japanese later supported the unification of ethnic Malays in the aforementioned region. Eventually with the ending of WWII and downfall of the Japanese support, the movement failed to unite the territories (Omar, 1979). [paragraph 23]

With the downfall of the Malayan Union, political consciousness was raised toward a greater Malay destiny. Many political organizations were formed with Malay rights and privileges as their foci. "The most notable organization formed at the time was the .... United Malays National Organization, better known as UMNO" (Omar, 1979, p. 23). The UMNO has since expanded to join a coalition of parties and together they have ruled the country since independence. Through Malay domination in the political arena, not without major help from the UMNO party, the coalition of parties have controlled all major policy since independence, including linguistic and educational policies. [paragraph 24]

One must understand that before independence Bahasa Malaysia (the language of Malaysia)⁷ did not exist as a unified language recognized in a written and spoken form. Thus, in an effort to create and implement language policies which would complement the needs of the dominant Malay segment of society, there was a need to establish the National Language and Literacy Agency (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka) in 1956 (Karim, 1981). The basic emphasis of this agency has been to promote a standardization of the spelling and pronunciation of Bahasa Malaysia. Another purpose of the agency is to coin new terminology in cases of technical terms (Omar, 1979). Through this agency standards have been made and regulated so as not only to create the new national language as an amalgamation of previously spoken bazaar varieties but also to justify the use of the language as a medium of instruction and official and national language which would hopefully be adopted for daily use across cultural boundaries. [paragraph 25]

Current and past ruling administrations have placed great effort on the introduction and management of policies which have focused on the issues of realized and perceived national culture. The policies have generally been created, aiming at comprehensive social and structural changes including the adjustment of socio-economic disparities based on ethnic heritage (Ozog, 1993). Of the many policies developed since independence the New Economic Policy (NEP)⁸, the National Language Act (NLA)⁹, and the National Cultural Policy (NCP) have addressed the need for a single unified citizenry through aegis of one national language. The map has been developed through the collection of interrelated and recursive social policies to allocate the three major functions of the society: economy, language and culture. Therefore, language status planning consists of three components: planning for the national language, a nationally sponsored medium of instruction, and a change to one official language. [paragraph 26]

Of the number of languages available to be chosen as a national language in Malaysia at independence (indigenous, immigrant, and colonial languages)¹⁰, the choice fell on Bahasa Malaysia. Many factors supported the confirmation of Malay as the national language of choice:

With these factors in mind it must be noted that Malay as a national language received no considerable or allowed opposition when designated during the early days of independence. While most of the objection for the use of Malay as a national language comes in the use of the language as an official language and one of instruction. Malay was seen fit as a symbol of national unity and identity. The minority groups feel that Malay is a decent choice for symbolization of the country, a symbol to be revered like a national anthem or a national flag. [paragraph 28]

The new national language was more than a symbol:  it augmented certain changes in group dynamics.  Prior to the choice of Malay as a national language, education and economy of the country were by and large over-represented by ethnic groups other than the Malay. With the choice of Malay as a national, official, and instructional language, it was hoped that ethnic identification and lingual relationship to achievement could be erased. A unifying language could be used to represent all groups in a fair manner.  It may be inevitable that the minority groups perceive this as domination through linguistic monopolization and as a threat to their right to ethnic heritage. [paragraph 29]

Since 1956 (the year prior to independence) status planning of the medium of instruction has been a key issue in Malaysia. In the preparation for independence a committee to recommend educational directives was established. Through their major report entitled "The Report of the Education Committee 1956,"  better known as the Razak report, suggestions were made to change the status of the various languages in use at that time in Malaysia. [paragraph 30]

The basic premise of the committee and groups thereof was to create a broader sense of national unity through common linguistic affinity. It was their belief that a common language of instruction could do just that. A single uniform system of education with Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction would be used as a stepping stone in the attainment of unity, peace, and equity. This recommendation was not without basis as language has been a divisive factor in Malaysia as a multilingual society. [paragraph 31]

Before 1956 education in Malaysia had consisted of four separate systems which differed from one another based on the language of instruction. The four systems in question include the Malay that used Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction (Pakir, 1993; Platt and Weber, 1980; Kamir, 1981); the English that used English as the system of instruction (primarily British English); the Chinese that used mainly Mandarin or Kou-yu as medium¹²; and the Indian¹³ that used mainly Tamil as the medium of instruction. All of these systems except for the English system were known collectively as the vernacular school systems. [paragraph 32]

English, an independent and non-native language of any of the main groups, became the preferred system of choice for many who had access (most English schools were located in big cities). The English system prior to its demise was considered the choicest because it offered the use of further opportunities and privileges. Those that obtained an English education were more likely to advance to university in Peninsular Malaysia (all in English during pre-independence), Singapore, or Britain where English was the medium of instruction. For those who did not obtain an English education, their higher education alternatives were more limited. Educated Malay may opt for relocation to Indonesia for further study; educated Chinese may go to Nanyang University in Singapore (Chinese university), to Taiwan, or even to China; and Indians could go to India to further their education. [paragraph 33]

Considering the disparity in educational opportunity based on linguistic/ethnic lines, the Razak Report suggested that a national education system adopt Malay as the national language of instruction and at the same time preserve other languages through limited language courses. The Razak Report became a policy soon after it was submitted. As an implementation, it became compulsory for all government-aided schools to offer instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. On the other hand, the private schools could operate independently from the reports directive. For all practical purposes the implementation of the Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction policy would take much time. So the report stipulated that 26 years (1956 - 1983) would be the change-over time. By 1983 all government-aided educational institutions would have to use Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction. This prolonged time period allowed sufficient change-over time for the people to prepare themselves to face the new situation. [paragraph 35]

Conclusion

Malaysia’s rapid economic growth throughout the 1980s and 1990s has placed the country on track for the developed country status just behind Singapore although a major stumbling block remains as racial and ethnic demarcation continues.  Differentiation of extended economic and cultural value along this line bring about adverse and sometimes violent conditions. Further, these tensions have lead to soured relationships with neighboring and far-off countries, such as Australia, the United States, and Britain, as the government attempts to thwart criticism both domestically and internationally while sticking to a staunch plan of social development based on a Malay-first model. [paragraph 36]

At the crux of the issues creating ethnic strife is the nagging problem described as language shift. Since independence the various non-Malay groups have resisted changing to the use of Malay as the day-to-day, official, national, and instructional language. At this point the Malays are the only group that have widespread and native-speaker fluency in Bahasa Malaysia. Indian-Malaysians still freely utilize their native dialects as do the Chinese-Malaysians. Moreover, the preferred language of intergroup communication is English as it has always been. [paragraph 37]

With this said it may be easy to understand the recent indication that Malay rulers have regretted, to a certain extent, their staunch policies on status planning for Bahasa Malaysia as the national language. As more and more policy makers and elite class citizenry realize the importance of Malaysia’s association with non-Malay languages there will be a continued shift to return to the use of the English language among common citizens. [paragraph 38]

Although Malaysia is not unique in utilizing language and culture as the central focus of social planning, the case can be made to consider the Malaysian example worthy of further study. As humanity continues to create civil wars tearing countries apart based on loose goals of ethnic dominance over more altruistic goals of peace and stability, we will inevitably need to turn to models such as Malaysia.  No matter how tainted Malaysian policies may be, they have persevered to withhold semblance of harmony rather than degradation which is all too often the case in similar situations of contrasting cultural and linguistic values. [paragraph 39]

Endnotes