I REFER to the letter “We can be robbed, but not of our English skills” (NST, Nov 24). I would like to repeat a sentence that attracted me: “To those in governance who are concerned about this, please do not talk anymore. Just walk the talk.”
For the last 30 years or so, in my letters to the New Straits Times, I’ve supported the need for the English language to be included in the national primary and secondary school syllabuses in a much bigger way and to bring back English- medium schools.
These proposals cannot cause the learning, teaching and the use of Bahasa Malaysia to become diluted or sidestepped. More so, teaching English in more comprehensive and effective ways in national schools is not against the constitution.
There are people in governance and language nationalists who are against those proposals and, yet, they send their children to private or international schools.
There are parents in Johor Baru, Kluang and Batu Pahat who send their children to schools in
Singapore, and among them are politicians and community leaders.
Each spends between RM1,000 and RM1,500 a month for school fees and other expenses per child.
Some students use public transportation to commute to Singapore.
It was also reported that there are as many as 200 buses ferrying students from Johor Baru to Singapore and back daily.
Obviously, these parents realise the importance of the English language, prospects and advantages that knowing the language will offer their children.
If their children get into universities in countries where the main medium used is English, their children will have fewer problems compared with children who are weak in the language.
Malaysians have argued for English and many also have argued against it.
However, one would find that there are more reasons why our children should learn better ways and study in English-medium schools compared with sticking to the current system, which can be described as neither here nor there.
It can also be said that many of our children, after completing 11 years of primary and secondary schooling, are neither good in Bahasa Malaysia nor English.
Over the past several years, many experiments, and after many millions of ringgit spent, have been carried out on whether to teach English and use it as the main medium of instruction, or to maintain the system where Bahasa Malaysia is used as the main medium of instruction, or a mix of both at different ratios.
The conclusion always favour the first of the three.
Every time someone decides to introduce a better way of teaching English, there will be those who will reject the programme and the decisions are made at the expense of our children.
PPSMI (Teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English) was run for about six years only.
It made things tough for people, including many parents fighting for quality education for their children.
The recent announcement to introduce the new Dual Language Programme and the Highly Immersive Programme will hopefully achieve success in the time they are planned for and things will go smoothly, although they are in the trial stages.
The authorities and the people must see the programmes through.
It is encouraging to note that the Sarawak government has demanded for autonomy in education to ensure that its policies are in tandem with the state’s requirements in the future as, according to Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem, inconsistencies in the federal education policies have hampered the state’s development plan.
Adenan is determined to reintroduce the use of the English language in national schools in the state, which is to be lauded, and I hope other states will follow suit.
There has been much time wasted and many of our young people have suffered because of our poor quality of education and we do not have any more time to lose.
So, do not look back.
Let’s move forward for the good of all.
n Hussaini Abdul Karim, Shah Alam, Selangor