Petition to UNESCO: The Violation of the right to mother tongue education
in Malaysia
Executive Summary
1.
Malaysia is a pluralistic country
comprising several major ethnic groups, including Malays, Chinese and Indians.
2.
Chinese schools, funded and supported
by the Chinese community, have existed for decades.
3.
For years, the Chinese and other
minority-based schools have been facing government’s discriminatory educational
policy, the ultimate objective of which is to abolish the these schools and convert
them into schools using Malay as the main medium of instruction.
4.
Under such the guidance of such
policy, Chinese and other minority-based schools have suffered a variety of
problems.
5.
The government’s policies and
measures amount to serious and serial violations of the principles and
conventions of the United Nations and other international conventions.
The Pluralistic Nature of Malaysian Society
1.1 Upon
the founding of the nation in 1957 (and later enlarged through the merger with
the states of Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore in 1963, Singapore withdrew in
1965), Malaysia has been recognized as a pluralistic society.
1.2 Today,
Malays comprise 54.6 per cent of the population, Chinese 24.6 per cent,
non-Malay Bumiputra 12.8 per cent, and Indians 7.3 percent.
1.3 Malays
are recognized as the Bumiputra (son of the soil) and have much longer history
on this land. Chinese and Indians came to Malaysia in different waves
historically, some of which can be traced back to 15 century. However, the
largest wave was in late 19th century and early 20th
century, when the area was under British colonialism.
1.4 Malaya’s
independence was based on the consensus that all three major ethnic groups would
forge an independent nation. Malays are given constitutional protection or
special right over public service position, placement in tertiary education,
scholarship, and trade licenses. However, the legitimate interests of the
non-Malays are protected constitutionally.
1.5 Article
152 of the Constitution establishes Malay as the official and national
language. However, it also provides that no person is prohibited from using,
teaching and learning any other languages other than official purposes.
1.6 Little
in the constitutional making in the history of Malaysia suggests that Malaysia
is a homogeneous nation-state. All signs are that Malaysia is a pluralistic
society with a multicultural and multiethnic environment, and the founding
fathers of the nation recognized, respected, and were proud of this nature.
Chinese Schools of Malaysia
2.1 Historical materials have shown that old-style,
private, home- and community-based Chinese schools existed as early as early 19th
century, particularly in the British Straits Settlements (the states of Penang
and Melaka in contemporary Malaysia, as well as Singapore).
2.2 In early 20th century, new-style,
formal Chinese schools were established, first in Penang (and Sabah), and later
spread to Kuala Lumpur and other major cities in Malaya. By 1920, all old-style
schools were replaced by these new-style schools, which taught comprehensive
subjects ranging from language to mathematics to geography and history. The
medium of instruction shifted from dialect to Mandarin, and the texts used
modern instead of classical Chinese.
2.3 The number of Chinese schools in Malaya and
Singapore increased substantially since then, as can be seen in the following
table.
|
Year
|
Number
of Schools
|
Number
of Students
|
Number
of Teachers
|
|
1921
|
252
|
-
|
589
|
|
1922
|
391
|
-
|
980
|
|
1923
|
537
|
-
|
1,362
|
|
1924
|
564
|
27,476
|
1,257
|
|
1925
|
643
|
33,662
|
1,390
|
|
1926
|
657
|
36,380
|
1,493
|
|
1927
|
665
|
40,760
|
1,637
|
|
1928
|
696
|
43,961
|
1,806
|
|
1929
|
711
|
46,911
|
1,900
|
|
1930
|
716
|
46,397
|
1,980
|
|
1931
|
657
|
39,662
|
1,867
|
|
1932
|
669
|
41,858
|
1,929
|
|
1933
|
731
|
47,123
|
2,201
|
|
1934
|
766
|
54,618
|
2,371
|
|
1935
|
824
|
62,014
|
2,730
|
|
1936
|
860
|
70,843
|
3,058
|
|
1937
|
933
|
79,993
|
3,415
|
|
1938
|
1015
|
91,534
|
3,985
|
2.4 Since 1935, on the basis of these schools, Chinese
secondary schools were developed.
2.5 Before 1920, the attitude of British colonial
authorities toward the Chinese schools was non-interference, but there was no funding
and support as well, which it assumed that the Chinese schools would gradually
be phased out under the competition from government-funded English schools.
2.6 In 1920, the British colonial government enacted a
law that required all Chinese schools, the boards and the teachers to register
with the government, and all texts should be approved by the government. In
1924, the government declared that Chinese schools could apply for government
funding, but in return the applying schools would have to accept textbooks and
teachers designated by the government. Most Chinese schools refused funding to
maintain their independence.
2.7 After the Pacific War (1941-1945), most Chinese
schools reopened and the number of them increased as well. By 1957, the year of
Malayan independence from Britain, the number of Chinese schools was 1,347,
with a student population of 391,667 and a faculty of 9,663 teachers. Among
which were 60 Chinese secondary schools, with a student population of 49,536
and a faculty of 1,141 teachers.
Government’s Policy and Measures
3.1 The
pluralistic nature of Malaysian society should give rise to an educational
system that respects and fosters such pluralism. However, since the time of the
British colonial government until today, there have been persistent efforts to
close down and assimilate the Chinese schools from the authorities.
3.2 In
preparing for self-government and independence of Malaya, the British colonial
government sought to lay the foundation of the educational system of the
independent Malaya. The first educational report it issued, the Barnes Report,
was produced by a committee made up of 4 colonial officers and 9 Malays,
without the input from the Chinese community.
3.3 The 1951
Barnes Report for the national educational system in Malaysia suggested the
creation of national schools with English and Malay as the main medium of
instructions, all other streams of language school were to be abolished. Teachers
of Chinese schools formed the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association (Jiao
Zong) to oppose the Barnes Report.
3.4 Because
of the strong opposition from the Chinese community, the British colonial
authorities engaged two experts from the United Nations, Dr. William Purviance
Fenn and Dr. Wu Te-Yao. They came out with the alternative report, the Fenn-Wu
Report, which suggested that Chinese schools be retained and supported.
3.5 The
British colonial government attempt to reconcile the Barnes Report and the
Fenn-Wu Report with the 1952 Hogan report. However, the 1952 Hogan Report
reiterated the Barnes Report and the Fenn-Wu Report was effectively rejected.
3.6 The 1952
Education Ordinance was drafted based upon the Hogan Report. Under the
Ordinance, children of all races were to enter national schools with English or
Malay as the main medium of instruction. The Ordinance was strongly opposed by
the Chinese community. Boards of the Chinese school came to gather to resist
the 1952 Education Ordinance. Together with Jiao Zong and the Malaysian Chinese
Association, they presented to the government a Memorandum on Chinese
Education. In 1954, the formed the United Chinese Schools’ Committee
Association (Dong Zong).
3.7 Since
1950s, the government has put in place stronger measures to control the Chinese
schools, such as regulations on the expansion of school campus, synchronizing
the school terms with the government-supported English schools, and the new
salary scheme.
3.8 In
1955, with the first general election approaching, the Alliance coalition,
formed by the United Malay National Organization, the Malaysian Chinese
Association, and the Indian National Congress, made promise to the Chinese
voters that once in power it would revise the 1952 Education Ordinance and ensure
schools of all language streams would be allowed to freely develop.
3.8 The
Alliance won the election in 1955. The Minister of Education, Abdul Razak, was
appointed to head a committee to examine the educational policy of Malaya. The
committee came out with the 1956 Razak Report. Under Article 12 of the 1956
Razak Report, the “ultimate objective” of the education policy is to have the
children of all races to enter and study under a single national schooling
system that uses Malay as the main medium of instruction. This Report hence
renegaded on the promise the Alliance made to the voters and was a betrayal.
3.9 1957
was the year of independence from British colonialism. The Education Ordinance
of 1957, enacted just before the date of independence, reflected a more accommodational
attitude toward Chinese education. Article 3 of the Education Ordinance of 1957
states that the education policy of the Federation of Malaya was to build a
national education system that would satisfy all people, and while the Malay language
was to be promoted as the national language, languages of other ethnic groups
would also be protected and supported. Under this Ordinance, schools of all
streams would continue to receive government’s subsidies.
3.10 In
1960, however, the government came out with another educational policy report.
The 1960 Rahman Talib Report replaced the more accommodative Article 3 of the
1957 Education Ordinance with the Article 12 of the 1956 Razak Report, and
reiterated the “ultimate objective” of the government’s education policy. It
also distorted the wording and meaning of the Article 3 of the 1957 Education
Ordinance when quoting it.
3.11 The
1961 Education Act was formulated based on the 1960 Rahman Talib Report. Under
the Act, while primary schools of all language streams would continue to
receive government’s aid (divided into Malay national primary schools and
non-Malay national type primary schools), only Malay and English secondary
schools would receive such aid (called national-type secondary schools),
rendering the Chinese secondary schools effectively unsupported by the
government. In addition, Clause 21 (2) of the Education Act gave the Minister
of Education the legal power to convert government-aided national-type primary
schools into Malay national primary schools.
3.12 With
the implementation of the National Language Act of 1963/67, all English
national-type schools (primary and secondary) were gradually converted into
Malay schools.
3.13 Since
1960s, all Chinese secondary schools were under the strong pressure from the
government to convert into government funded national-type secondary schools
and many were indeed pressured into doing so. After conversion, all school
personnel and curricula were put under the control of the government, and the
medium of instruction became Malay, and only one compulsory subject of Chinese
language is taught. Those who refused to convert were cut off from government’s
funding, and became Chinese independent secondary schools, basically supported
by the Chinese community on their own.
3.14 Chinese
independent secondary schools reduced in number in the 1960s and early 1970s.
In the mid-1970s they grew again, but the number was effectively capped by the
government at 60.
3.15 In 1967,
the Minister of Education Johari announced that beginning in 1968 only holders
of Cambridge A Level and government-issued diploma were allowed to pursue
higher education overseas, effectively ending the right to pursue higher
education of the graduates of Chinese independent schools.
3.16
Throughout the 1960s, Chinese education activists were facing government
oppression. A leader of Chinese education movement had his citizenship revoked
by the government. Publications of the movement were banned by the government.
3.17 The
1971 Aziz Report (revised) aimed to take over the hiring power of the boards of
the national-type schools as employers of teachers. A new clause was added to
the Education Act in 1972, which empowered the Minster of Education to dissolve
the boards of national-type schools. In 1977, the Ministry of Education
attempted to dissolve the boards of several Chinese national-type schools.
3.18 The
Mahathir Report of 1979, while allowing the continued existence of the Chinese
primary schools, imposed upon non-Malay schools significant restrictions. The
3M Educational Plan that followed in 1980 promoted a standardized national
curriculum and suggested that in Chinese primary schools, with the exception of
the subjects of Chinese and mathematics, all other subjects were to be taught
in Malay. The Chinese community reacted strongly against these measures.
3.19 In
1985, a new plan called “Integrated School Plan” was proposed to integrate
schools of different language streams into one type of school with Malaya as
the main medium of instruction, effectively an assimilation plan that was
strongly objected by the minority groups in Malaysia.
3.20 In
1987, the Ministry of Education appointed non-Chinese-speaking teachers as principals,
deputy principals, and administrative officers of Chinese primary schools,
attempting to change the administrative language, and ultimately, the nature of
the Chinese schools. This measure was strongly opposed by the Chinese
community. The government later reacted with the Operation Lalang, which
detained several leaders of the Chinese education movement without trial and
closed down newspapers.
3.21 In
1995, the Minister of Education proposed the “Vision School” plan, which was a
reiteration of the 1985 “Integrated School.” In the name of “national unity,”
the plan aimed to finally realize the “ultimate objective” by again putting
primary schools of all language streams into a single type with Malay to be
used as the main medium of instruction.
3.22 A new
Education Act was enacted in 1996. The Preface and Clause 17(1) of the 1996
Education Act effectively ended the legal status of the Chinese primary schools
and Chinese independent secondary schools. Clause 17(1) gave the Minister of
Education the power to provide exemption to any school to use languages other
than the national language as the main medium of instruction, effectively
meaning that all these schools exist at the discretion of the Minister of
Education.
3.23 2001-2010
Education Blueprint was drafted based upon the 1956 Razak Report, and restated
the objectives of the 1960 Rahman Talib Report and the 1961 Education Act in
building up an education system with the Malay language as the main medium of
instruction.
3.24 In
2003, the government forcefully implemented the Teaching of Mathematics and
Science in English policy, all the way to standard one in primary schools. The
policy violated the right to mother tongue education under various acts and
laws of the country, and aroused the objections from all races in
Malaysia. In 2009, under strong
opposition, the government was forced to rescind the policy, and beginning in
2011, all standard one classes will resume the teaching of mathematics and
science in mother tongue languages.
3.25 In 2010, the Ministry of Education implemented
the Consolidating Malay while Strengthening English policy to replace the
Teaching Mathematics and Science in English policy. The new policy failed to
pay attention to Chinese and Tamil education. It restated the aim of the policy
is to create a nation-state with monolingual and assimilationist policies, with
the goal of realizing “one country, one nation, one culture, one language, one
stream of school.”
3.26 The
Ministry of Education’s 2006-2010 National Education Blueprint reiterated the
vision of “one country, one nation, one culture, one language, one stream of
school,” emphasized Islamic values, and aimed to make the national primary and
secondary schools as the schools of first choice for all ethnic groups. It
echoed the “ultimate objective” of the Razak Report, and worked to create an
education system stretching from pre-schooling to secondary school that uses
Malay as the main medium of instruction, with unified curricula and exams. Furthermore,
the mother tongues of ethnic minorities are only elective subjects, and under
this Blueprint, all Chinese, Tamil, and church schools are effectively
marginalized.
3.27 The
preliminary report of the 2013-2025 Education Blueprint continues the ideal of
creating a monolithic nation-state and ignored the pluralistic nature of
Malaysian society, and continues to hold the obsolete idea that schools of
different streams of language are obstacles to national unity. The report
emphasizes that the Chinese and Tamil schools must strengthen the teaching of
Malay, and wants to drastically expand Malay language classes at the expense of
other subjects. Under the “Consolidating Malay while Strengthening English”
policy, English classes cannot be reduced, and the only subjects that will make
way for more Malay classes will be the mother tongue subjects. Malay language
is to be taught, since standard four, as the first language, contrary to the
current practice of teaching Malay as a second language, in Chinese and Tamil
primary schools. This will effectively convert these schools into Malay schools
in the long run. In the meantime, all the problems faced by Chinese and Tamil
schools have been ignored in the report, and they continue to face
marginalization in fund allocation and development.
Chinese Schools: Facts and Figures
4.1 From
independence until today, Chinese population grew and the demand of Chinese
education grew tremendously as well. However, the government has been
deliberately restricting the growth of the number of Chinese primary and
secondary schools, and has consistently deprived the schools of more and
necessary financial allocation.
4.2 Table below summarizes the anomalies where
increase of Chinese population and student body was accompanied by the decrease
in the number of Chinese primary schools.
|
Year
|
Ethnic
Chinese Population
|
Number
of Students in Chinese Primary Schools
|
Number
of Chinese Primary Schools
|
|
1970
|
3,564,400
|
439,681
|
1,346
|
|
1980
|
4,414,588
|
581,696
|
1,312
|
|
1991
|
4,944,954
|
583,218
|
1,289
|
|
2000
|
5,691,908
|
622,820
|
1,284
|
|
2010
|
6,392,636
|
604,604
|
1,291
|
|
1970-2010
|
+2,828,236
|
+164,923
|
-55
|
4.3 In
comparative term, from 1957 to 2013, within peninsular Malaysia, where most of
the Chinese population is concentrated, the increase of the number of the Malay
primary schools, students of these schools, and the teachers of these schools
are 1,636, 1,204,113, and 124,673. In contrast, within the same period, the
corresponding numbers for Chinese primary schools are -354, 100,161, and
19,000. It means that even though the students of Chinese primary schools have
increased more than one hundred thousand in number, the number of Chinese
primary schools has actually declined. The same case can also be seen in the
Tamil primary schools, in which the corresponding numbers are -385, 41,564, and
7,441.
4.4 The financial allocation to Chinese and Tamil
primary schools has also been consistently inadequate. As can be shown in the
table below, successive five-year plans formulated by the government for macro
socio-economic development of the country consistently discriminated against
the Chinese and Tamil schools.
|
Five-Year
Plan
|
Allocation
and Student Number
|
Malay
Primary Schools
|
Chinese
Primary Schools
|
Tamil
Primary Schools
|
Total
|
|
6th
Plan (1991-1995)
|
Allocation
(RM)
|
1,133,076,000
(89.72%)
|
102,726,000
(8.14%)
|
27,042,000
(2.14%)
|
1,262,844,000
(100%)
|
|
Number
of Students (1991)
|
1,845,400
(72.98%)
|
583,218
(23.07%)
|
99,876
(3.95%)
|
2,528,494
(100%)
|
|
|
7th
Plan (1996-2000)
|
Allocation
(RM)
|
1,027,167,000
(96.54%)
|
25,970,000
(2.44%)
|
10,902,000
(1.02%)
|
1,064,039,000
(100%)
|
|
Number
of Students (1996)
|
2,128,227
(75.30%)
|
595,451
(21.07%)
|
102,679
(3.63%)
|
2,826,357
(100%)
|
|
|
8th
Plan (2001-2005)
|
Allocation
(RM)
|
4,708,800,000
(96.10%)
|
133,600,000
(2.73%)
|
57,600,000
(1.17%)
|
4,900,000,000
(100%)
|
|
Number
of Students (2001)
|
2,236,428
(76.04%)
|
615,688
(20.93%)
|
89,040
(3.03%)
|
2,914,156
(100%)
|
|
|
9th
Plan (2006-2010)
|
Allocation
(RM)
|
4,598,120,000
(95.06%)
|
174,340,000
(3.60%)
|
64,840,000
(3.30%)
|
4,837,300,000
(100%)
|
|
Number
of Students (2006)
|
2,298,808
(75.74%)
|
636,124
(20.96%)
|
100,412
(3.30%)
|
3,035,074
(100%)
|
|
|
10th
Plan (2011-2015)
|
Allocation
(RM)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Number
of Students (2011)
|
2,150,139
(75.41%)
|
598,488
(20.99%)
|
102,642
(3.60%)
|
2,851,269
(100%)
|
4.5 Accusations of Chinese schools that they are a
hindrance to national unity and sovereignty are invalid. Malay language courses
are compulsory subjects, and all the curricula, including history and
geography, all emphasize the Malaysian nationhood. In fact, the Chinese schools
are open to, welcome and embrace children of all ethnicities. As can be shown
in the following table, the number of non-ethnic-Chinese students has increased
tremendously over the years, which means that the standard, quality, and
inclusive educational approach of the Chinese schools have gained the
confidence of many non-Chinese parents. Yet this fact is seldom recognized by
the government.
|
Year
|
Number
of Students in Chinese Primary Schools
|
Number
of non-ethnic-Chinese Students in Chinese Primary Schools
|
Percentage
of non-ethnic Chinese Students in Chinese Primary Schools (%)
|
|
1989
|
567,803
|
17,309
|
3.05
|
|
1990
|
574,919
|
18,379
|
3.20
|
|
1991
|
575,108
|
19,488
|
3.39
|
|
1992
|
579,285
|
20,559
|
3.55
|
|
1993
|
586,469
|
21,508
|
3.67
|
|
1994
|
583,825
|
32,203
|
5.52
|
|
1995
|
599,500
|
32,734
|
5.46
|
|
1996
|
587,221
|
37,519
|
6.39
|
|
1997
|
601,891
|
49,639
|
8.25
|
|
1998
|
601,155
|
52,043
|
8.66
|
|
1999
|
609,673
|
65,000
|
10.66
|
|
2012
|
602,578
|
81,011
|
13.44
|
4.6 As mentioned in 3.14, the Chinese independent
secondary schools, which depend on the donation from the Chinese community for
operation, have been capped at 60 since 1973, despite the huge increase in
demand for such schools, as can be seen in the following table.
|
Year
|
Number
of Chinese Independent Secondary Schools
|
Number
of Students in these schools
|
Year
|
Number
of Chinese Independent Secondary Schools
|
Number
of Students in these schools
|
|
1973
|
60
|
28,318
|
1999
|
60
|
54,152
|
|
1978
|
60
|
35,930
|
2000
|
60
|
53,258
|
|
1983
|
60
|
45,890
|
2001
|
60
|
53,635
|
|
1985
|
60
|
49,101
|
2002
|
60
|
54,048
|
|
1988
|
60
|
49,567
|
2003
|
60
|
52,850
|
|
1989
|
60
|
52,155
|
2004
|
60
|
53,005
|
|
1990
|
60
|
54,690
|
2005
|
60
|
53,402
|
|
1991
|
60
|
55,835
|
2006
|
60
|
54,755
|
|
1992
|
60
|
58,365
|
2007
|
60
|
55,818
|
|
1993
|
60
|
59,383
|
2008
|
60
|
58,212
|
|
1994
|
60
|
59,773
|
2009
|
60
|
60,490
|
|
1995
|
60
|
58,948
|
2010
|
60
|
63,765
|
|
1996
|
60
|
57,092
|
2011
|
60
|
66,968
|
|
1997
|
60
|
55,143
|
2012
|
60
|
70,266
|
|
1998
|
60
|
54,002
|
2013
|
60
|
75,923
|
4.6 The facts and figures given here clearly
demonstrate that, as a result of government’s policy, development of Chinese
and other minority-based schools have been greatly hampered. Such actions by
the government are violations of the basic human rights of the ethnic
minorities in Malaysia to mother tongue education.
Violations of International Conventions
5.1
The policies and measures of the
government of Malaysia in restricting the right of the ethnic minorities to
mother tongue education amount to violations of a number of international
conventions and norms.
5.2
Article 26(3) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states that “Parents have a prior right to choose
the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” The government’s
“ultimate objective” in bringing the children of all ethnicities into one
national educational system dominated by one language hence is contradictory to
such principle.
5.3
In a 1951 UNESCO Report of the
Specialists, it is stated that “On educational grounds that the use of the
mother tongue to be extended to as late a stage as possible. In particular
pupils should begin schooling through the medium of the mother tongue.” In the
same Report, it refutes the argument that “using the vernacular impedes
national unity.” It further points out that “it is fairly likely that the
absolute insistence on the use of national language by people of another mother
tongue may have a negative effect, leading the local groups to withdraw in some
measure from the national life.”
5.4
Article 5(c) of the 1960 UNESCO
Convention Against Discrimination in Education stipulates that “It is essential to recognize the right of members of national
minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the
maintenance of schools and, depending on the educational policy of each State,
the use or the teaching of their own language, provided
however: (i) That this right is not
exercised in a manner which prevents the members of these minorities from
understanding the culture and language of the community as a whole and from
participating in its activities, or which prejudices national sovereignty,...”
As mentioned in 4.5, the Chinese schools have taken great measures to highlight
the Malaysian nationhood. However, the government of Malaysia thinks otherwise
and through various efforts seeks to control the boards and committees of these
schools, and until today it has not signed this
Convention.
5.5
The government of Malaysia until
today has not ratified the 1969 UN International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 1 of the Convention defines
“racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which
has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment
or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
The government’s policy in restricting the development of Chinese and Tamil
schools is a form of racial discrimination.
5.6
The “ultimate objective,” educational
blueprints, policies, and administrative measures of the government over the
years are contradictory to the spirit of cultural diversity and pluralism as
spelled out in the 1966 UNESCO Declaration of International Cultural
Co-operation, the 1978 UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, and the
1995 UNESCO Declaration on the Principle of Tolerance.
5.7
The government’s “ultimate
objective,” which essentially promotes monolingualism at the expense of, and in
contradictory to, the pluralistic, multicultural, multilingual, and multiethnic
nature of the Malaysian society, also seriously violates the 2001 UNESCO
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which in Article 5 is stated that
“All persons have therefore the right to express
themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their
choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons are entitled to
quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity; and
all persons have the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice
and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms.”
5.8
The government of Malaysia has until
today refused to sign and ratify the 1966 UN International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights and the 1966 UN International Convention on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights. The policies and actions of the government of
Malaysia toward the Chinese and Tamil schools, as well as activists of the
Chinese educational movement, will be considered incompatible with both of
these Conventions.
5.9
Article 29 (C) of the 1989 United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “The development of
respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and
values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living,
the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different
from his or her own.” Article 30 of the same Convention states that “In those
States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of
indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is
indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of
his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his
or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.” The government of
Malaysia has signed and ratified this convention. However, its policy toward
the Chinese and Tamil schools represents an overall and systematic attempt to gradually
“deny” the right to mother tongue education, hence is contradictory to the text
and spirit of this Convention.
5.10
Article 1.1 of The 1992 UN
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious
and Linguistic Minorities states that “States shall protect the existence and
the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of
minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions
for the promotion of that identity.” Article 2.1 states that “persons belonging
to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have the right to
enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use
their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference
or any form of discrimination.” Article 4.3 states that “States should take
appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to
minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to
have instruction in their mother tongue.” The marginalization of the Chinese
and Tamil schools in the educational policy and blueprint of the government is
completely incompatible with the principles and articles laid down in this
Declaration.
5.11
Article 2.3
of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions stipulates the principle of equal dignity and respect
for all cultures as one of the guiding principles of the convention, whereupon
it is stated that “The
protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions presuppose
the recognition of equal dignity of and respect for all cultures, including the
cultures of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples.” Malaysia is not a State Party to this convention,
knowing that its educational policy fundamentally is in contradiction with the
long list of UN and UNESCO principles that celebrate cultural diversity and
protect the minority right to mother tongue education. The educational policy
of the government of Malaysia therefore totally ignores the diverse and
pluralistic nature of the Malaysian society, and should be condemned as such.
