JOHN TEO: English serves our national interests

(NST) I HAD been following some of the arguments, pro and con, about what language to use in teaching Science and Mathematics in our schools and came away persuaded by, well, both sides.

It speaks to the growing maturity of our general citizenry that the debate has not altogether degenerated into unseemly name-calling by two camps entrenched in their opposing views.

Those in favour of continuing teaching in English would argue that as a small developing nation, we simply cannot afford to buck the general trend of English establishing itself as an international language. On the other hand, the language nationalists — whether speaking on behalf of promoting the national language or vernacular tongues — would beg to differ.

It is in so many ways ironic that these two camps (I would call them, for lack of more appropriate designations, the pragmatists and the hardliners) are led, though perhaps not in any formal sense, by two strong-willed former education ministers: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for the pragmatists and Tun Abdul Rahman Ya'akub for the hardliners.

In Kuching recently, Tun Rahman came out very publicly and vocally for the status quo ante that he introduced as education minister to be reinstated. Dr Mahathir was of course instrumental as prime minister in making the switch to English, albeit as a rather late convert to the notion that it best serves our national interests for our citizens to be fully proficient in English.

What concerns me most is the sad reality that it is well-nigh impossible to arrive at anything close to a consensus on any important national issues that affect all of us. Such is the nature of our social and other cleavages.

The Rahman-Mahathir "clash" on this issue at least has the beneficial redeeming effect of insulating the issue from any possible charges of anyone having gone "soft" on the vexed matter of language in Malaysia, which, it has been thought till now, was long ago settled.

Dr Mahathir can hardly be painted by anyone as anything but an ardent Malaysian nationalist.

Instead, what has become apparent is that the debate has gone somewhat tactical; over the fact, for example, that the preparation for the implementation of the switch could have been better handled, the teething problems better anticipated, and the consequent adjustment pains for teachers and pupils alike lessened.

All too often though, I think we make the mistake of assuming issues can be isolated and tackled in a complete vacuum. They simply cannot; least of all an issue as potentially controversial and divisive as the use of language.

I say we simply cannot argue that a policy should not be changed until we are completely prepared and ready. We can never be completely prepared and ready for anything, and arguing for that is surely a recipe for keeping the status quo and for inaction. This is Malaysia, after all, and we should all know better how and why things are done or not done.

Which brings us to the question of why we think it necessary to revisit this subject at this particular point in time. Is it so we can have the proper open debate denied us earlier, when the switch was made?

If so, I have to argue that Dr Mahathir has been thoroughly vindicated here. He must have easily foreseen that we are never ever going to get any kind of a consensus on the switch, or anything even close. And Dr Mahathir being Dr Mahathir, he would sooner bite the bullet and let the pieces fall where they may.

Or is it that we only want to review the subject? In which case, the matter of whether the switch itself is or is not appropriate should not have arisen.

I say let the matter rest. The switch is a done deal and we should not add to the confusion and uncertainty and unnecessarily prolong the agony and pain for all those most adversely affected.

It would be unfair to leave it to the current education minister to decide one way or another when we ourselves, given the opportunity, fail to achieve any consensus on the way forward.

The way forward has been charted and the minister would be well within his rights to summon all necessary will and resources to persevere on the charted path.