Don’t condemn, but understand those who oppose DLP

COMMENT It is wrong to condemn those who oppose the Dual Language Programme (DLP) in Malaysian schools. They have every right to oppose the system, a modified version of the PPSMI (Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English and Malay). If they think that DLP might alter the character of the both the national and vernacular schools system, then they have all the right to question it and urge alternatives.

These language nationalists are not opposed to strengthening the use of English language in schools, but they are merely questioning why introduce it at the expense of other languages as the medium of instruction.

Will the implementation of the DLP safeguard Malay as the national language, strengthen the use of English language and respect the vernacular schools system?

At a broad level, it is about whether parents and teachers accept the teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-related subjects in either Malay or English. Since choice is given, no one can accuse the government of being overtly biased.

But at a more specific operational level, the government willy-nilly seems to be moving in the direction of making English more important rather than Malay in national schools or Mandarin or Tamil in vernacular schools.

Some critics of the DLP are thinking that the DLP is essentially a device for the government to bring English as the medium of instruction in national and vernacular schools. This is a kind of gradual and step-by-step approach that might wipe out language nationalism among the Malays, Chinese and Indians.

One may criticise the Malay nationalist groups that are opposed to the DLP as being impractical and out of touch with reality, but they have the democratic right to oppose the programme if they sense that DLP might end up diluting the usage of Malay in national schools.

Similarly can you fault the Chinese and Indian parents and teachers if they sense the DLP might have the potential effect of replacing Mandarin and Tamil as the medium of instructions in their respective vernacular schools system?

Yes, for the moment DLP is intended to for the teaching of science and mathematics-related subjects, but what guarantee is there that this initial step might not go beyond that and English may become the medium of instruction in schools?

This is what many parents, teachers and educationalists fear about the harmful effects of the DLP or sometimes we can refer to as the ‘unintended’ consequences of the programme.

I agree wholeheartedly that DLP, unlike PPSMI, is not a top-down undemocratic approach. The DLP provides ensures that certain mechanisms are provided for the participation of schools and for parents and teachers to provide the necessary consent.