Jan. 2010, Volume 7, No.1 (Serial No.

51) Journal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN 1548-6591, USA

Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating

the ethnic diversity∗

Hazri Jamil, Nordin Abd. Razak

(School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia)

Abstract: This paper discusses the issues of ethnicity and how they have been involved in the production of
Malaysian education policy in achieving the aim of uniting the multiethnic society of the nation. The central focus
in this paper was a discussion of the educational policies in Malaysia that had been produced to mediate the
multiple demands, varying interests and ideological differences within Malaysian pluralistic society and amongst
its various ethnic groups. This article also considered issues of policy implementation. The focus was on
education policy, the politics of ethnicity in education, and the issue of language in education policy production in
relation to produce a Malaysian outlook education system.
Key words: ethnicity; education policy; culture; language; policy implementation

1. Introduction

Malaysia is the only country in the world in which three distinct ethnic groups have maintained separate
identities, preserved separate cultures as evidenced in the languages they speak, codes of dress, customs, value
systems, and all the outer manifestations of the differences in background and tradition (Sendut, Madsen & Thong,
1990). Each Malaysian who belongs to an ethnic group has his or her own culture, belief and values system. These
ethnic identities are a set of uncompromising statements about what is critical for the survival of each ethnic group.
Through the process of socialization, these culture, belief and values are reinforced within the family, religious
bodies, social institution and workplace. Over the years, members of each ethnic group have adopted these ethnic
identities as part of their cultural markers.
Based on the complexity of the ethnic differences in Malaysian society, the main issues surrounding policy
production and its implementation in Malaysian educational system always concern with the interests and
challenges of ethnicity. This is related to the resistance and challenges regarding the implementation of the
education policies relating to issues of ethnicity. It is rather a complex and complicated issue and can be
interpreted in a variety of ways from different interests and perspectives of ethnic groups in Malaysian plural
society. According to Haris (1990), these issues in education could easily attract elements of national and ethnic
chauvinism.

2. Ethnic differences in Malaysian society

∗
This article is based on research project title: School policy in inculcating integration of multi-ethnic society in Malaysia, funded by
Research University Grant, USM.
Hazri Jamil, senior lecturer, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia; research fields: educational sociology and
policy, multicultural education, history education.
Nordin Abd. Razak, senior lecturer, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia; research fields: cross-culture studies,
education administration and management.

77
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

That the emergence of a plural society was motivated by British colonial policy has resulted in the Malaysian
population today comprising of three major ethnic groups, namely the Malay, the Chinese and the Indian. They
speak different languages, follow different cultures and traditions, and commonly profess different religions. The
situation was further aggravated when ethnic cleavages are deepened by political, economic and educational
institutions.
According to Census 2000, the total population of Malaysia is nearly 23 million of which 21,890 million
(95%) are Malaysian citizens. In the total of Malaysian citizens, the Malays and other indigenous groups (namely
Bumiputera or son of the soil) comprised over 66.1%, the Chinese 25.3% and Indians 7.4% (Malaysia, 2002a).
The estimated population in the Eighth Malaysia Plan (RM8) shows the growth of the multiethnic population in
Malaysia in 2005, where the Malay comprise 67.3%, Chinese 24.5% and the Indians 7.2% of the total population
(see Table 1).

Table 1 Malaysian population growth according to ethnic groups 1995-2000 (Million)

1995 % 2000 % 2005 %
Citizen 19.68 100.0 22.04 100.0 24.66 100.0
Total population 20.68 23.27 26.04
Malay/Bumiputera 12.47 63.3 14.56 66.1 16.59 67.3
Chinese 5.22 26.5 5.58 25.3 6.04 24.5
Indian 1.49 7.6 1.63 7.4 1.78 7.2
Others 0.50 2.6 0.27 1.2 0.25 1.0
Non-citizen 1.00 1.23 1.38
Source: Malaysia, 2002.

The different ethnic identities have constituted a multi-ethnic or pluralistic nature in Malaysian society. As
members of distinct cultural communities, Malays, Chinese and Indians are naturally inclined to identify with
their respective languages, cultures and religions, and strive actively to preserve and propagate them (Lee, 2000).
According to Lee (2000), ethnicity remains the most potent force in Malaysia even if its influence has been
somewhat adulterated by other social stratifying factors such as class and gender.
The empirical study found that the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia were heterogeneous (Fontaine,
Richardson & Foong, 2002). The ethnic belief, language, socioeconomic background and customs and traditions
were deep-rooted, and they often had a significant influence on policy production in Malaysia education system.
The potency of ethnicity lies in its ability to combine both affective and instrumental appeals. It was obvious,
therefore, that the ethnic dimensions of all the major ethnic groups were intricately woven into the Malaysian
education policy production (Mano, 1989).
Since the socioeconomic structure of Malaysia before and after independence is ethnically divided, it is not
surprising that the Malaysian politics, responding to this reality, is also organized on this basis. Accordingly, the
practice of ethnic-based political parties reinforces the distinction of Malaysia’s numerous ethnic communities. In
this sense, most of the political parties in Malaysia were mere pressure groups seeking privileges and advantages
for their ethnically oriented members (Saad, 1979). They always act as a mediator of ethnic symbols and interests.
Till today, ethnic differences have been given an important part of Malaysian political dimension, thus education
issues are also being structured and debated around ethnicity dimensions.

78
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

3. Developing the Malaysian outlook education system

The settlement of policy for post independence was the result of an agreement reached among the major
ethnic communities (Malay, Chinese and Indians). This was a consensus among political elites from the three
major ethnic groups which can be looked as a binding agreement among all major ethnic groups in Malaysia. In a
state and public discourse, the consensus among the major ethnic groups was commonly understood as a “social
contract” among them. This contains provisions which protect the legitimate interests of each community in the
country, which is enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution. It clearly distinguished the special rights of the Malay
and other ethnic groups’ rights as the citizens in Malaysia pluralist society. This has been considered as
underpinning elements for a guiding principle of Malaysian independence and further development of the country.
In this sense, ethnic compromise among the major ethnic groups was important aspect that determined the nation
to gain independence from the British. Hence, it also framed educational policy in Malaysia when Malaysia was
independent, manifested in the Razak Report (1956), which became consequential document in the development
of Malaysian education (Roof, 1974). Amongst the important aspects in this Report was the suggestions that the
Malay language become a compulsory subject to be taught in schools and gradually become the sole official
language after 1967 (Lim, 1985). This is based on the belief that the process of uniting the nation can be achieved
with national language through its implementation in the educational system. The Razak Report (1956) stated:
We believe further that the ultimate objective of educational policy in this country must be to bring together the
children of all races under a national educational system in which the national language is the main medium of instruction,
though we recognize that progress towards this goal cannot be rushed and must be gradual.
(Federation of Malaya, Report of the Education Committee 1956, p. 3, Paragraph 12)

At the secondary level, the Razak Report granted official approval for three language media schools, namely
Malay, English, and Chinese medium of instruction. The Chinese medium would be allowed if it conformed to
certain curricular conditions and accommodated the compulsory teaching of Malay and English. The Report’s
pronouncements on the goal and function of secondary education revealed the accommodation stance and
assurance that particular ethnic groups would have their interests taken into consideration within the framework of
a national education policy.
This statement regarding the language aspect in education is perhaps to lessen concern with cultural claims
and interests when an emphasis on solidarity was crucial for independence. The collaboration and cooperation
among the three major ethnic groups in the political field on the way towards independence meant that a
compromise would have to be agreed and achieved by the leaders of the ethnic-based political parties. It also
meant that any major decision made by the government would have to take into consideration the opinions and
views of all ethnic groups.
One of the primary functions is to foster and encourage the culture and languages of the Malayan community… and
we see no educational objection to the learning of three languages in secondary schools or the use of more than one
language in the same school as the medium of instruction.
(Federation of Malaya, 1956)

In 1960, a new committee was appointed to review the implementation of the Razak Report (1956). This
education review committee produced their report, namely Report of the Education Review Committee 1960 or
commonly known as Rahman Talib Report 1960. This Committee accepted and recognized that the Razak Report
of 1956 was “succeeded in recommending an educational policy which is national in its scope and propose, while

79
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

at the same time preserving and sustaining the various cultures of the country” (Federation of Malaya, 1960, p. 3,
Paragraph 13). While recognized the Reports of 1956 as accomplishing the interests of various ethnic groups in
education system in Malaysia, this Committee stressed on the policy action to achieve the “ultimate objective” of
national language as stated in Razak Report.
In addition to achieving the “ultimate objective” of national language, as a start for implementing national
language as medium of instruction in primary level, the Committee suggested that “... primary education in Malay
must also be made available to more children by the introduction, for a start of Malay-medium streams in what
were formerly Government English primary schools” (Federation of Malaya, 1960, Paragraph 133). This,
according to the Committee, “… is essential move towards the ultimate objective of making Malay the main
medium of instruction in all schools” (Federation of Malaya, 1960, Paragraph 133).
Based on Rahman Talib Report, the multi-lingual primary schools were to continue, but wider recognition
was given to Mandarin and Tamil within the primary school framework. In relation, the review also introduced
changes at the secondary level, which furthered the principle of a unified Malay language, and government-aided
education system (Federation of Malaya, 1960, p.49). The Report took the view that after independence, Malays
language should assume a dominant role after a ten years period. As such, after 1967 Malay language should be
the main medium of instruction at the secondary schools, with provisions for teaching the other languages as
subjects.
It is understandable that the 1960’s Education Review Committee Report suggestion is in intention to
improve and realize the policy framework that had been set up by the Report of 1956. However, such suggestion
of converting the English medium primary schools to Malay medium is understandable to the current situation
where the state needs to accommodate the Malay interests in education and at the same time needs to meet the
recognizing of other ethnic groups for their mother tongue. This delicate issue needs to be tackled appropriately to
ensure that the policy implementation is not contradicted with what has been stated in the policy text. Thus,
English is a neutral domain for implementing the policy that did not touch each ethnic group’s interests in
language education. In other words, English is not a mother-tongue for other ethnic groups and is accommodated
to the Malay nationalistic phase during the time of post independent to eliminate the colonial legacy in the
education system, in order to develop the new national identity.
In a sense of developing national outlooks of Malaysian education system, Rahman Talib Report 1960 has
made a further change of the Chinese medium schools character. This report recommended that pupils of all
secondary schools irrespective of the medium of instruction would be required to sit government public
examinations in the country’s official language—that is Malay or English. The Committee explained that:
… the only way to reconcile the existing basic objectives of education policy which are to create a national
consciousness while at the same time preserving and sustaining the various cultures of the country is to conduct education
at the primary level in the language of the family and thereafter to reduce the language and racial differential in our
educational system. For the sake of national unity, the objective must be to eliminate communal secondary schools from
the national system of assisted schools and to ensure that pupils of all races shall attend both national and national-type
secondary schools. An essential requirement of this policy is that public examination at secondary level should be
conducted only in the country’s official language.
(Federation of Malaya, 1960, Phase 175, p. 31)

The belief of the importance of national language as the medium of instruction and to eliminate ethnic and
language differences in the education system is consistently stated in this report as requirement of the policy

80
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

“acceptable to the people as a whole” (Federation of Malaya, 1960). It is clear that the Committee hold the belief
that the nation to be united should be based on the notion of one language for one nation. While suggesting
continuing primary education in mother-tongue, the Committee also viewed that this was contradicted with the
education policy designed to promote national language and national consciousness amongst children from
different ethnic groups.
The first requirement is met by providing for the time being at public expense primary education in the language of
the family. It would, however, be incompatible with an educational policy designed to create national consciousness and
having intention of making the Malay language the national language of the country to extend and to perpetuate a
language and racial differential throughout the publicly-financed educational system.
(Federation of Malaya, 1960, Phase 18, p. 3)

Being different from the Razak Report 1956 that allowed the existence of vernacular system, this report has
put forward the idea that the ethnic and language differences in education system should be reduced in order to
create national consciousness based on Malay language. Based on this principle, the Committee rejects the ethnic
demands that will break the national education system.
It is not possible, within the framework of a policy which is truly national, to satisfy completely all the individual
demands of each cultural and language group in the country.
(Federation of Malaya, 1960, Phase 18, p. 3)

The suggestions on the education system changes in this report had brought two implications for the
subsequent Malaysian education policy development. Despite the fact that this report recognized the need to fulfill
the interest of ethnic minority of their mother tongue, this Committee also tried to reduce the pressure of language
and ethnic differences in education system. The suggestion of eliminating Chinese school to bring into the
national education system and at the same time provide opportunity for education through mother tongue at
primary level could be understood as a compromise aspect of policy strategy for gradual change of education
system with national language. This was based on compromise or accommodative strategy to avoid conflict with
the policy statement that also recognized other ethnic groups’ rights to develop, learn and use their mother tongue
in education system.
The development of national education policy in 1960s saw the attainment of national integration and unity.
In this sense, the construction of this policy was based on a belief that this was to be achieved through a plural
school system and ambivalent language policy. This period was often referred to as a period of education policy
for accommodation (Santhiram, 1999) of the different interests amongst different ethnic groups in respect of
education. Accordingly, the development of the educational policies in this period involved collaboration and
cooperation among the three major ethnic groups in the political field. It set the scene of political bargaining and
striking fair deals for the ethnic members and an accommodative state strategy in education policy production in
Malaysia plural society.

4. The breakdown of consensus

In early independence, the government has compromised in its policy production at achieving the goal of
nation building through education, especially when related to the issue of the language instruction in the
educational system. However, such educational policy was not successful enough in preventing ethnic discontent.
In the 1969 general election, the flow of votes towards opposition political parties with their narrow communal

81
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

interests gave communal and primordial interests priority, because of the obvious ethnic issues that dominated
during the election campaign. Among the salient education issues of the election campaign, there was the demand
for an education system using all the languages of the population as medium of instruction (Vasil, 1971).
The riots in 1969, which occurred on a national scale, showed that the development programmes until the
late 1960s had failed to meet the challenges of national integration and unity, and the serious rethinking of this
problem began. The government determined that this ethnic conflict was primarily apparent because of public
dissatisfaction over the great disparity of income between the Malays and the non-Malays. The dissatisfaction
about economic imbalance, particularly amongst the Malay who felt there was unequal distribution of income and
opportunity, was underlined as the most significant element of ethnic tensions. Accordingly, the May 13 tragedy
has been regarded as a catalyst for fundamental policy changes in Malaysian public policy after 1970, including
education policy.

5. The policy settlement since 1970—Changing orientation to the dominant aspiration

The period after the 1969 ethnic riots, specifically beginning from 1970 was marked as the starting point for
changing policy orientation of the state in developing a united Malaysian nation. Since then, national unity has
become more important and led the government to implement policies with special intention of national
integration. In view of inter-ethnic economic disparity as a major problem precipitating ethnic tension that brings
the turmoil into existence (Malaysia, 1976, p. 5), the state believes that ethnic tension can be resolved by
accommodating such dissatisfaction amongst particular ethnic groups. Thus, discourse on economic disparity
between ethnic groups has inspired the state to form a united multiethnic society on the basis of equality in
distribution of resources and prosperity. Specifically, for the state, the condition for developing a united and
harmonious Malaysian nation was to “narrow the gap” of economic and social status between the Malays and
other ethnic communities, especially the Chinese. In addition, the state also believed that language issues and
particular ethnic group’s dissatisfaction with the liberal approach in implementing the spirit of education policy
since independence was amongst the important causes of the riots (Malaysia, 1971; Kheng, 2002; Wahid, 2005).
Framed by these beliefs of ethnic groups’ conflict, the state inclined their policy to improve the social,
economic, culture and language status of the ethnic majority. Since then, the state policy, which has generally been
viewed as providing preference to Malays (also regarded as bumiputera or son of the soil, policy (Mason & Omar,
2003), and also been viewed as an affirmative policy for the bumiputera, directed policy implementation to
enhance the social and economic position of the disadvantaged ethnic majority. This also simultaneously focused
on implementing the ethnic aspirations on language and culture of the dominant majority for the Malaysian
nation.
Based on this premise, the national economic policy (NEP) was initiated by the government as a vehicle to
unite the nation post 1970, in the aftermath of the ethnic violence in 1969. The NEP’s strategy was consisted of
two pronged-strategies: First, it emphasized on eradication of poverty among all in Malaysian society, irrespective
of ethnic group; and the second was the restructuring of Malaysian society to correct economic imbalance,
specifically to reduce and eliminate the identification of Malay and other indigenous people with low income and
agricultural pursuits (Malaysia, 1971a). The state believed that both strategies were major aspects for enhancing
national unity by ensuring a more equitable distribution of income and opportunities. The intention of further
policy development was to ensure that this source of ethnic group conflict could be eradicated.

82
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

The period of the Second Malaysia Plan 1971-1975 (second MP), has been the most pronounced phase in
stipulating the objective of NEP. In line with the NEP’s strategy, national integration in this five years plan can be
understood in terms of social integration through fairer distribution of income and opportunities within Malaysian
society (Malaysia, 1971a, p. 1). In this development plan, the main discourse in uniting the nation was to ensure
that the majority ethnic group can be assisted regarding their social and economic situation. This guided the state
policy orientation post 1970 to develop a united and harmonious Malaysian nation. In this regard, the approach of
the Second MP and future development plans were to help build national unity through development, in which
progress as a united nation (Malaysia, 1971b) based on equal distribution of wealth amongst the multi ethnic
society in Malaysia, whilst ensuring the status and rights of the dominant ethnic group will be strengthened. Then
Prime Minister Abdul Razak bin Hussein, when presenting the motion on the second MP in House of Parliament
on July 12, 1971, pointed out that national unity depending on how the state could ensure the inter-ethnic
disparities in economic and social position could be resolved.
From our past experience, we fully realize that it is not sufficient to provide only the economic infrastructure. This is
obvious from the events of May 13, 1969, which mostly tore this nation asunder. The lesson to be learnt from this painful
event makes it imperative for all of us to foster national unity and harmony among the various races which are at present
compartmentalized not only according to their way of life and culture, but even more significant is the existence of
imbalances in the economic conditions among the races today.
(Malaysia, 1971b, p. 3)

While the intention of such policy was improving the economic dimension and standing for Bumiputera,
discourse on Bumiputeraism also brought the second MP to identify that education ought to be the major vehicle
in promoting unity among all Malaysians by providing an opportunity for social and economic mobility within
society. In the period of the 1970s, many developed education policies were implicated within the introduction of
NEP and supported the dominant ethnic group’s aspirations regarding language and culture of the nation.
As to serve the NEP’s aims and objectives, the production of Malaysian education policy post 1970 can be
seen as central amongst NEP’s strategies of promoting social mobility for the Malay (Ganguly, 1997, p. 257). This
policy also can be regarded as a vehicle to implement the so called affirmative action to uplift the Malay (Omar,
2003), who constitute the majority but are economically disadvantaged. From a similar perspective, Mohamad
(2005) saw that the purpose of such policy was for group enhancement, and was often considered a quintessential
tool of the state for social engineering in restructuring the ethnic disparity in respect of economic opportunities
and standing. Thus, this approach opened a new era of determination to overcome ethnic divisions, to develop and
build Malaysia nation (De Micheaux, 1997).
After the end of the period of NEP in 1990, the government introduced a new policy, named the national
development policy (NDP), which was a successor of the NEP. The NDP has become the basis for developing the
country during the subsequent ten years (1990-2000). In this policy, education was identified as an important
enabler to foster national unity. It showed that the state was constantly concerned about the role of education as
the most important factor that had an impact on national integration. The state re-expressed this aspect of
education’s role:
To inculcate and nurture national consciousness through fostering common ideals, values, aspiration and loyalties in
order to mould national unity and national identity in a multi-ethnic society.
(Malaysia, 1990)

In the Fifth Malaysia plan (1986-1990), the state further strengthened the role of education in promoting

83
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

national unity, expressing the Malay language as important instrument for achieving this goal.
The implementation of the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction, served to strengthen the basis for
national unity in that it promoted effective communication among Malaysians through a common language.
(Malaysia, 1986, p. 6)

The NDP was supported by the subsequent outline perspective plan, and was also known as the national
vision policy (NVP). This perspective plan aimed at developing the country to be a “developed” country by 2020,
and was originated by the idea of the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, when he delivered a speech
entitled “Malaysia: The way forward” to the Malaysian Business Council on 28th February 1991. This speech
commonly known as Vision 2020 has been officially accepted as the basis for developing the nation in the 21st
century to become a developed country with targeted date of 2020.
Malaysia should not be developed in economic sense. It must be a nation that is fully developed along all
dimensions: economically, politically, socially, spiritually, psychologically and culturally. We must be fully developed in
terms of our economy, in terms of social justice, political stability, system of government, quality of life, social and
spiritual values, national pride and confidence.
(Mahathir Mohammad, 1991, Malaysia The Way Forward)

The notion of Vision 2020 raised twenty challenges for the Malaysian nation to achieve the status of
developed country by 2020, but in Malaysia’s own mould. In Vision 2020, the discourse of developing and
integrating the nation surrounds these challenges that Malaysia needs to conquer in order to become a fully
developed country. The importance of national unity is the paramount challenge for the nation as it has been stated
as the first challenge of establishing a united Malaysian nation.
There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that
have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation. The first of these is the challenge of
establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with
itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one “Bangsa
Malaysia” with political loyalty and dedication of the nation.
(Mahathir Mohammad, 1991, Malaysia: The Way Forward.
Source: Department of the Prime Minister Malaysia.)

The NVP incorporates the critical thrusts of the previous development policies, which are NEP and NDP with
the principal objective of national unity (Malaysia, 2001a). However, the different and new discourse in Vision
2020 about uniting the nation is about the construction of “Bangsa Malaysia” (Malaysian nation), which means
the integrated nation of a multi-ethnic society with common identity and loyalty to the nation, a harmonious
society sharing the wealth and economic opportunity of the country.
This idea of Vision 2020 became a major discourse within the state mechanism in developing the nation
sequentially to achieve the status of developed country. As the Vision 2020 envisages Malaysia to be a developed
nation by the second decade of the 21st Century (Abdullah, 2003), this plan wants the progress and development
of the nation to constitute the nation as a competitive player in the global field. While focusing on economic,
technological and scientific advancement as indicators for developing the country, the official discourse in
achieving the aim also places education as an important instrument for promoting national unity, social equality
and economic development (Lee, 2000). This influences the state mechanism on creating a united and developed
nation in the next twenty years (2001-2020).
It can be argued that education policy in Malaysia is derived from these national policy frameworks for

84
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

developing the country. However, while the NEP has been viewed as the foundation for policy implementation
post 1970, which focused on Malay interests and their privileged status as bumiputera, the education policy
development and implementation reflects the spirit of Razak Report and Rahman Talib Report, which are the basis
for national education policy. The implementation of policy post 1970 maintained these reports recommendation
embodied in Education Act of 1961. It became a principal regulation in running the education system in Malaysia,
specifically related to school system and language of instruction. Hence, such discourse surrounding education
policy processes and issues were always associated with the education policy framed by these two documents.
Given the surrounding discourses of national unity, a harmonious society, the aim of developing a common
identity and loyalty as the Malaysian nation, whilst needing to achieve a status as a developed country within a
“Malaysian own mould”, the state has incorporated various integration policies and programmes in the educational
sector towards the achievement of national unity. The main policies and programmes that have been produced for
developing the nation, including education policy from 1970 to present time are illustrated in Figure 1.

Integrated nation Incorporation of the NEP’s substance and

(1970-1990) the idea of vision 2020
Nation development
Resolving economic and social imbalance (Economy, social, psychology, religion, culture)
Objective: Developed country status

New economic policy National development National vision policy

(NEP) (1971-1990) policy (NDP) (1991-2000) (NVP) (2001-2020)

1. Eradication of poverty among all
Malaysians irrespective of ethnic origin
2. Restructuring of society
residues
The continuation of NEP Fostering a national unity and
framework enhancing competitiveness to meet the
challenges of liberalization and
globalization

United nation with equal distribution of Continuous development

economic benefits and wealth (preservation of dominant Creating a united, progressive and
(From ethnic bargaining to dominant hegemony framework) prosperous Bangsa Malaysia
hegemony framework ) (Malaysian Nation) (Facing the liberal
colonial

and global orientation)

1970s—Enhancement of the Malay
language as the national and official
language status
1985—Integration school project
(specific intention for national
integration)
1986—Pogrammes of integrating
children towards unity (specific intention
for national integration)
1988—New primary school curriculum
Education policies/
programs/strategies for
integrating and developing 2003—English for teaching
the nation mathematic and science
1996—Education Act 1996
1997—Vision school project
(specific intention for national
integration)

Figure 1 Malaysian economic and education policies/programs/strategies

(Adapted from Berma, 2003, p. 217.)

6. 1990s—The pragmatic phase: Pursuing the national and global interests

85
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

The period of the 1990s showed Malaysia had been involved in an economic and social transformation which
had been effected by globalization. Intense competition in business and trade, and the need for science and
technology advancement had brought new challenges to national education system in Malaysia. This situation had
required the state to alter national policies, including education. Whilst the state continued to mediate national and
domestic issues in education, the significant impact of globalization to the nation forced the government to
respond to the challenge. The 90s witnessed Malaysian education policy experiencing transformation in various
aspects, derived from the state’s paradigm policy response in respect of national and globalization matters. With
the concern with progress and being a competitive nation in the global sphere, this is the age when more
pragmatic concerns had been addressed together with concerns of nationalism (Gill, 2002).
Being aware of the need for Malaysian people to compete in the global economic field, the state considered
education policy in terms of meeting the global challenges. With many other nations and their educational policy
in the context of globalization, the Malaysian government saw the need for education to contribute to the
competitiveness of the Malaysian economy. One response was in relation to English that is the language of
business and international communication. This was reflected in the state education policy and programme
subsequent to 1990.

7. Conclusion

Due to the historical development of the education policies in Malaysia, it shows that the government has
cited education as one of the main instruments in building a united and harmonious Malaysian nation. Continually,
the overall intent today of Malaysian educational policy is to achieve national unity in a multi-ethnic society.
Within the explanation of the historical contexts and policies in Malaysian education system, it has
demonstrated that Malaysian education policy since 1970 has played a significant role in reinforcing the national
agenda of building the nation. Such policies have been to some extent successful in eliminating ethnic differentials,
but on the other hand have also contributed to the construction of ethnic differences. In spite of that, not all these
efforts were simply implemented, rather there was contestation and ethnic bargaining. Ethnic considerations
remain central in the production and implementation of education policy in Malaysia.

References:
Abdullah, J.. (2003). Planning with diversity: The vision school concept in Malaysia. Retrieved February 14, 2005, from http://
www.planning.sa.gov.au/congress/pdf/papers/abdullah.pdf.
Berma, M.. (2003). Towards the national vision policy: Review of the new economic policy and new development policy among the
Bumiputera communities in Sarawak. In: Mason, R. & Omar, A. S. M. (Eds.), The Bumiputera policy: Dynamics and dilemmas.
Journal of Malaysia Studies, Special Issue Penang, 21(1 & 2), Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, 211-256.
De Micheaux E. L.. (1997). The role of educational policy in overcoming ethnic divisions and building Malaysia’s nation, Paper
presented at the communication En Session Parallele. Oxford International Conference on Education: Education and
Geopolitical Change. Oxford: Grande-Bretagne.
Federation of Malaya (1956). Report of the Education Committee, 1956. Kuala Lumpur, The Government Press.
Federation of Malaya (1960). Report of the Education Review Committee. Kuala Lumpur, The Government Press
Fontaine, R., Richardson, S. & Foong, Y. P.. (2002). The tropical fish problem revisited: A Malaysian perspective. Cross Cultural
Management Journal, 9(4), 60-70.
Ganguly, S.. (1997). Ethnic policies and political quiescence in Malaysia and Singapore. In: Brown, M. E. & Ganguly, S. (Eds.).
Government policies and ethnic relations in Asia and the Pacific, CSIA studies in international security in cooperation with the
Pacific basin research centre. London, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Gill, S. K.. (2002). Language policy and English standards in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 12, 95-115.

86
 Ethnicity and education policy in Malaysia: Managing and mediating the ethnic diversity

Haris, M. J.. (1990). Etnik, politik dan pendidikan (Ethnic, politics and education). Kuala Lumpur, Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Kheng, C. B.. (2002). Malaysia: The Making of a Nation. Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Lee, M. N.. (2000). The politics of educational change in Malaysia: National context and influences. In: T. Towsend & Y.C. Cheng.
Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future. Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger.
Lim, M. H.. (1985). Affirmative action, ethnicity and integration: The case of Malaysia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 8(2), 250-276.
Lim, L.. (1998). Cultural attributes of Malays and Malaysian Chinese: Implications for research and practice. Malaysia Management
Review, 33(2), 81-88.
Malaysia (2002). Population and development, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Population Division, National Population and Family
Development Board, Ministry of Women and Family Development Malaysia.
Malaysia (2001). Eight Malaysia plan 2001-2005. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.
Malaysia (1990). Education bill 1990. Kuala Lumpur, Ministry Of Education Malaysia.
Malaysia (1986). Fifth Malaysia plan 1986-1990. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.
Malaysia (1976). Third Malaysian plan 1976-1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
Malaysia (1971a). Second Malaysia plan 1971-1975. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
Malaysia (1971b). Risalah Malaysia. National unity through development: The Second Malaysian Plan 1971-1975, Kuala Lumpur:
Jabatan Penerangan, Kementerian Penerangan Malaysia.
Mano, M.. (1986). The influence of culture in management in Malaysia. Malaysia Management Review, 21(3). Retrieved May 2,
2004, from http://mgv.mim.edu.my/MMR/8612/frame.htm
Mason, R. & Omar, A. S. M.. (2003). Introduction in Mason, R. & Omar, A. S. M. (Eds.). The Bumiputera Policy: Dynamics and
Dilemmas. Journal of Malaysian Studies, Special Issue, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 21(1), 1-12.
Mohamad, M.. (2005, February). Ethnicity and inequality in Malaysia: A retrospect and a rethinking. Working Paper 9, Oxford, UK:
Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE.
Mohamad, M.. (1971). Problems of democratic nation-building in Malaysia. Solidarity, 5.
Mohamad, M.. (1991, February). Malaysia: The way forward. Paper presented at the Inaugural Meeting of the Malaysian Business
Council. Kuala Lumpur.
Omar, A. S. M.. (2003). Origins and development of the affirmative policy in Malaya and Malaysia: A historical overview. In: Mason,
R. & Omar, A. S. M. (Eds.), The bumiputera policy: Dynamics and dilemmas. Journal of Malaysia Studies, Special Issue,
Penang, Malaysia. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 21(1), 13-30.
Roff, W. R.. (1974). The origin of Malay nationalism. Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press.
Saad, I.. (1979). The impact of national language medium schools on attitudes related to national integration in Peninsula Malaysia,
PhD Thesis (Unpublished). University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Santhiram, R.. (1999). Education of minorities: The case of Indians in Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia: CHILD (Child information,
learning and development centre).
Sendut, H., Madsen, J. & Thong, G.. (1990). Managing in a plural society. Singapore: Longman.
Vasil, R. K.. (1971). Politics in a plural society. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Wahid, Z. A. A.. (2005). Bahasa Pendidikan Dan Pembangunan. In: Bakar, A. R. & Sariyan, A. (Eds.). Suara Pejuang Bahasa. Kuala
Lumpur: Persatuan Linguistik Malaysia.
Watson, J. K. P.. (1980). Education and cultural pluralism in South East Asia, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia.
Comparative Education, 16(12).

(Edited by Sherry and Emma)

87