The Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin maintains that his "hands are tied" over the demand by the community for an independent Chinese school in Kuantan "unless there is a change in the education policy or the Education Act." ( The Star, 23.5.2012:12 )

This statement by the education minister at least explains why, despite the constant claim by the government that they support mother tongue education, the number of Chinese and Tamil schools has been decreasing.

The politics of education policy in Malaysia certainly flies in the face of logic and consistency.

More Chinese and Tamil Schools in 1957

For the uninitiated, at Independence we had 1350 Chinese primary schools, more than 800 Tamil primary schools and 78 Chinese secondary schools.

There were at least six Chinese secondary schools in Pahang then.

Today, with our population doubled, there are only 1285 Chinese primary schools, 550 or so Tamil primary schools and 60 MalaysianIndependent Chinese Secondary Schools (MICSS).

In fact when the Education Act 1961 was legislated, the number of Chinese secondary schools shrunk to just 14 because the rest had to give up their mother tongue education system since they could not survive without government aid. From the Seventies, the number of MICSS grew steadily to sixty.

The most obvious question Malaysians might want to ask is, how did the education policy and Education Act 1961 allow the number of MICSS to grow to sixty between 1961 to 1980?

The next obvious question to ask is: how did the policy and the law suddenly insist that there cannot be one more MICSS once the sixtieth school had been built by the end of the Seventies?

Obviously, the education minister has not thought carefully about the implications of his statement. If he values critical thinking among Malaysian students, these are the questions they would be likely to ask:

Which education policy?

When the Education Minister refers to the education policy, we presume he is referring to the 1956 Razak Report which proposed: "the ultimate objective of educational policy...in which the national language is the main medium of instruction....whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country."

Clearly, until the Education Act 1961 was legislated, this education policy (embodied in the 1957 Education Ordinance) allowed the 78Chinese secondary schools to exist.

We all know that the law overrides government policy but the education policy the Education Minister is referring to - embodied in the Razak Report - did allow the state-run Chinese Secondary Schools to exist right up to 1961!

Which education act?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. We all know the latest law in question is the 1996 Education Act. However, many Malaysians including lawyers are not aware of the nuances of the education law in this country.

Before the 1996 Education Act, the mother tongue lobby had protested against Section 21(2) of the 1961 Act which stipulated that the Minister of Education "may at any suitable time convert all national-type primary schools to national primary schools."

When the 1996 Education Act came in, as expected, Section 21(2) of the previous law was no longer there. However, under section 17.11 of the new law, all schools in the National Education System had to use Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction. (Note that under the 1961 Act, only primary schools were affected.)

There were only two exceptions to this provision: (i) schools which are given exemption by the Minister; and (2) the "national-type schools" to be established in future under Section 28.

The national education system covers all educational institutions, viz. government, government-aided as well as private educational institutions . (s.16)

It practically comprises all types of schools providing pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education, but not expatriate schools. (s.15)

Double standards over English-language schools

The recent proliferation of international schools in this country and their liberal enrolment of rich Malaysian students also make a mockery of the government's claim to implement a National Education Policy (specifying Malay as the main medium of instruction) for all Malaysians.

Why does the English-language have priority over the mother tongue of Malaysians?

If the government can allow hundreds of institutions in the country to use the English language, what is the problem with allowing one more MICSS school in which BM and English are compulsory subjects?

Of late, the government under Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has been appealing to the people to believe in their determination to reform the country.

Now if they are committed to support mother tongue education, why cannot the policy and the law be amended to allow the free development of mother tongue education? If laws relating to national security can be changed, why cannot educational laws be changed?

The contributions of MICSS to national development

The 60 MICSS have been surviving all these years through the support of the community which subsidizes their tuition fees. Although the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) is recognised round the world, our own government still refuses to recognise it.

Despite being treated like step children, graduates from the MICSS have been contributing to Malaysia's development and growth. The inventor of the thumb-drive is a product of the MICSS and he has since come back to invest in this country.

The Chinese community has been paying double taxation while also nurturing these 60 schools since they have been forced to be self-financing.

Certain states, such as Pahang need at least one MICSS or their students have to travel to other states to study at other MICSS schools.

At this day and age, while the country is talking about educational reform and support for mother tongue education, surely ONE independent school in Kuantan is not too much to ask?

Far-sighted education policy wanted

For the 13th general election, let us make this demand on all political parties and candidates:

1. Reform the national education system to promote quality holistic education, equal opportunities, social justice, creativity, critical thinking as well as scientific and technological knowledge required for research and development and vocational skills;

2. Abolish discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender or creed relating to entry into educational institutions;

3. Uphold the spirit of the Education Ordinance 1957 by supporting mother tongue education, building Chinese and Tamil schools in areas where they are needed, ensuring proportionate financial support and training of adequate teachers for these schools;

4. Recognise the Unified Examination Certificate and provide financial support for the non-profit mother tongue secondary schools so that the students can enjoy free education as in other secondary schools;

5. Promote the preservation and development of the indigenous peoples' mother tongue language and education.

Dr Kua Kia Soong is director of NGO Suaram.