A solution to the Jawi Conundrum

(Published in The Sun 23 December 2019)

The implementation of Jawi script in the BM curriculum of vernacular schools is still mired in controversies, with many questions still unanswered and ambiguities not clarified. The conundrum has been festering since July with no quick end in sight. There is an urgent need now to find a solution, especially when the new school year is just round the corner! If this disagreement between the government and the stakeholders persists, the whole issue may well spin into a cesspool that will pose more challenges and problems for the MoE and the government at large in years to come. As it is now, there is a lot of confusion among members of the general public, but what is more alarming is that judging by the statements they made, even some Cabinet Ministers seem confused!

If only the MoE or the Cabinet is willing to provide honest answers to questions asked which they have evaded thus far, there is probably a quick and easy solution to the conundrum.

For starters, the MoE or the Cabinet should answer ONE very important question which this writer has asked, and perhaps many others have followed suit and asked, repeatedly. (Whither education reform? The Sun Aug 14). If it is addressed clearly without ambiguity, it will allay all fears and suspicions that learning to read and write Jawi script will eventually creep into the vernacular school curriculum, against the best interest of the pupils.

It must be reiterated that stakeholders do not oppose learning ABOUT Jawi, they only oppose the learning of Jawi, an Arabic script/alphabet for writing BM. These are two entirely different things. Most people with common sense can understand this opposition to and apprehension about learning Jawi script, as it is common knowledge that as it is now, vernacular school children are already overburdened with learning two entirely different language coding systems: Chinese/Tamil (each with a unique coding system of its own) plus English and BM using the same Roman alphabet for spelling. Requiring them to learn the Jawi script/alphabet for spelling is without doubt imposing an additional burden and hardship that these young pupils can do without. What happened to the concern about an overloaded school curriculum expressed so often by the MoE and the Cabinet?  

As pointed out repeatedly, these young pupils should just focus on learning BM in Rumi. The story about Cikgu Nor says it all quite clearly (In the best interest of pupils, The Sun Dec 9). To put it very simply and bluntly, what is the point of learning another spelling system for BM unless we plan to regress and revert to using the Jawi script instead of the current Roman alphabet? It is a fact that today, many Malaysians, whether Malays or non-Malays, cannot read or write Jawi. Does it make any of us less Malaysian, less patriotic, or less productive? In all honesty, how many of our Cabinet Ministers can read and write Jawi? Are they also taking lessons now to learn reading and writing BM in Jawi? 

So what is this magical ONE question that begs to be answered? It is simply: Is the much brandished and now clichéd mantra of “no compulsion, no learning, no examination” applicable to not only Jawi in Standard 4 BM curriculum, but also Jawi in Standard 5 and 6 BM curricula? If the answer is a definitive YES that is irrevocable, cast in stone, and stated clearly in the DSKP KSSR Bahasa Melayu (SJK) Tahun 5 and 6, then voila! We may now have a solution to the Jawi conundrum.  Stakeholders are likely to agree to the implementation of Jawi in the standard 4 BM curriculum, as reflected in the new Standard 4 textbook, and all the ongoing bickering about who is to decide about the option to teach Jawi in vernacular schools or not can be a non-issue?

However, the caveat is, like the current existing Standard 5 BM textbook, it must be strictly learning ABOUT Jawi, with no compulsion to learn the Jawi script/alphabet to read and write. At this juncture, it should be pointed out that “no learning” has all this while been peddled by the government, and understood by the stakeholders as “no learning of Jawi script/alphabet”.  However, this writer has her reservation about the veracity of this claim after examining the expected learning outcomes and performance standard stated in the amended version of DSKP 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. Yes, after the amendment,  pupils are still required to recognize many words written in Jawi (on our flag, banknotes etc), which means pupils must learn the Jawi alphabet to be able to do this! Perhaps the MoE should organize a class for our Cabinet Ministers to teach them the “three pages”, so they can fully comprehend what kind and how much of learning is required for them to attain the learning outcomes and performance standard as stated in DSKP 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. Then they can tell us if it is really “no learning of Jawi script”.

Many people are still befuddled why the government of the day which has been elected for reform is so adamant about implementing a curricular change that has no real educational value for pupils in the vernacular schools. Will learning Jawi script improve their BM reading and writing skills? NO. Will the dismal and below average PISA scores of our Malaysian children improve by forcing them to learn Jawi? NO. More importantly, does such a curricular change have the best interest of the pupils at heart? NO. If anything at all, it only adds extra burden to the poor pupils!

Finally, many of us are curious as to who has initiated this 2017 curricular change which has now come to be perceived and suspected as insidious, no thanks to all the ambiguities and even prevarications! Was it a top-down directive from the then Cabinet or Minister of Education? Or was it just the sloppy work, or whim and fancy of some Little Napoleons within the MoE? Curriculum development always begins with the first step of identifying and defining a general objective. Just what was their objective then? Are the basic principles of curriculum development adhered to? Whatever the answers may be, we the stakeholders who have the best interest of the children at heart, would like to urge the Cabinet and the MoE to answer the ONE question above truthfully, or better still, just scrap the change and go back to teaching/learning  ABOUT Jawi, as in the existing Standard 5 BM textbook. Please, this is good enough, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. The vernacular school pupils must be allowed to focus on mastering their BM reading and writing skills without this extra burden of learning to read and write Jawi script. We as Malaysians want to continue to enjoy peace and harmony without all this unnecessary and irrelevant brouhaha.

In the best interest of pupils

(Published in The Sun 9 December 2019)

The debate on the teaching of Jawi in vernacular schools has been ongoing for months now. No long-term solution seems to be in sight, largely because the MoE and the Cabinet have not tried to evaluate the whole issue based on the real educational needs and best interest of the pupils. To this date, many pertinent questions and issues raised by various stakeholders, including this writer (Letter to The Sun 14 August 2019, https://gansiowcklee.blopot.com/?m=1) have been largely evaded or even ignored. There are still ambiguities begging to be cleared. Many are still unaware that the initial seni khat has now evolved into jawi script, and they do not know the difference between the two. This writer has even written recently to Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (BPK) of MoE where she worked many years ago, to seek clarifications and secure more definitive answers, but response does not seem forthcoming. It is indeed befuddling and disenchanting why such a contentious policy initiated by the previous regime in or before 2017, is now so doggedly pursued by the new PH government, which is expected to bring about meaningful reform and progress to the nation.

The latest is that on 28^th November, the high court of Penang ruled that the teaching of Jawi script will be “allowed” in vernacular schools. As such, all quarters have been advised by a certain minister to “respect court’s decision”!  However, I do hope this advice will not be misconstrued by various people to mean that henceforth, the MoE is “empowered” to implement the teaching of Jawi in vernacular schools, without taking into serious consideration the real educational needs of the pupils, or against the better judgement of all other stakeholders. What the court ruling means is simply that “schools can teach Jawi”, it is not against the constitution, as argued or challenged by a certain political party.

All these exasperating arguments about the teaching of Jawi in vernacular schools have brought to mind memory of my own experiences as a pupil attending the Kok Min Chinese primary schools in KL many decades ago. (This school, housed in the Hokkien Association Building in the KL city center, no longer exists today.) I remember my BM teacher then, a young amiable Malay man in his twenties, whom we fondly addressed as Cikgu Nor. (I think his full name is Nor Mohammed, and he lived in Gombak.) He used to wear a songkok to school on Fridays and he sometimes carried with him newspapers with what I then perceived as “funny script” in it. One day, piqued by curiosity coupled by an inquisitive mind typical of a ten-year-old, I seized the opportunity to pop the question about this script at an opportune time during our BM lesson. As always, Cikgu Nor responded to the whole class with a brief and interesting account of what Jawi script is. Some keen learners among us, impressed by its unique artistic form, were quick to follow up with a request to learn Jawi. Guess what? Cikgu Nor told us sternly  that he would teach it only if the whole class could pass the upcoming mid-term Standard Five BM test, including the weekly “ejaan” tests. Of course, he never got down to teaching us any Jawi that year, because so many of my classmates failed in these tests! (I remember we started learning English and BM in Standard Three, but by Standard Five, many of my classmates were still struggling with the Roman alphabet in the English spelling and BM ejaan!) So, Jawi was all but put aside or forgotten in Standard Six the following year, as we were all too busy preparing for the National Standard Six Examination. Thus, I missed the chance to learn Jawi in my primary school years, but I did learn all about what it is from Cikgu Nor, and this basic knowledge has stayed with me till this day. More importantly, I remember that many of my classmates did pass the BM paper in that National Standard Six exam, with a handful of us, including myself, scoring A’s. For these achievements, we all owe our thanks to Cikgu Nor’s wisdom and hard work. 

Of course, I do not begrudge Cikgu Nor for my missed opportunity in learning the Jawi script. I could have learned it in later years, but I guess I never felt the need to do so. Like many of my peers, I preferred to focus on scoring A’s in what we deemed as important subjects in our academic pursuit. In retrospect, I think Cikgu Nor had made a wise and right decision about teaching us Jawi. Being the conscientious and caring teacher that he was, he chose to focus on helping the majority of his charges master BM reading and writing skills in rumi, rather than teaching Jawi to satisfy the curiosity of a small bunch of high-achievers. Wherever you are today, Cikgu Nor, I salute you for your wisdom to choose to teach with the best interest of your pupils at heart. I hope the MoE and the government can take a leaf from Cikgu Nor’s book.

Speaking of reform and progress, perhaps we should look East and learn something from China which has been so successful since its opening up only about 40 years ago. China is an old civilization of more than 5000 years. Its writing script has evolved through at least four or five different forms. However, for the last few centuries, the Chinese have been using and learning the modern script, which has also been further simplified over the past few decades. Are Chinese students today required to learn the four or five antiquated scripts in schools? No, perhaps only those who delve into ancient Chinese history, classic literature, anthropology or archaeology opt to do so, most probably in the tertiary education institutions. Over the last 40 years or so, the Chinese government has focused on real reform and progress in education and other fields to advance to where they are today, one of the world leaders in IT, 5G, robotics etc.  What is the moral of this story for us in Malaysia?  

  

I fervently hope that all stakeholders involved in protecting the interest of the vernacular school children will not be forced to acquiesce to an insidious policy that spells more hardships or presents more learning problems for our young charges. If and when that happens, many rakyat will certainly join me in a chorus of sigh, with disenchantment or even in despair:  I cry for thee…ye children of Malaysia”.     

Whither Education Reforms?

(Slightly edited version  published in The Sun 14th August 2019)

Whither the much vaunted education reforms in Malaysia if the Ministry of Education (MoE) does not stay focused on more important and urgent matters? Should not the Minister of Education and his deputy dispense their time and effort to designing long term plans and strategies to reform the school curriculum to foster national unity, and meet the challenges of globalization and Industry Revolution 4.0? Why bulldoze and introduce Khat that most Malaysians intuitively know will stir up unnecessary controversies, with no help to national unity in any way? Did they not engage in lengthy discussions with their MoE curriculum officers to clarify issues about learning objectives and learning outcomes? Obviously not, because the press statements published in media headlines-- after they claimed to have reached a compromise with Dong Zhong-- border on absurdity! How can one attain a real “appreciation” of Khat without learning the Jawi alphabet? Only “appreciation” and no “learning” is rather meaningless from a strictly education point of view.

As an education specialist who has served in schools, the Curriculum Development Center of the MoE and the Education Faculty of a public university for many years, I feel compelled to write this letter to raise pertinent questions to seek answers, and to appeal to the Cabinet to re-consider their decision. The decision to go ahead with implementation is insidious, as more controversies will certainly arise in the years to come, when Year 4 pupils progress to years 5 and 6. What then? More rounds of altercation, protest, and negotiation? Promises made now about “no compulsion”, “no learning”(?) and “no examinations” are for the present, not cast in stone for the future. This is a reality in Malaysian politics as we have witnessed thus far.

For the sake of real education reforms and nation building, please mull over the following

1) Time and again, it has been pointed out that the school curriculum is already overloaded as it is. There are a thousand and one important things we want the kids to learn. We need to be pragmatic and select the most essential and urgent. The MoE should focus on how to trim the overloaded curriculum to make learning fun and enjoyable for the schoolchildren, especially those in primary schools. The dismal revelation by Dr Sivachandralingam  (The Sun, 8^th August 2019) should certainly raise an alarm and deep concerns: A recent  study has shown that as many as 30% of pupils from Tamil schools consistently fail in Bahasa Melayu (BM)! Will the introduction of Khat improve their learning and mastery of BM? Very unlikely, it can only make things worse, because the inclusion of this new language element -- whether three or six pages in the textbook -- will only dilute the original BM curriculum, taking up precious teaching time that should rightly be devoted to helping these under-performing pupils read and write BM

2)  As it is, pupils in the vernacular primary schools, at such a young and tender age, already have to grapple with the learning of three languages: two using the Roman alphabet  – English and BM—and the third using an entirely different language form and writing system, be it Chinese or Tamil.  And now, they have to learn a third, the Jawi alphabet. In this context, statements such as “appreciation” and “no learning” seem baffling, to say the least. How will teachers present Khat/Jawi calligraphy in class without teaching the pupils the individual letters in the Jawi alphabet? Unless it is simply copying the Khat as a pretty drawing or pattern. If so, how does this kind of “drawing” activity enrich and enhance the learning of BM?

3) An article in Sin Chew (8^th August 2019) by Dato Wu Hen Can ( 吴恒灿 ) who attended a special meeting held by the Minister and his deputy on Aug 1, has drawn my attention to more curricular concerns. It was mentioned that in the DSKP (Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran), the learning outcomes as reflected there (4.4.2 and 4.4.2) clearly indicate that the Khat activity is NOT limited to mere superficial recognition and “appreciation”. They actually require pupils to be able to identify and pronounce individual letters in Simpulan Bahasa written in the seni Khat; and in addition, to be able to write the same! Not easily attainable learning outcomes, and a lot of learning, I must say. So, unless these expected learning outcomes have been removed from the said document and curriculum plan as proposed by Dato Wu in that meeting, I do not see how Khat can be used in class as an activity for learning BM, no matter how creative the teachers are, without the need for pupils to learn all the letters in the Jawi alphabet. My main concern now is: Will such an added burden of learning another alphabet help our Year 4 pupils read and write better BM? Is there a need for them to learn Jawi to read and write better BM?

4)  Are all BM teachers in vernacular schools equipped with the knowledge and skills to teach Khat? Some people go to the extent of suggesting that we do have many unemployable graduates who can fill the void in such skills. This is beside the point, for now. More important questions are: Is Khat really “optional”, and teachers or pupils can choose not to teach or learn it, especially when it is not included in examinations? What will happen in subsequent Year 5 and Year 6 after this? For those teachers who are overly zealous in striving to attain those learning outcomes as reflected in the said DSKP, will they end up spending too much time teaching the new alphabet, at the expense of honing pupils’ reading and writing skills in BM, which should be a priority in our curriculum reform effort?   

Let us heed the scathing criticism of past Cabinet ministers, as well as the learned views of scholars, well-versed in Jawi and its history. These people do not think there is a need for kids in vernacular schools to learn Khat, and they said so with no hidden agenda. Why not just focus on real education reforms and avoid diversions that court controversies or provide fodder for opportunistic politicians to create disharmony. To give due credit, the existing Year 5 BM textbook already includes adequate and very appropriate content to create awareness and impart basic knowledge about Khat/Jawi, and even much more. “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke”, we should just keep this status quo. Let us move on and focus on real education reforms by:

1)  continuing to channel efforts and resources to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, between  urban and rural schools; in terms of IT infrastructure, physical amenities and facilities in schools. Make ALL schools truly conducive for learning, reduce class size and improve instruction to make teaching and learning more effective and fun

2)  laying  a strong foundation to develop in our students STEM skills, higher-order thinking skills, and proficiency in English and other languages that will help them meet the challenges of Industrial Revolution 4.0 and  globalization, and last but not least

3) laying due attention to the holistic development of individual students much emphasized in the Malaysian National Philosophy of Education (1988) which is so eloquently articulated and yet often overlooked or slighted in our often blinkered – or politicized? – views of education reforms.

The current furore over the inclusion of Khat in the vernacular primary school Year 4 curriculum is NOT going to blow over soon. It is of public interest that answers to questions raised above, and the rationale behind the Cabinet decision to doggedly proceed with implementation, must be made crystal clear without ambiguities, to address the concerns of all stakeholders, and allay their misgivings. More importantly, all decision-makers, especially the MoE must have the young pupils’ best interest at heart, bearing in mind that a good curriculum for learner-centered instructional approach is one that is planned by taking into consideration the needs of learners and input from all stakeholders, including the parents, teachers and the community at large. 

Dr Gan Siowck Lee

12 August 2019

E-textbook: Déjà vu?

(An abridged version of this article, re-titled "Comprehensive Study Needed", was published in The Star Educate on 11 November 2018)

With reference to the report in the Sunday Star dated 28^th October 2018, “E-textbook introduction draws mixed reaction from public”, and the many questions I have been asked about it, I must say this was indeed a surprise announcement by the Deputy Education Minster!  My initial reaction is: How is this “school-going- digital” initiative which gets all stakeholders so excited or worried about, different from the large scale Smart Schools initiative of the late 1990s? How is it tying in with other ICT project(s) currently in schools such as the BistariNet?    

Without having further details, and judging by the statement made that only PDF files will be used for a start, I can only caution that if proper long-term plans are not already in place for its rollout next year, this initiative may turn out to be little more than a costly déjà vu. After all, students reading PDF files means that the e-device is only a page-turner and a storage of digitized content; and e-textbook is nothing more than a change of form, not substance. (However, just an aside here, if we can extrapolate and utilize it to promote bilingual education, then it may be a different story!)  Admittedly, moving from PDF to interactive learning materials could be a real reform involving a change in substance, but this cannot happen without seeing it and planning for it in a larger context.  Are not all these interactive learning materials supposedly already developed and in use during the Smart Schools era or thereafter? If yes, do we have enough of such materials now ready for use soon? If not, is the development of such materials still in the pipeline, or only work in progress?           

I wonder if any official comprehensive study has been conducted since the days of the Smart Schools Project – for which the previous government has spent millions if not billions of ringgit -- to assess and evaluate the current state of ICT and its use or applications in teaching and learning in our schools nationwide. If yes, I certainly hope the MoE can use its findings to effectively bring the e-textbook initiative to the higher level of deploying it as an enabler and empowering tool to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. For now, the advantages of using e-textbook touted by some, do not seem overwhelming, considering its cost and in view of the many disadvantages already voiced by various quarters so far.

This brings to mind a report which may be of some use to the MoE in planning to go digital by way of the e-texbook. Microsoft implemented its Partner-in-Learning (PiL) projects in various Asian countries including Malaysia, when a MOE was signed between Bill Gates and our then Minister of Education, Malaysia in June 2004. In 2006, I worked on a consultancy project with the then National Institute of Education in Singapore to evaluate for Microsoft, its PiL project’s impact in Malaysia. The report may be “old” but the many issues, problems and challenges unraveled are perhaps still current and relevant.  Maybe it is time to take a relook at this report as well?

Finally, I would like to quote what I said in my “IT and Education” column in the Star years ago, with regard to the then Smart Schools Project and the many subsequent ICT initiatives in schools:” ....If we can impose some limits rather than getting entangled in a high-tech frenzy, we may be able to free some valuable financial resources devoted to technology and channel them to some impoverished fundamentals such as: providing adequate physical amenities for a conducive learning environment in all schools, building up the nation’s core of knowledgeable, dedicated and inspiring teachers, and teaching solid skills in thinking and learning.”  In other words, e-textbooks must not be implemented in haste, without a comprehensive study of where we are in the use of ICT in schools right now, the resources currently available and in place in schools, the overall cost and potential effectiveness of the e-textbook initiative, and its implications for our long term goal of substantive education reform in schools. Finally, questions that beg to be answered: Is this e-textbook initiative planned as a significant cog in the larger wheel of education reform in schools? Or is it a stopgap measure or quick fix for some other problems?