So, what's a better way?

I wrote in one blog recently that if we view the change of S&M from MT to English in a different way, it has been successful. Successful in telling us what the problems really are and how far they extend and what cards we have at hand which we can play.

I'm optimistic about a lot of things except the notion that we will have enough, what M.Bakri Musa calls, "native" (proficiency) bilingual graduates who can read/write/speak/dream in Malay or, if I may add, their MT plus English.

We've had 30 years of bleeding out English-proficiency speakers. We completely forget that the spare parts to change our cogs and wheels no longer exist. You can try and revert your vehicle of progress to an English-medium one but the parts to accomplish that exist only in junkyards here and there.

I am a product of the KBSM system. In case you missed it in another blog, I do not come from a typically educated, middle-class English-speaking home. It seems that being instructed in Bahasa or another MT does not automatically compel one to be deficient in acquiring English. The surgeon's training in solving a problem typically requires their diagnosis to consist of identifying and then removing the thing they can see which was not there before thus must be what is causing the problem. But we cannot solve every problem by trying to revert everything back to how it was - cutting this out and replacing it with another part. Sometimes, we have to understand what was the original cause of deterioration and whether current beliefs and practices induced the deterioration/deficiency.

I had mentioned in a previous blog that some English-speaking, English-dreaming advocates of the policy to implement English as the medium of instruction have an unchecked air of superiority in the points they advocate. It is as if ENGLISH is the only ticket to being competitive and progressive and a final saving grace. Consider the case of Japan though. Despite the fact that Japan has taken its time to bow to its own whims and fancies in teaching their people English, their lack of English did not deter their competitiveness in the global market. It would also be prudent to note that significant numbers of native-speakers never actually acquired reading and writing and thinking skills that would've made them productive, creative forces in their given economy. This, despite the fact that they obviously dream in living English.

Before we jump into any of "Malaysia's Next Big Idea" (things which seem to make perfect sense because they just sound sensational) people need to be informed that the idea of "Total immersion" works in collaboration with a lot of other heavyweight factors. Since I am not a Linguist of any sort, I would refrain from weighing my blog down enumerating those factors. But say I were a non-English speaking student once again, how receptive would I be towards this Total Immersionism? And would my receptiveness or lack of contribute to the success of Total Immersionism? And if I were not so receptive, what sort of roles do cognitive and associative factors play in that and to what degree? Say, would students and their families perceive a threat to their own cultural identity? And would I not question, how does total immersion account for the number of failures among English-speaking people who cannot read and write at a graduate level? Or Hispanics and Blacks who are 'totally immersed' yet completely behind in their (legal) economic competitiveness?

I just drove home a point to myself : the people who would benefit most from a proficiency in English are also the least likely to question policies in a critical way. They are desperate. They probably can't read and think critically enough to go look for data which would've pointed out that total-immersion is not a be-all solution. It drives home the point that Malaysians are too eager and open to adopt change that will fill their rice-bowl or increase the volume of their future rice-bowls. That is why I do this : because the people with a 'voice' do not always speak for those who cannot have a voice.

Anyway, let's consider this :How many gifted teachers and programme facilitators would we need, logistically, to be able to set up an 'incubator' for 'total immersion' and keep the momentum going? How much research and training before that? How do we diagnose learners' from different areas to ascertain their AFs and a host of other psychological and cognitive factors that may or may not facilitate and promote the initiatives of 'total immersion'? Instead of being so ambitious in trying to tailor ideals to our local scenario, let us try and find new parts and recalibrate the whole vehicle. Sometimes, it helps to forget the old ways and try something we've never tried before.

I can go on and on, arguing one by one against the points supporting complete instruction in English. When we talk about introducing L1 as a subject only after several years, we are essentially killing off L1 as a language to read, speak, write and think critically in. If we're going to teach content (Science, Math, History, Geography) in a foreign language would that not spell the eventual death of a language? Does every language have to die so English can have its dominance? Other Mother Tongues would do a Rodney King and say, "Can't we all just get along?"

In general, I am not a stickler for traditions and cultures, but an institutionalised submission of a mother tongue to a dominant (economic and academic) language will lead it to its eventual death. A language being 'alive' is not as simple as being able to speak it but to be able to think and write in it, innovate with it and add to it. To relegate Bahasa Malaysia and other Mother Tongues to be taught only as one subject has phychological connotations as well. You're basically telling me it's not as important to me, my community, my country, the world' heritage and future diversity - and young people, lacking foresight and living on immediate gratification would never cultivate the sort of engagement and motivation required to be proficient in any given language.

What scares me about writings that get so much airspace in Malaysia (websites, newspapers, etc) is that they come from highly narrow perspectives of the big picture. Sometimes it feels like everyone just cares about their own importance in the issue, their own egos in the face of this question. If all of you English-thinking, Chinese and Malay nationalists take up all the airspace in three corners to articulate your highly eloquent opinions, who's taking care of the little guys to whom all this really matters?

The one thing all of you have in common is that you are all well-educated people who are obviously in a position to articulate, publish and garner support for your views. You all have your team to gather reports and references and this and that, which makes perfect sense when you try and outdo one another scoring points for yourselves. You have all the hard, soft data to validate whatever opinions you have already arrived at. You are all too intellectual and ambitious and egoistic, whether you realize it or not.

And whether you realize it or not, there is a sea of people who completely disagree with some or all that you say, but thanks to the very same things you are trying to champion for them, lack the sort of brazen-ness you all possess which is a given to you all, since you are all well-connected, well-read people. Their subdued response is due to their own sense of humility of not being able to 'reference' and compete in the three-cornered fight. Who are they? They are the loose collective who will be the most affected by the outcome of the things you are all debating.

From school teachers to educated parents to middle-class working parents, you all have had your say. But there is the sad silence of the majority who will be the most affected. Where are the voices of the Malay, Chinese, Indian, etc teachers who genuinely wished they had better command of English? Who have to overcome the disabled function of an innate autonomous nature? Are the children really allowed to speak? Are the low-educated, non-academic, inarticulate parents represented? Or have they simply been informed or misinformed, whichever was more convenient, to sway their responses to support whatever outcome the studies were intended?

I'll start again by saying, whether we believe we can or we cannot, we are right. I believe there are more efficient ways of teaching language development than what has always been publicly hawked. And I know this because I have spent 2 years of my own money setting up a control situation proving my theories on top of enough time in a school environment requesting for complete autonomy to give my beliefs a shot.

I would again like to put forward a disclaimer that my observations an my language incubator were not funded by any university or body which also effectively renders me impotent in any design, implementation, supervision or conclusion of what I've observed. I accept that. But the fact that the course of dozens of learners' lives have been permanently altered from their 12-24 months of language learning experience and the inspiration that they will carry with them to continue fostering autonomous language learning after they leave this experiment will bear witness to itself.

It's a piece of cake teaching students who already have some English but it's a challenge teaching students whose L1 and L2 contain a disparity of at least 10 to 15 years of full-time learning between each. It's also easy to claim success after 2 years of kindy under a levelled reading programme, but we're looking to finish the race, not just to start strong.