Prospects (2012) 42:147159

DOI 10.1007/s11125-012-9227-9
OPEN FILE

Education policies and practices to address cultural

diversity in Malaysia: Issues and challenges
Suseela Malakolunthu Nagappan C. Rengasamy

Published online: 18 July 2012

UNESCO IBE 2012

Abstract The 1969 racial riot in Kuala Lumpur served as a historical landmark in the
development of Malaysian education, as it raised concerns about the state of national unity
in the country. Subsequently, education was coupled with the socioeconomic restructuring
of Malaysian society in line with the New Economic Policy (NEP) that commenced in
1970. However, the changes delivered under the NEP also deepened the natural divides in
a multiracial society. Conditions became more challenging in the face of globalization and
the need for continued economic development. In the past decade, specific policies have
been put forth to foster racial unity at the school level, including the Vision School, the
Student Integration Plan for Unity, and Civic and Citizenship Education. But it is
becoming obvious that they will produce positive results only if a concerted effort is made
to incorporate inclusivity and multiculturalism into the national education agenda.
Keywords

Education policy
Cultural diversity
National unity
Inclusion
Malaysia

Cultural diversity in Malaysian schools and, to some extent in its higher education institutions, must be viewed from both macro- and micro-level perspectives because of the
nations demographics: the population is racially and ethnically mixed, and the socioeconomic spread is wide, between rich and poor, and between urbanites and rural people.
The macro perspective applies to the broader national-level initiatives and the micro
perspective to institutional-level interventions and activities.
The racial mix of the population is the legacy of British rule over Malaya, which lasted
nearly two centuries until Peninsular Malaya declared independence in 1957. At the time
Malays constituted 50 % of the population, along with 38 % Chinese and 11 % Indians
S. Malakolunthu (&)
Department of Educational Management, Planning and Policy, Faculty of Education,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: suseela@um.edu.my
N. C. Rengasamy
PEMM Consultants, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: dr.naga0908@gmail.com

123

148

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

(Abdul Rahim 2002). The Malays were the indigenous people; the Chinese and Indians
were the immigrants who had come from their ancient homelands as traders, entrepreneurs,
and indentured laborers but became an integral part of Malaysian society with citizenship
rights conferred by the national constitution. In 1963, the racial and ethnic mix became
more complex when the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak, the old states of Borneo, were
added in to form the confederation of Malaysia, together with Singapore which later opted
out of the agreement. As of 2009, the population of Malaysia was 27.7 million, making it
the 43rd most populous country in the world. Indigenous Malays and natives of Sabah and
Sarawak now constitute 66.8 % of the population; the Chinese constitute 24.5 %, Indians
7.4 %, and others about 1.3 % (Statistics Department Malaysia 2009).
Traditionally, Malaysia has been an agricultural country with a large percentage of the
Malays living in rural areas as peasants. The British introduced alternative commercial
activities, including rubber plantations, lumbering, mining, and the cultivation of export
crops such as cocoa and oil palm. The labourers for these activities were mainly Chinese
and Indians. The economic exploits of the British also led to the development of urban and
suburban locales inhabited largely by immigrants who tended to live in clusters with others
of the same ethnicity.
The historical pattern of Malaysias socioeconomic development had a direct influence
on the growth of the Malaysian education system when the different communities took an
interest in educating their children. But a dramatic change through the New Economic
Policy (NEP) altered the course of natural progress after a post-election race riot in 1969
that was seen as caused by socioeconomic disparities among the races. The NEP was
introduced in 1970 to contain racial tensions, eradicate poverty, and restructure society to
reduce economic imbalances. The NEP also encompassed, and aimed towards, fundamental changes in educational policy that laid the foundation for the current education
system, at the levels of both schools and higher education.
In this article we review how Malaysia has fared with the predominant challenge of
providing education to its people of diverse demographic backgrounds who are dispersed
inequitably across the country. Historically, the government had to address both the racial
and ethnic needs and rights of the people and the socioeconomic disparities among the
races. As the population grew, the government had to set up more schools, colleges, and
universities, and locate and facilitate them strategically so that they could serve all children. And to manage them, it needed policies and strategies to meet two goals: produce
skilled workers to support the countrys ongoing economic development, and meanwhile
help bring the socially and economically disadvantaged and rural people into the mainstream. We discuss five key aspects of this history that help explain the place of cultural
diversity within the Malaysian education system. These are education during British rule,
the Malaysianization of education during early independence, political and socioeconomic influences on education, the national vision and education, and micro-perspective
policies and reforms. We also examine the challenges the government had to confront as it
shaped the education system in the context of the countrys socioeconomic and sociopolitical development. Much of the data we use was extracted from previously published
articles, official documents, and interviews with certain senior citizens, former educators
who have lived through the countrys historical transformation. We conclude by showing
that Malaysias educational aims, objectives, and practices that focus on racial integration
and national unity have largely succeeded but will need further adjustments to create a
more harmonious and close-knit society. Finally, we point out that allowing Malaysian
education to become an industry that seeks foreign revenue will require the government to
explore policies and practices of inclusivity and multicultural education.

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

149

Education during British rule

Just like Malaysias multiracial population, the countrys education system originated
during British colonial rule. It began with the English-medium schools and vernacular
schools in Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil (the language of most Indians in Malaysia). A few
other vernacular schools using languages such as Telugu and Punjabi did not survive
because they lacked sufficient students. By and large, the British education policy had a
colonial orientation that was exploitative, divisive, and restricted. As Drakakis-Smith
(1992) put it, Britains main objective, driven by political will, was territorial occupation to
exploit Malaysias mineral resources and grow crops for export. The colonial attitude of
the occupying force certainly penetrated the education system in terms of both structure
and practice.
The British started the English-medium schools to create a local workforce, people who
could occupy support-staff positions in their administration. As few indigenous people
could afford the cost of English education, the British sponsored the Malay-medium
schools, a move that also helped them avoid reprisals. However, the Malays continued their
own traditional form of schooling, especially the pondok (hut) schools that provided
Islamic education (Hashim 2004). For financial reasons, the Chinese and Indian communities initiated schools to serve a large percentage of their population; these also helped
them retain their identities and promote their traditions and native culture. These vernacular schools were later extended to the secondary level to prepare students for higher
education and to support their respective education systems and community interests (MoE
2001). Consequently, the educational activities that functioned during the period of
colonial rule did not reflect any formal design or system that focused on the interest of the
national society as a whole. Nor did they aim to build a sense of commonality or unified
identity among the different racial groups; presumably, doing so would have paved the way
for national integration and unity. The British rulers were not unaware that the society was
multicultural. They did isolate and contain elements of the population that could potentially produce adverse repercussions in the future, but they did not want to stir up racial
tensions that would work against their interests (Lim et al. 2009). Therefore, they allowed
and encouraged the communities to develop their own cultural institutions, such as places
of worship and venues for arts performances. Where education was concerned, in addition
to the English schools, they approved the vernacular schools to operate autonomously with
their own agendas, mediums of instruction, curricula, and methods and standards of
teaching (MoE 2001). The leaders of vernacular schools essentially imported educational
content and practices from their countries of origin, along with various trends and initiatives. In fact, many of the teachers and headmasters also came directly from the native
countries.

Malaysianization of education
During the early years after independence, the governments emphasis was on Malaysianizing education as a national agenda and on forging a Malaysian identity, coupled with
racial integration. The precursors to a national education policy had already appeared
several years before independence: the Barnes and Fenn-Wu reports of 1950 and 1951
respectively. But it was the Razak report (Government of Malaysia 1956) that was broadly
accepted as a foundation for an indigenous school system in post-independence Malaysia.
Its recommendations were enacted in the Education Ordinance of 1957 (Government of

123

150

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

Malaysia 1957), which then gave rise to the National Education Policy. A paragraph from
the ordinance described the essential nature of the new national policy:
A national system of education acceptable to the people of the Federation [of
Malaya] as a whole which will satisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social,
economic and political development as a nation, having regard to the intention to
make Malay the national language of the country while preserving and sustaining the
growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country. (p. 1)
The Razak report had generated much discussion about the policy benchmarks that would
guide its direction. People often referred to the Swiss model which incorporated three
languages to foster unity without impairing the autonomy and equality of different
languages and cultures, and the model used in the United States in which different
immigrant groups were assimilated through the use of a common dominant language
(Borneobest 2009). The Razak report advocated using the American model but also
incorporated the right of growth for the other languages and cultures. This mindset seems
to have been upheld by the countrys policy makers to date. The key ingredients of the
Razak report were re-examined in 1960 and the findings of that study were filed as the
Rahman Talib report (MoE 1960), which reiterated that the people of independent
Malaysia agreed on the earlier education policy.
Thus, the process of creating a system of universal education for national unity and
identity commenced when the country attained independence. Beginning from 1957, as a
symbolic gesture of the new education policy, all primary schools in the country were
converted to national and national-type schools. The Malay-medium schools were
endorsed as the national schools and others as national-type schools. Apparently, they
received different levels of government support and attention. In 1958, the Malay-medium
secondary schools were opened; they had the capacity to eventually replace the English,
Chinese, and Tamil secondary schools that had developed during British rule. In 1962, as
the schools became fully funded (national) or partially assisted (national-type) under the
government, the government abolished the payment of school fees that was imposed during
British rule especially for the English schools. Thereafter, education became virtually free
for all children regardless of racial background; this move was also aligned with the spirit
of the Karachi Declaration of 1960, which aimed to provide universal primary education to
citizens (Hussein 1990).
Also in the 1960s, the government eliminated the entrance examination for secondary
schools, the Malaysian Secondary School Examination or Standard Six Examination. This
move made it possible to extend universal education from six to nine years, up to the lower
secondary level. Another major policy change that began in the 1960s was the standardization of the school curricula. All schools, whether national or national-type, would adopt
a common curriculum but present it in their respective medium of instruction. The curricular reform underpinned the objective of building common Malaysian perspectives and
indigenous points of view, and made way for the implementation of common content
examinations in all schools. In 1964, the government set up the General Syllabus and Time
Table Committee to formulate the common content curriculum for all subjects. The
committee constantly revised the school syllabuses and amended them as necessary, and in
some cases devised new ones. In 1973, the establishment of the Curriculum Development
Centre consolidated the move towards curricular standardization and incorporation with
Malaysian history, tradition, and culture. The Center continued to review, evaluate, and
develop all school curricula in line with national goals. The School Library Services Unit,

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

151

under the Schools Division, and educational television were launched at about the same
time, and a textbook loan scheme was made available.
The ultimate move to nationalize education came in 1967 when the government proclaimed Bahasa Melayu, the language of the indigenous people, as the national language
for purposes of administration and education. Over the next decade, in an effort to promote
national integration, the Malay language was gradually elevated to become the main
medium of instruction in all national schools and institutions of higher learning. However,
this change did not deter people from continuing to use their mother tongue or any other
language (Puteh 2010). The non-Malays were also able to develop their own languages and
identities through daily newspapers, periodicals, and books, as well as separate radio and
television channels.
The provision of education that aimed at access and opportunity for all children began
to extend into rural areas, from its earlier trend of clustering around urban centers. More
schools were built in the rural areas, bringing education to rural and economically disadvantaged children. To expand and improve the infrastructure of educational access and
opportunity, several fully residential schools, special science schools, and rural school
hostels were built. They were augmented further by the Textbook Loan Scheme and
educational television, along with more appealing scholarship schemes, and school meal
and health programmes (MoE 2001). Given the demographic nature of Malaysian society,
the extension of education to the underprivileged perceivably benefited more of the
Malays.

Political and socio-economic influence on education

The form of Malaysian politics also had its roots in the race-based party lines that
developed during colonial rule. The Malays sponsored the United Malays National
Organization (UMNO), the Chinese set up the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and
Indians created the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC); each group stood up for the interests
and welfare of its own community. As a mandatory requirement for Malaysias attaining
independence from the British, the UMNO, MCA, and MIC joined hands under negotiated
terms and conditions of a broader umbrella party known as the National Alliance or
Perikatan (later known as the Barisan Nasional or National Front). The tripartite alliance
of the communal parties facilitated a consultative approach to influence the policies and
directions of the government. Over the years, the tendency toward race-based party politics
increasingly solidified, although other parties later emerged that aimed to represent the
people in ways that were not based on race. They include the Democratic Action Party
(DAP), Gerakan, the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP), and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
In 1969, Malaysia, especially Peninsular Malaysia, experienced a post-election race riot
based in Kuala Lumpur, which is known as the May 13 Incident. The Malays and Chinese
engaged in a violent confrontation whose effects extended to everyone on the peninsula.
The government recognized the fragile, unstable nature of the countrys racial balance, and
sought ways to foster a more durable unity among the people. As one immediate measure it
introduced a charter of national principles called Rukun Negara in Malay. As Watson
(1980a, p. 145) espoused, the Rukun Negara aimed at bringing about the ideal Malaysian,
of whatever racial origin, who believes in God, is loyal to the king and country, upholds the
constitution, abides by the rule of law and professes upright behavior and morality. It
became a guiding principle in all future policy making, and was made a mandatory topic
for students to study in all schools and educational institutions.

123

152

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

The governments analysis of the May 13 Incident revealed that its primary cause was
the historically prevalent socio-economic imbalance among the racial groups. According to
Abdul Rahim (2002), the educational policy and developmental plan of the colonial rulers
led to a disparity of educational opportunities between and within the major ethnic groups;
it also emphasized the social and economic inequalities between the Malays and nonMalays. The government estimated that the Malays owned only 1.5 % of the nations
corporate stock, while the non-Malays and foreigners owned much higher percentages
(Jomo 2004). Until the race riot erupted, the government had not noticed the lurking racial
grievances and tension and their potential negative impact on national unity. It now recognized that it urgently needed to reinstate racial harmony and trust and eradicate the
socioeconomic imbalance and poverty among the people before it could make meaningful
advances towards nation building and national integration. Thus, in 1970, it introduced the
New Economic Policy (NEP), in the form of constitutional amendments to alleviate the
socioeconomic disparities among the people (Jomo 2004; Lim et al. 2009).
Through the NEP the government aimed to reduce the countrys poverty level from
49 % in the 1960s to 16 % by 1990; it aimed to have the national wealth distributed at a
ratio of 30 % to 40 % to 30 % among the Malays, non-Malays, and foreigners respectively. This implied huge growth for the Malays compared to the non-Malays, and it would
have to be achieved in just two decades. The government was also convinced that, on their
own, the Malays could not make the socioeconomic transformation envisioned by NEP
because of their relatively backward position compared to the non-Malays, especially the
Chinese who were far ahead commercially. If the country were to stop identifying economic activities and status by race, the government had to offer the Malays a helping hand
(Mohamad 2009; Watson 1980b).
Educationally, the government created a great deal of latitude to provide direct benefits
for the Malays. Several educational reforms, already in place, were coincidently advantageous to Malay students: the national school policy, the national language policy, and the
expansion of school facilities to rural areas. In addition, the government established the
matriculation stream, a shorter alternative to the final years of secondary school education,
to enable more Malay students to proceed to university. The government also set up a
number of residential schools to provide focused training and tutoring for the matriculation
students.
Also, during the first stipulated period of NEP, the MARA Institute of Technology
(Institut Teknologi MARA), which in 1999 was given full-fledged university status as the
MARA University of Technology (Universiti Teknologi MARA), was created from existing
technical institutions that gave preferential admission to Malay students to train and qualify
them in several professional, semi-professional, and technological disciplines. Additionally, Malay students were granted multiple government scholarships that allowed them to
further their education overseas.
Meanwhile, specific activities were successfully promoting the policy of Malaysianizing
education. By 1983, the Malay language had become the main medium of instruction
throughout the education system including the public universities. In Peninsular Malaysia
and Sabah, English ceased to be the medium of instruction at the primary level in 1975, at
the secondary level in 1982, and at the university level in 1983 (MoE 2001). In Sarawak,
the transformation began in 1977. Today, Malay is the medium of instruction in all national
schools and a compulsory subject in the vernacular Mandarin and Tamil schools. English is
taught as a second language in all schools. In 1980, the Malaysian Certificate of Education
examination for final- year upper secondary students was first conducted completely
in Malay.

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

153

Thus, it would be accurate to say that by 1983 an indigenous system of Malaysian

education, adapted to local societal conditions, had evolved. Was the system a fully and
functionally integrated one that brought the different races closer together, or one that was
socio-politically correct in its operation and realized at the cost of racial integration? That
question is open for debate, but it has proven to be a system that worked. Though nonMalays continue to be disgruntled over questions of fairness and equity, the system certainly appears to have allowed for the cultural diversity of the various races to co-exist,
each with its own space and power to grow and preserve its own identity and at the same
time project a national identity.

National vision and education

The next phase of development of the Malaysian education took place after the 1980s,
when Malaysia found itself drawn into the mainstream of world economic activities by
becoming a trading nation. It attracted many foreign direct investments through multinational companies from the developed countries such as the United States, United
Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. A basic requirement of these arrangements is
that the host country provides a stable and viable business environment that can create the
necessary supply of skilled workers for the investors. The policy on education shifted
markedly. Rather than develop more programmes to integrate the population beyond the
racial divides, the government began to look at inculcating common and universal values
that focused on individual growth and citizenry responsibility and also equip students with
the technical and management skills sought by industry. To this end, in 1989, the Ministry
of Education released a National Education Philosophy statement which reads as follows:
Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further developing the potential
of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who
are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious,
based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is designed to produce
Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral
standards and who are responsible and capable of achieving high level of standards
and who are responsible and capable of achieving high level of personal well-being
as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the
society and the nation at large. (MoE 1988, p. 2).
The new education philosophy ushered in two important changes. First, it supported a
paradigm shift in the countrys long-standing industrialization process, one that was
coupled with the sweeping forces of globalization and information and communications
technology (ICT) in the latter part of the 1980s and the 1990s. If the government were to
see through its industrialization phase successfully, and bring about socioeconomic
transformation and modernization in Malaysia, it had to produce and provide the right mix
of human capital to meet market needs at all levels. Second, it marked a leap forward for
the government and general population from the historically-based obsession with racial
harmonization and integration, towards a determined focus on social welfare and economic
prosperity for all. The industrialization process and growth of both multinational and local
companies, and of new urban centers, also created a new environment for the different
races to come together as a collective workforce beyond their racial and cultural
prejudices, which gave rise to a new consciousness of Malaysian identity. Remarkably,
urban schools became more mixed, bringing together students of all ethnic groups and

123

154

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

income levels. As the new education philosophy was translated into various educational
activities, the nation-building efforts of the countrys leaders and policy makers indeed
took a different direction.
The dawn of the 1990s also gave birth to the promise of a more united, mutually
accepting, and harmonious society, one moving beyond racial and cultural differences
through the National Vision (Wawasan) 2020. The National Vision 2020 is a comprehensive ideology and strategy through which Malaysia can achieve the status of a fullydeveloped nation by the end of a 30-year period. The vision meant that Malaysia had to
make a quantum leap, adapting and accommodating to a globalizing and modern world and
keeping pace with ever-evolving technological developments. For those in education,
Vision 2020 meant building a world-class education system that would be dedicated to
producing a world-class workforce. More importantly, the national vision emphasized the
raising of a Malaysian Race (Bangsa Malaysia) which it was believed would enable
Malaysians to see themselves beyond their immediate racial and cultural identity. Aptly,
the Ministry of Education repositioned itself with a new mission, which is to develop a
world-class quality education system that will realize the full potential of the individual
and fulfill the aspirations of the reforms and institutional changes. And, to establish the
legal basis for all of the transformation initiatives, the Education Act 1961 was replaced by
the Education Act 1996 to regulate the furtherance and expansion of these educational
developments (Hussin 2004).
The 1996 act facilitated further integration and expansion of the education system at the
primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. One key change in elementary education was
incorporating pre-school education into the national educational system. By doing so, the
government aimed to provide early education that would reach all children on equal terms.
Attention was also paid to expanding access to pre-university and tertiary education by
setting up many more institutions: public and private universities and branch campuses of
foreign universities, along with university colleges, matriculation colleges, community and
polytechnic colleges, and private colleges. At last, the Malaysian education system was
able to build a complete infrastructure with abundant educational institutions and facilities
to enable students of all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds to pursue tertiary education within the country, sometimes at only nominal cost. After they complete upper
secondary schooling, and depending on their performance in the common public examination, students may be streamed into academic, professional, or vocational disciplines
where they may continue with matriculation, higher secondary, or polytechnic courses.
They have the option to enter universities if they have the required qualifications, or to
enter the job market. Students can also pursue their higher education aspirations at universities overseas, through private funding, government scholarships, and sponsorships
from public agencies.

Micro-perspective policies and practices

Clearly, the major policies that were designed and executed since the early days of the
countrys independence, including those in the Razak and Rahman Talib reports, along
with Rukun Negara, the New Economic Policy, the National Education Philosophy, and
National Vision 2020, have broadly shaped the Malaysian education system as it is today.
Equally clearly, in all of the policies and their extended interpretations that impacted the
curricular reforms and textbook preparation and distribution as well as the creation of
supportive infrastructure, the multiracial composition and cultural diversity of the

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

155

population has been upheld as a critical factor in decision making. They have also influenced the operational procedures and day-to-day activities of both schools and higher
education institutions.
To begin with, all schools must conform to the rule of enrolling students of any
background who live within the geographical vicinity of a school, and providing them with
equal and universal treatment. One standard applies across all the nations schools. Prescribed conditions also govern the distribution of students into the different streams of
courses such as science or arts, and the allocation of places in classes and awarding of
government aid for textbooks, and no preferential criteria apply to any community.
Moreover, the respective student groups can use a majority vote to appoint students to
positions such as class monitor, and to offices in co-curricular activities such as the board
of prefects.
As in academic subjects, participation in co-curricular activities has been made mandatory for all students. Each student must become a member of least three clubs, and
participate actively in a certain percentage of the activities for the year, thus increasing the
chances of interaction and collective behaviour among various groups of students. Much
emphasis is also placed on engaging in social services and outdoor activities such as
excursions and camping, which create opportunities for students to socialize. Where the
student numbers warrant, religious sessions such as prayer before examinations are
sponsored. By the same token it is important to note that Malaysian schools pay great
attention to the spiritual development of students but without enforcing any specific religious doctrine on other groups. The schools offer mandatory courses in religion for Muslim
students; instead of religion, non-Muslim students take a compulsory course in Moral
Education. The propagation of universal values, irrespective of any intellectual or spiritual
tradition or geographical reference, is also intensely practiced. Some secondary schools
have begun teaching foreign languages depending on popular interest such as Arabic,
Japanese, and French; this also paves the way for thinking about other cultures.
The micro-perspective policies and strategies to address demographic differences and
cultural diversity do face some challenges. The proportions of each race in the population
differ in each region. For example, many schools, especially in remote areas of Peninsular
Malaysia, enroll only Malays, and schools in Sabah and Sarawak in East Malaysia enroll
only natives of those regions, including members of the Kadazan, Iban, Melanau, Bidayu,
Murut, and Penan ethnic groups. Where a student population is racially mixed, the percentage of Malays may vary from 25 to 97 %. In certain remote areas where the majority
of students are either Chinese or Indians, only a few Malays may be enrolled, or none at all.
Naturally, the government faces questions about how to standardize, or offer alternate
ideas for, curricular and co-curricular activities, cultural practices, and approaches to
teaching and learning. Conventionally, racial and religious issues are regarded as taboo and
avoided as talking points in the schools. But the racial and inter-ethnic relationships among
students continue to pose a grave concern to the government because students tend to
cluster with others of their ethnic group, in both schools and higher education institutions.
This phenomenon appeared to provide a window into what was happening in the country at
large. As in the past, the government has addressed the issue through several programmes.
Student integration plan for unity
The Ministry of Education commenced the Student Integration Plan for Unity programme
in 1986 at the primary level and in 2005 at the secondary level. It was intended to create
greater and more meaningful integration among students of different ethnic backgrounds

123

156

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

through positive relationships and understanding, by having students become aware of and
appreciative of others cultural and religious beliefs and values. Under this programme,
teachers, students, school staff, and community members were expected to work together
or engage in special outdoor projects such as camping, sporting activities, excursions, and
visits to zoos, nature parks, and historical sites that would foster cooperation, collaboration,
mutual help, and unity (MoE 2007).
Civics and citizenship education
The Ministry of Education also introduced Civics and Citizenship Education as a subject in
2004 with the objective of raising awareness among students about their roles, rights, and
responsibilities towards the society and nation. It aimed to produce patriotic and responsible students who would work towards building a united nation. The curriculum was based
on the four key principles of education: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live
together, and learning to be. It focused on three themes: personal development, community
development, and multicultural heritage development. It included such activities as relationship building, family profiling and development, peer counseling, caring for orphans
and older people, knowing ones neighbors, and participating in cultural performances,
multicultural food fairs, multicultural exhibitions, and protecting historical artifacts.
Vision school
The Vision School policy was introduced in 1995 to address the fact that students in the
vernacular schools were isolated from the mainstream school practices. Most vernacular
schools are homogenous: students spend six of their formative years in them without
having to engage with students of other ethnic backgrounds. The Vision School would
house Malay-, Chinese-, and Tamil-medium schools in the same compound or campus
without affecting the integrity of their operations. The idea was that this context would
bring children of the different races into physical proximity where they could mingle, and
would create opportunities for them to become aware of, and adapt to, different cultural
mindsets. The explicit policy statement regarding the Vision School was that it would
foster racial integration, harmony, and unity among the different ethnic/racial groups
(MoE 1995).
The Vision School concept essentially required that the participating schools share
common amenities and physical facilities such as playing fields, multi-purpose halls, and
cafeterias, and take part in each others celebrations of cultural events and festivals
(Malakolunthu 2009). Otherwise, the individual schools would attend to their usual work
of teaching and learning as independent units. Each would have its own headmaster, and
teaching and administrative staff, who would not be affiliated to the member schools in any
official way. They would have the same curriculum as the regular schools and would teach
the non-language subjects in the respective vernacular language.
In practice, however, the Vision School initiative seems to have hit a snag. Other than
the physical relocation of the schools, the function of molding the students inter-culturally
through an agenda of activities has not produced the desired results. A 2005 study of the
Vision Schools revealed that the policy was flawed by a lack of research and understanding
of the nature of the project and its objectives; also, the head teachers and teachers were
poorly prepared and operated just as in the regular vernacular schools (Malakolunthu et al.
2010). Moreover, of the eight schools that are supposedly administered under the banner of
a Vision School, only one includes schools in all three languages. The other seven include

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

157

only Malay- and Tamil-medium schools. The Chinese have abstained from participating in
the initiative out of fear that the Vision Schools would eventually be assimilated into
national schools.

Challenges ahead for the government

Over the 54 years of independence, the Malaysian government has made extraordinary
advances in reconstructing the education system: from one molded by history, it has now
become a modern engine of national change and development that is acceptable, within
reasonable bounds, to all the cultural groups in the society. The earlier policies of independent Malaysia brought about structural changes in the ideology and manner of offering
education that made it possible and feasible for all children to go to school regardless of
race, religion, and socioeconomic background. Those of the 1970s focused on academic
development, focusing on the curriculum content; they also created a mechanism to review
and realign them periodically with the progress taking place in the country. Those of the
1980s built on the National Principles and National Education Philosophy; the objective of
education that emerged was the holistic development of students as individuals and
responsible citizens, but it continued to rest on the premise of national integration. The
policies of the 1990s began with the National Vision 2020 and turned Malaysian education
into an industry to cater for the extended and multi-faceted requirements of education for a
growing population, also aiming to help internationalize Malaysian education to generate
revenue for the nation.
The policies introduced during the post-independence period, aiming first to construct
an education system that fit the countrys history and cultural constitution, and then during
the industrialization and modernization phase, to keep pace with socioeconomic development in the global environment, have laid a strong foundation for Malaysia to become an
education hub in the region. Remarkably, the population of international students has been
growing each year. It is estimated that the private institutions in the country are hosting
about 75,000 foreign students; this number is expected to grow to 150,000 by 2015 and
200,000 by 2020 (Lets make our regional hub work 2011, p. 14).
As Malaysian education has grown and expanded, the challenge of tackling cultural
diversity through education has become bifurcated in recent years. On the one hand, the
government has yet to overcome the unresolved issues of the social gap and polarization
among Malaysian students. On the other hand, it has to learn to work around the growing
cultural diversity that has been created largely by the presence of international students.
With regard to the social gap, it is laudable that much has already been accomplished, both
structurally and systemically, over the years. However, people are still significantly dissatisfied with various operational and procedural interventions. They often see the distinctions between national and national-type schools as unfair, unequal, or discriminatory.
The same applies to the point of entry into university. The government certainly must find
ways to address and dismantle these perceptions of prejudice.
In regard to international students, the issue is largely whether the learning environment,
both physical and psychological, is supportive and inclusive. Perhaps it is time for the
government to look into policies and practices for providing an inclusive learning environment at all levels of the education system in both the private and public sectors.
Moreover, as the phenomenon of cultural diversity is both an inherent and extended reality
of the education system, and becoming more so globally, the government should also

123

158

S. Malakolunthu, N. C. Rengasamy

consider incorporating aspects of multicultural educational practices into its national

education philosophy.

Conclusions
We have attempted to provide an objective narrative of the historical development of
Malaysian education and its impact on cultural diversity. Clearly, the Malaysian education
system has picked itself up out of the shambles of its colonial arrangements and grown into a
completely indigenous system that is robust and internationally recognized. It may not have
achieved its ideal state yet, in terms of satisfying the different needs of the different groups
within the society. But it certainly has demonstrated a great deal of tenacity and pragmatism
in its efforts to build a nation that has been endowed with a multiracial population, with a
precarious mix demographically, socio-politically, and socioeconomically.
During at least six major periods, beginning with the Education Ordinance of 1957 and
ending with the National Vision 2020 in 1990, policy reviews and formulations were
carried out to reflect the countrys state of development and progress. The policies have
facilitated the creation of an education system and adapted to a constantly evolving education philosophy that addressed both the immediate and individual needs of the racially
divided communities in the short term and the restructuring of society in the long term to
bring about a balanced co-existence among the members. At the same time, the continuous
growth of the system has led to the development of an industry and internationalization of
Malaysian education to generate foreign revenue.
Looking ahead, the next phase of growth and policy making will have to incorporate the
elements of inclusivity and multiculturalism into the National Education Philosophy. This
is imperative, for it will help to address the negative perceptions of certain segments of the
Malaysian people and therefore produce greater harmony among them; it will also be
socially and psychologically helpful to international students who would appreciate getting
an education in a more amicable Malaysian environment.

References
Abdul Rahim, A. R. (2002). Education and nation formation in Malaysia: A structured analysis. Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Borneobest (2009). Education system under national education act22/11/2009. http://borneobest.com/
edsyunnaedac.html.
Drakakis-Smith, D. (1992). Pacific Asia. London: Routledge.
Government of Malaysia (1956). Razak report. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.
Government of Malaysia (1957). Education ordinance. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.
Hashim, R. (2004). Educational dualism: Implications for theory and practice. Kuala Lumpur: The Other
Press. http://borneobest.com/edsyunnaedac.html.
Hussein, A. (1990). Gearing education and training towards the needs of the nineties. Suara Pendidik, 13(3),
620.
Hussin, S. (2004). Pendidikan di Malaysia: Sejarah, sistem dan falsafah [Education in Malaysia: History,
system and philosophy]. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka.
Jomo, K. S. (2004). The new economic policy and interethnic relations in Malaysia (Occasional Paper).
Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social Development.
Lets Make Our Regional Education Hub Work (2011, April 13). The Sun, p. 14. http://www.thesundaily.
my/news/thesunsays/let%E2%80%99s-make-our-regional-education-hub-work.
Lim, T. G., Gomes, A., & Rahman, A. (2009). Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, present and future. Petaling Jaya:
Strategic Information and Research Development Center (SIRDC).

123

Education policies and practices to address cultural diversity

159

Malakolunthu, S. (2009). Educational reform and policy dynamics: A case of the Malaysian Vision
School for racial integration. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 123134.
Malakolunthu, S., Siraj, S., & Rengasamy, N. C. (2010). Multicultural education as a reform initiative:
Reconstructing teacher preparation for Malaysian Vision Schools. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 19(3), 453464.
MoE [Ministry of Education, Malaysia] (1960). Rahman Talib report. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.
MoE [Ministry of Education, Malaysia] (1988). National education philosophy. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum
Development Centre.
MoE [Ministry of Education, Malaysia] (1995). Sekolah Wawasan: Konsep dan pelaksanaan [Vision
School: Concept and implementation]. Kuala Lumpur: MoE.
MoE [Ministry of Education, Malaysia] (2001). Education in Malaysia: A journey to excellence. Putrajaya:
MoE.
MoE [Ministry of Education, Malaysia] (2007). Kertas kerja aktiviti rancangan integrasi murid untuk
perpaduan [Student integration for unity activity planning, working paper]. Putrajaya: MoE.
Mohamad, M. (2009). Politics of the NEP and ethnic relations in Malaysia. In T. G. Lim, A. Gomes, &
A. Rahman, Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, present and future (pp. 113139). Petaling Jaya: Strategic
Information and Research Development Center (SIRDC).
Puteh, A. (2010). The language medium policy in Malaysia: A plural society model? Review of European
Studies, 2(2), 192200.
Statistics Department Malaysia (2009). Source key data, quarter two (Q2). Putrajaya: Statistics Department.
Watson, J. K. P. (1980a). Education and cultural pluralism in South East Asia, with special reference to
Peninsular Malaysia. Comparative Education, 16(2), 139158.
Watson, J. K. P. (1980b). Cultural pluralism, nation-building and educational policies in peninsular
Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1(2), 155174.

Author Biographies
Suseela Malakolunthu (Malaysia) is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, University of
Malaya. On a Fulbright fellowship, she studied multicultural education and leadership at Stanford University
in 2005 and 2006, and was a research fellow at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Currently, as a fellow
with the Centre for Commonwealth Education at Cambridge University, she collaborates on international
education development projects. In addition to articles, chapters and monographs, she has published two
books: Teacher learning in Malaysia: Problems and possibilities of reform, and Fulbright chronicles:
American experience, Malaysian perspective. She edits and reviews papers for several international journals,
and provides consulting services on school improvement in the areas of teaching and learning and
leadership.
Nagappan C. Rengasamy (Malaysia) is a senior consultant in technical vocational education and training
(TVET) at PEMM Consultants, Kuala Lumpur. He has over 30 years of industry experience in both
operational and educational capacities, and has developed and delivered a wide range of competency-based
programmes for professional development. He has also conducted research in educational development in
Malaysia and published several articles in international journals.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.