See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248933745

Ethnic segregation in Malaysia's education system: Enrolment choices,

preferential policies and desegregation

Article  in  Paedagogica Historica · February 2010

DOI: 10.1080/00309230903528496

CITATIONS READS

17 3,904

2 authors, including:

Santhiram Raman
Wawasan Open University
18 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Santhiram Raman on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]
On: 28 April 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919025636]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Paedagogica Historica
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713441262

Ethnic segregation in Malaysia's education system: enrolment choices,

preferential policies and desegregation
Santhiram R. Ramana; Tan Yao Suab
a
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei, Darussalam b
Centre for Policy Research and International Studies, University of Science Malaysia, Penang,
Malaysia

Online publication date: 25 March 2010

To cite this Article Raman, Santhiram R. and Sua, Tan Yao(2010) 'Ethnic segregation in Malaysia's education system:
enrolment choices, preferential policies and desegregation', Paedagogica Historica, 46: 1, 117 — 131
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00309230903528496
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00309230903528496

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Paedagogica Historica
Vol. 46, Nos. 1–2, February–April 2010, 117–131

Ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education system: enrolment

choices, preferential policies and desegregation
Santhiram R. Ramana* and Tan Yao Suab
a
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei,
Darussalam; bCentre for Policy Research and International Studies, University of Science
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Paedagogica
10.1080/00309230903528496
CPDH_A_453313.sgm
0030-9230
Original
Taylor
2010
Dr
0000002010
1/2
46
santhira@shbie.ubd.edu.bn
SanthiramRaman
&
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1477-674X
Francis
Historica (online)

Ethnic segregation has become an emerging feature in Malaysia’s education

system even though the institutional role of education should have been a unifying
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

force for the country’s multi-ethnic society. The underlying problem is that, at all
levels of education provision in Malaysia, alternative streams are allowed to
coexist alongside mainstream education provided by the government. Alarmingly,
these alternative streams are not reinforcing what mainstream education is trying
to do: foster ethnic integration. Instead, the alternative streams have become
divided along ethnic lines. This paper looks at the development of Malaysia’s
education system and examines two main factors that have contributed to the
current state of ethnic segregation: enrolment choices and preferential policies.
These two factors have in one way or another helped to strengthen the coexistence
of alternative streams alongside mainstream education from which ethnic
segregation emerges. These alternative streams have become competing rather
than supplementary/complementary forces capable of challenging mainstream
education. This paper explains how these two factors contribute to ethnic
segregation at all levels of education notwithstanding their causal relationships at
certain levels of education. Second, it evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of
the measures taken by the Malaysian government to desegregate the education
system.
Keywords: educational policy development; multicultural societies; national
integration

Introduction
Ethnic segregation has become a deep-seated problem in Malaysia’s education
system. As education is an important socialising agent, continuing ethnic segrega-
tion is a cause for concern that impedes ethnic interaction and potentially manifests
itself in an ethnically polarised society. The problem of ethnic segregation in
Malaysia’s education system becomes acute as Malaysia is a plural society compris-
ing three main ethnic groups: Malays, Chinese, and Indians. Malays are the indige-
nous population, while Chinese and Indians were originally immigrants who came
to Malaya (Malaysia after 1963) in large numbers in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. These ethnic groups have diverse languages, cultures, and reli-
gions, which have become barriers to inter-ethnic interactions. Also, due to the
rural–urban residential predominance of certain ethnic groups (Malays, the largest

*Corresponding author. Email: santhiram.raman@ubd.edu.bn

ISSN 0030-9230 print/ISSN 1477-674X online

© 2010 Stichting Paedagogica Historica
DOI: 10.1080/00309230903528496
http://www.informaworld.com
 118 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

ethnic group, are the dominant domiciled group in rural villages; Chinese, the
second largest ethnic group, are the largest group residing in urban centres; Indians,
the third largest group, are scattered in rural estates and on the fringes of the urban
areas), until schooling age, most Malaysian children, regardless of ethnicity, have
only brief encounters with members of an ethnic group other than their own. As
such, there is indeed a need for education to serve as a common platform upon
which all ethnic groups can come together and interact with each other in order to
achieve a significant degree of understanding and tolerance. This would in some
small way make up for all the inherent differences that have divided them into
disparate units. Ethnic interaction can, among other things, promote a realistic sense
of inter-ethnic integration. This is because “when groups work together toward
common goals, further opportunities are presented for developing and discovering
similarities of interests and values”.1 While Malaysia’s education system tries to
provide a common system of mainstream education to foster national integration
among the various ethnic groups, it also allows for alternative streams of education
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

delivery at all levels of education to fulfil divergent needs and interests. Unfortu-
nately, these alternative streams are divided along ethnic lines and have severely
undermined the professed objective of using education as a tool of nation-building.
Some of these alternative streams have their historical roots, while others are of
more recent creation. The main contention of this paper is that the coexistence of
alternative streams alongside mainstream education would not constitute a problem
if it does not create divisions along ethnic lines and involves only a small minority.
But these alternative streams have evolved into competing rather than supplemen-
tary/complementary forces capable of challenging mainstream education. Some
might argue that this augurs well for the notion of diversity in a plural society, but
diversity has to be achieved within the larger interest of national unity. Two factors,
namely enrolment choices and preferential policies, have contributed significantly to
the state of ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education system. This paper is guided
by two main objectives. First, it traces how these two factors contribute to ethnic
segregation at all levels of education notwithstanding their causal relationships at
certain levels of education. Second, it explains the various measures undertaken by
the Malaysian government to desegregate the education system.

Enrolment choices
Enrolment choices over what kinds of schools to attend have been one of the major
factors that have contributed to the current state of ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s
education system. This is most evident at the primary level where the use of different
media of instruction is allowed so that the linguistic and cultural needs of different
ethnic groups could be fulfilled. When Malaysia achieved independence in 1957, the
government allowed three types of primary schools to coexist within the ambit of the
national education system. They are national primary school teaching in Malay, which
is the national language, Chinese primary school teaching in the mother tongue of the
Chinese, and Tamil primary schools teaching in the mother tongue of the Indians.
There are currently 5761 national primary schools, 1287 Chinese primary schools, and

1Thomas F. Pettigrew and Patricia J. Pajonas, “The Social Psychology of Heterogeneous

School,” in Cultural Challenges to Education: The Influence of Cultural Factors in School
Learning, ed. Cole S. Brembeck and Walker H. Hill (Toronto: Lexington), 94.
 Paedagogica Historica 119

525 Tamil primary schools in Malaysia.2 This multi-lingual set-up of the education
system has historical roots and was largely the legacy of the divide-and-rule policy
implemented by the British colonial power. Due to the laissez faire policy of the
British, children of Chinese and Indian immigrants who came in large numbers begin-
ning in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century to work as indentured
labourers in the colonial economy were allowed to go through vernacular education in
their mother tongues.3 The Malay indigenous population was mainly encouraged to
attend Malay-medium schools. Thus, education during the colonial period was essen-
tially a divisive force in society and tended to support its ethnic plural population.4 The
only exception was English schools established by the British and mission groups in
urban areas. Although after the Second World War, when decolonisation and eventual
self-government became inevitable, the British tried to reorganise the segregated
system of education by proposing the establishment of national schools for all races
that used English and Malay as media of instruction, this proposal was rejected by the
non-Malays who had promoted their languages and cultures through the provision of
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

mother-tongue education. The strongest rejection came from the Chinese educationists
affiliated to the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association (UCSTA or Jiao Zong)
and the United Chinese School Committees’ Association (UCSCA or Dong Zong).5
At the time of independence, out of political expediency, the segregated system of
primary school, which was made up of 2144 national primary schools, 1275 Chinese
primary schools, and 898 Tamil primary schools,6 was accepted by the government as
an integral part of the national education system.7 These Chinese and Tamil primary
schools had become alternative streams that catered to the language and cultural main-
tenance intent of the minority groups. Currently, more than 90% of Chinese parents
and about 50% of Indian parents enrol their children in these schools.8 Although, over
the years, the national primary schools had grown in numbers and became mainstream
primary schools entrusted to serve as a common platform of socialisation for children
of all races in the post-independence era, by and large they failed to appeal to the non-
Malays, especially the Chinese, and remained largely a Malay preserve. The phasing
out of English-medium primary schools that used to have a fair mix of all ethnic
groups between 1971 and 1976 further exacerbated the problem of ethnic segregation
at the primary level. In 2003, for instance, from a population of 2,211,971 pupils
enrolled in the national primary schools, the number of Chinese students was a mere
46,670 (2.1%) and Indians 95,180 (4.3%).9 The small number of non-Malay students

2The Star, January 17, 2007.

3For a detailed account see Loh Fook Seng, Seeds of Separatism: Educational Policy in
Malaya 1874–1940 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1975).
4Gayl D. Ness, Bureaucracy and Rural Development in Malaysia (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967), 43.
5UCSTA was established in 1951 and UCSCA in 1954. See Tan Liok Ee, The Politics of
Chinese Education in Malaya, 1945–1961 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1997).
6Mok Soon Sang, Malaixiya Jiaoyu Shi [History of the Malaysian Education System] (Kuala
Lumpur: The United Chinese School Teachers’ Association of Malaysia, 2000), 67.
7See Federation of Malaya, Report of the Education Committee 1956 (Kuala Lumpur:
Government Press, 1956).
8Nanyang Siang Pau [Nanyang Daily], January 1, 2007.
9Abdul Rafie Mahat, “Education in Malaysia: Unifying or Divisive?,” in Education in
Malaysia: Unifying or Divisive? (MSRC-KAF Inter-Cultural Discourse Series III), ed. Abdul
Razak Baginda and Peter Schier (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Strategic Research Centre and
Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation, 2003), 25.
 120 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

in the national primary schools has rendered the role of these schools as a crucible of
nation-building ineffective. Instead, it has heightened the segregated nature of primary
schooling in Malaysia.
Despite policy intervention in the early 1960s, at the secondary level ethnic
segregation is also a cause of concern in Malaysia’s education system. At the time of
independence there were three types of secondary schools using Malay, English, and
Chinese as the medium of instruction. The main concern of the government was the
problem of ethnic segregation caused by the Chinese secondary schools. The growth
of Chinese secondary schools was the result of the laissez faire policy implemented
by the British who allowed the Chinese to set up not only Chinese primary schools but
Chinese secondary schools as well. By 1939, there were already 36 Chinese secondary
schools in the Malay Peninsula.10 Beginning in the early 1960s, the government
started to initiate policies aimed at alleviating the problem of ethnic segregation at the
secondary level. It enacted the Education Act of 1961, which required all secondary
schools to use Malay or English as the medium of instruction, failing which state fund-
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

ing would be withdrawn.11 This policy intervention was aimed at strengthening

national integration among the different ethnic groups through the use of a common
medium of instruction. The Chinese educationists reacted strongly to the Act. But out
of the dire need for state funding, a large number of Chinese secondary schools
decided to fall in line with the official policy and had their medium of instruction
changed initially to English and later to Malay when English-medium education was
phased out in the 1970s. These schools were known as the national-type Chinese
secondary schools or the conforming schools. They were permitted to continue teach-
ing Chinese language and literature as subjects with the assurance that more periods
would be allocated for these two subjects.12
But, contrary to the expectation of the government, this move was not successful
in alleviating the problem of ethnic segregation at the secondary level. Despite the
change of medium of instruction, the national-type Chinese secondary schools were
still regarded by the Chinese community as “Chinese schools” mainly because Chinese
is still taught as a language within the curriculum, the internal culture of the school
remains identifiably Chinese, and the schools have retained close links with the local
Chinese community.13 There are currently 78 such schools located mainly in urban
areas and they are generally the preferred choice of Chinese for secondary education.
The total enrolment of students in these schools is about 25,000, constituting about 40%
of Chinese students in the national stream.14 Almost all of them come from the Chinese
primary schools. The remaining 60% of Chinese students are enrolled in the main-
stream Malay-medium national secondary schools. These secondary schools are either

10Tan Liok Ee, “Chinese Independent Schools in West Malaysia: Varying Responses to
Changing Demands,” in Changing Identities of the Southeast Asian Chinese Since World War
II, ed. Jennifer W. Cushman and Wang Gungwu (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,
1988), 61.
11See Federation of Malaya, Education Act, 1961 (Kuala Lumpur: Acting Government
Printer, 1961).
12Tan, “Chinese Independent Schools in West Malaysia: Varying Responses to Changing
Demands,” 61–62.
13Tan Liok Ee, The Politics of Chinese Education in Malaya, 1945–1961, 1–2.
14Tan Yao Sua, Pendidikan Dwibahasa Transisi Etnik Cina Semenanjung Malaysia
[Transitional Bilingual Education of the Ethnic Chinese in Peninsular Malaysia] (Pulau
Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2007), 115.
 Paedagogica Historica 121

Malay secondary schools set up by the government or the former English-medium

secondary schools converted to Malay medium of instruction in the 1970s. It is in these
schools that enrolment is racially mixed. Most of these schools are located either in
urban areas or semi-urban areas where there are large concentrations of Chinese. But
these schools constitute only a small fraction of the national secondary school system.
The bulk of the national secondary schools are located in rural areas. Enrolment in these
rural secondary schools is predominantly Malay. This is inevitable, as Malays consti-
tute the dominant group in rural areas. In this regard, enrolment choices that have led
to ethnic segregation at the secondary level in Malaysia’s education system are inter-
twined with the demographic pattern of Malaysia’s population.
Alongside mainstream or public secondary schools, there exist several alternative
avenues that cater to specific ethnic interests. These alternative streams have thus
become sources of ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education system. One is the fully
residential school system established by the government for Malay students. This
privileged school system is a product of preferential policies implemented since 1970
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

under the aegis of the New Economic Policy (NEP). It aimed at enhancing the educa-
tional mobility of the Malays, especially in the area of science and technical educa-
tion. We will come back to this point in another section of this paper. There are
currently 54 such schools.15 The most notable of these schools are the science second-
ary schools. Another type of fully residential school that also caters specifically for
Malay students is the Junior Science Colleges established by Majlis Amanah Rakyat
(MARA) or Council of Trust for the Indigenous People. In 2005, enrolment in the
MARA Junior Science Colleges was 20,162.16 There are currently a total of 45 Mara
Junior Science Colleges in the country.
Yet another type of school that caters solely for the Malays are the Islamic reli-
gious schools. Since independence, Islam has been designated the official religion of
Malaysia. Historical evidence indicates that Islam was already established in the
Malay Peninsula by the fourteenth century.17 Islamic religious schools had long
existed in Malaysia and had their origins in Qur’anic classes conducted in the homes
of religious teachers, mosques or surau.18 Qur’anic classes were the only educational
institutions in the Malay States in the days before the coming of the British.19 To
acquire the knowledge of Islam, Malay children were sent to these classes at a very
young age. The emergence of pondok institutions in the nineteenth century and later
Madrasah institutions at the turn of the twentieth century had a catalytic effect on the
growth of Islamic education. But the Madrasah institutions declined during the 1950s
and 1960s primarily because of the incorporation of Islamic religious education into
the curriculum of the national schools.20 During the 1970s, there was a surge of
Islamic education as a result of Islamic resurgence.21 Religious schools were built by

15New Sunday Times, January 17, 2007.

16Malaysia, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010 (Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Prime
Minister’s Department, 2006), 243.
17Rosnani Hashim, Education Dualism in Malaysia: Implications for Theory and Practise.
2nd ed. (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2004), 21.
18Ibid., 22.
19Rex Stevenson, Cultivators and Administrators: British Educational Policy towards the
Malays 1875–1906 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1975), 15.
20Rosnani, Education Dualism in Malaysia: Implications for Theory and Practise, 72–75.
21Chandra Muzaffar, Islamic Resurgence in Malaysia (Petaling Jaya: Penerbit Fajar Bakti,
1987).
 122 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

the state governments through their respective religious departments. Meanwhile, reli-
gious schools were also established either by individuals or by the community. These
schools, which received funding either from the federal government, state govern-
ment, or state religious departments or religious council, had their own board of
governors and were popularly known as sekolah rakyat or people’s religious schools.
A survey by the Ministry of Education in 1977 showed that there were 52 state reli-
gious schools with 14,279 students and 537 rakyat religious schools with 68,785
students.22 Driven by Islamic resurgence, the government too, through its Islamisation
programme, established national secondary religious schools. There are currently 55
national secondary religious schools spread across the country.23 More importantly,
the government established an International Islamic University in 1983 to serve as
the pinnacle of Islamic education.
The existence of private Chinese secondary schools that serve the interests of the
Chinese community constitutes another source of ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s
education system. These are the independent Chinese secondary schools that teach
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

mainly in Chinese. These independent schools are former Chinese secondary schools
that had opted not to comply with the Education Act of 1961, which required all
schools to switch to the national medium of instruction in order to receive government
financial assistance. The decision not to comply with the official policy was driven by
the strong desire of the Chinese to propagate mother-tongue education. There are
currently 60 such schools with a total enrolment of approximately 55,000 students.24
These schools are funded by the Chinese community and managed by the Chinese
educationists affiliated to the UCSCA and the UCSTA. The Chinese educationists
had, since the 1970s, made concerted efforts to strengthen the independent Chinese
secondary schools as an alternative form of secondary education for Chinese children
outside the government public school system. This was inspired by their grand vision
to establish a complete system of Chinese education linking these secondary schools
with the Chinese primary schools and ultimately with a Chinese higher institution of
learning. This grand vision was finally realised with the establishment of the New Era
College, a private institution of higher learning teaching mainly in Chinese, in 1998.25
This was made possible by drastic changes in the provision of higher education, espe-
cially private higher education in Malaysia in the 1990s. However, these changes had
resulted in ethnic segregation at the tertiary level, especially between the public and
the private institutions of higher learning. The establishment of the New Era College
that caters to the interests of the Chinese is only one such example.
The phenomenal growth in the provision of private higher education in Malaysia
began in the 1980s. It shifted from one of containment to controlled development. By
1996, new legislation was brought to bear to liberalise and privatise tertiary education,
resulting in the proliferation of private institutions of higher learning.26 By 2005, there

22Rosnani, Education Dualism in Malaysia: Implications for Theory and Practise, 85–86.
23New Sunday Times, January 17, 2007.
24Hou Kok Chung, “Memories and Realities of Cultural China: Malaysian Chinese and
Cross–Straits Relations,” in Ensuring Interests: Dynamics of China–Taiwan Relations and
Southeast Asia, ed. Ho Khai Leong and Hou Kok Chung (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of China
Studies, University of Malaya, 2006), 144.
25Kua Kia Soong, New Era Education: Speeches and Writings 1995–2005 (Kajang: New Era
College, 2005).
26Molly N.N. Lee, Private Higher Education in Malaysia (Monograph Series No.2) (Penang:
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 1999).
 Paedagogica Historica 123

were 11 private universities, 11 private university colleges, five branch campuses of

foreign universities and 532 private colleges. The number of private institutions of
higher learning in 2005 was far more than the number of public institutions of higher
learning (11 public universities, six public university colleges, 20 polytechnics and 34
community colleges).27 Prior to this, private higher education had played only a
peripheral role in tertiary education in Malaysia. It had an enrolment of only 9.1% of
students in 1985, 15.4% in 1990, and 34.7% in 1995. The enrolment rates were far
below that of the public institutions of higher learning, which were 52.5%, 53.0%, and
51.5% for the corresponding years.28 But private higher education has now emerged
as an alternative to public higher education with an enrolment of 113,105 students in
2005, outnumbering that of the public higher institutions of learning, which stood at
80,885.29 The privatisation of higher education in Malaysia’s education system during
the 1990s was in response to the increasing demand for tertiary education as a conse-
quence of the implementation of universal secondary education. Apart from that, the
budgetary constraints as well as government policies that officially discriminate by
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

race for the limited number of places in the public institutions of higher learning were
also a major factor for this increase in demand for private higher education. Another
major factor was the economic ideology prevalent in globalisation that calls for the
primacy of the market and reduced role for the public sector.30 While the rapid growth
of private institutions of higher learning has certainly provided more enrolment
choices, it has, however, created imbalances in terms of enrolment by ethnic groups
as more than 90% of students in the private institutions are non-Malays.31 This is
primarily due to the lack of opportunities for the non-Malay students at the public
institutions of higher learning as a consequence of preferential and affirmative action
policies implemented by the government for the majority community under the aegis
of NEP.
Another anomaly in the provision of education in the private institutions of higher
learning is the medium of instruction. While most of them teach in English, there are
three private institutions of higher learning that teach mainly in Chinese. Apart from
the New Era College mentioned earlier, the Southern College and the Han Chiang
International College are two other colleges that teach mainly in Chinese. The estab-
lishment of Chinese-medium institutions of higher learning has long been a controver-
sial issue in Malaysia. Since the 1950s, the Chinese educationists had sought to
establish a Chinese-medium university. In 1954, they managed to establish Nanyang
University which was located in Singapore (then part of Malaya). However, when
Singapore was separated from Malaysia in 1965, the Chinese in Malaya were deprived
of a Chinese institution of higher learning. It was at this point that they proposed the
establishment of Merdeka University. However, this plan failed to take off because

27Malaysia, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010, 244.

28Lee, Private Higher Education in Malaysia, 66.
29Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia [Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia],
Perangkaan Sepintas Lalu Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia 2005 [Brief Statistics of Higher
Education in Malaysia, 2005] (Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan,
Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, 2006).
30Molly N.N. Lee, Educational Change in Malaysia (Monograph Series No. 3) (Penang:
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2002), 35.
31Molly N.N. Lee, “Public Policies on Private Education in Malaysia,” in Rethinking
Malaysia: Malaysian Studies 1, ed. K.S. Jomo (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Social Science
Association, 1999), 81.
 124 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

there was no legal provision for private universities in Malaysia. Until the 1990s,
tertiary education in Malaysia had been solely delivered through public universities.
With the change in the country’s education policy during the 1990s, the legal basis
for establishing the New Era College was finally obtained and the Chinese commu-
nity’s dream of having a higher institution of learning in Chinese was finally realised.
With this development, the vernacular Chinese primary schools, the independent
Chinese secondary schools, and the New Era College now formed a complete system
of Chinese education challenging mainstream national-medium education. To further
strengthen the position of Chinese education, especially at the tertiary level, there have
been discussions among the operators of the Chinese-language private colleges to
merge New Era College, Southern College, and Han Chiang International College into
a Chinese-medium university.32 This merger was aimed at enhancing the comparative
advantage of these colleges in the face of stiff competition in the private higher
education sector.
The ethnic composition in public institutions of higher learning has not been as
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

lopsided as that of the private institutions of higher learning. This was the result of
policy intervention by the government since 1970. Before 1970, enrolment in the
public institutions of higher learning was dominated by Chinese students, who outper-
formed students from other races in the pre-university public examination. Since the
implementation of the ethnic quota system under the aegis of NEP beginning in 1970,
enrolment in the public institutions of higher learning is more representative of the
national demography but largely in favour of the Malays. It could be said that enrol-
ment is fairly mixed except for three public universities that serve the interests of the
Malays. They are the MARA University of Technology, the International Islamic
University, and the Islamic Science University.
It is evident that the coexistence of alternative streams of education alongside
mainstream education has provided different enrolment choices to Malaysian students
at all levels of education resulting in different educational paths. Unfortunately, most
of these educational paths are divided along ethnic lines and thus contribute towards
ethnic segregation. The vernacular primary schools have persistently been singled out
by the Malays as the main cause of ethnic polarisation in this country. This has been
refuted by the non-Malays, especially the Chinese educationists who have defended
their rights to uphold mother-tongue education. There had even been calls made by
some Malay nationalists to close down these schools. But the fact remains that all
alternative streams that cater for ethnic interests have contributed to ethnic polarisa-
tion in Malaysia’s education system. The vernacular stream is only one of them.

Preferential policies
Another important factor that exacerbates ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education
system is the preferential policies implemented by the government to reduce the socio-
economic disparity between the Malays and the non-Malays, especially the Chinese.
This socioeconomic disparity is largely the result of the divide-and-rule policy of the
British. The British implemented a two-pronged strategy to ensure that the Malay
masses were kept to the traditional sector of the economy as a form of social control.
Malays were encouraged by the British to engage in the peasant economy of rice

32Kua, New Era Education: Speeches and Writings 1995–2005; Sin Chew Jit Poh [Sin Chew
Daily], October 8, 2006.
 Paedagogica Historica 125

cultivation and fishing. This was further aided by the provision of elementary Malay-
medium education with a strong manual and agricultural bias.33 Education for the
Malay masses was confined to four years of rudimentary education. There were no
Malay-medium secondary schools until 1959.34 On the other hand, the Indians were
involved in the plantation sector and the Public Works Department as manual labour.
Their socioeconomic mobility was also hampered by an estate-based elementary
Tamil-medium education that was terminal in nature. It was the Chinese who bene-
fited most from the colonial economy. They were encouraged by the British to engage
in trade and commerce or as workers in urban or semi-urban centres. Also, the
educational mobility of the Chinese was much better than that of the Malays and Indi-
ans as they had the opportunity to attend either Chinese-medium or English-medium
secondary schools that were located in the urban areas.
As a result of the divide-and-rule policy of the British, the Malays had not made
much headway in terms of socioeconomic advancement, be it through economic
participation or educational mobility. Mobility among the indigenous population
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

during colonial times was never a priority given that the British were wary of the polit-
ical repercussions of having to deal with an indigenous population that would chal-
lenge the legitimacy of colonial rule. It was only after independence that efforts were
geared towards addressing the socioeconomic backwardness of the Malays. The estab-
lishment of MARA during the 1960s was one such effort. MARA was formerly the
Rural Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) established in 1954. In June 1956,
RIDA was transformed into MARA.35
MARA was involved in helping rural Malays to undertake science, technology,
engineering, and vocational courses so that they could take up jobs in commerce and
industry.36 MARA established MARA College, which assumed the name of MARA
Institute of Technology in 1967 following expansion in the number of courses and
students.37 The racial riots of 13 May 1969, which among other things were caused
by intense discontent over the socioeconomic disparity between the Malays and the
Chinese, led to a further consolidation of the role of MARA. To provide more
educational opportunities for the Malays, especially at the levels of certificates and
diplomas, MARA Institute of Technology had established branch campuses in almost
every state in Malaysia.38 In 1999, MARA Institute of Technology was upgraded to
MARA University of Technology. MARA was also involved in sponsoring the educa-
tional mobility of the Malays at the secondary level through the establishment of fully
residential MARA Junior Science Colleges.
Apart from MARA, the government, under the aegis of NEP, also implemented
other preferential policies aimed at advancing the educational mobility of Malay
students in key areas. As mentioned previously, fully residential secondary schools
that catered specifically for science education were established in almost every state

33Shaharuddin Maaruf, Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to Capitalist

(Singapore: Times), 56.
34K. Ramanathan, Politik dalam Pendidikan Bahasa 1930–1971 [The Politics of Language
Education 1930–1971] (Petaling Jaya: Peberbit Fajar Bakti, 1985), 71.
35Francis Wong Hoy Ee and Ee Tiang Hong, Education in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur:
Heinemann, 1971), 161.
36J.K.P. Watson, “Education and Cultural Pluralism in South East Asia, with Special
Reference to Peninsular Malaysia,” Comparative Education 16, no. 2 (1980): 150.
37Wong and Ee, Education in Malaysia, 161.
38Mok, Malaixiya Jiaoyu Shi [History of the Malaysian Education System], 250–51.
 126 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

in Malaysia. These schools offer only the pure science electives since the raison
d’être for its establishment under the NEP was to provide educational opportunities
for the advancement of Malays in the pure and applied sciences.39 Only a small
number of non-Malay students (about 10%) were allowed to enter these schools. At
the pre-university level, matriculation colleges were also established by the govern-
ment, mainly for Malays, to ensure that there are enough qualified Malay students to
take up the number of places in the public universities that have been reserved for
them under the ethnic quota system (on a ratio of 55:45 for Malay and non-Malay
students). Before the establishment of matriculation colleges, matriculation
programmes were run by public institutions of higher learning. The government
treats these one-year Matriculation programmes as equivalent to a two-year Sixth
Form that leads to the Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia (STPM) (Malaysian Higher
School Certificate of Education examination – the Malaysian version of the
Cambridge Advanced or A-level examination) in a secondary school in Malaysia.40
A lack of standardisation across different matriculation programmes across the
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

country prompted the Ministry of Education to set up 12 matriculation colleges

throughout the country to take over the running of these matriculation programmes
from the universities beginning in 1983. In 2003, non-Malay students were also
allowed to enter these colleges but, just like the fully residential science secondary
schools, their numbers remain small.
The establishment of the matriculation colleges provided a shorter and easier alter-
native system to the existing Sixth Form classes for Malay students for admission to
the universities. There was a general perception that the STPM examination is of
higher standard than the matriculation examination because students have to study an
extra year before they can sit the STPM examination. Despite better academic perfor-
mance, a large number of STPM applicants have failed to obtain places in public
universities whereas virtually every matriculation student is given a place in university
regardless of his/her performance. What has become an issue is that although ethnic
quota for admission to public universities was abolished and replaced by a merit-based
system (meritocracy) in 2002, the percentage of Malay admission has risen from the
stated quota of 55% to 69%.41 There is no doubt that the matriculation colleges have
played a big part in this increased ratio. Admittedly, this has created much discontent
among non-Malay STPM students who have failed to secure places in their preferred
courses at the public universities.
Preferential policies have resulted in different educational paths taken by various
ethnic groups in Malaysia’s education system. Policies have clearly benefited Malay
students and, consequently, this has become a source of frustration amongst non-
Malay students who see themselves relegated to an underprivileged position, deprived
of equal access to educational opportunities. This dichotomy between privileged and
underprivileged groups has created so much mistrust among the different ethnic
groups in Malaysia that it has in some ways led to ethnic polarisation.

39Rosnani, Education Dualism in Malaysia: Implications for Theory and Practise, 219.
40Molly N.N. Lee, Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia (Monograph Series No. 3)
(Penang: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2004), 82.
41Ibid., 88.
 Paedagogica Historica 127

Desegregation of the education system

The Malaysian government has taken several measures to desegregate the school
system, especially at the primary level. During the 1980s, the government began
establishing integrated schools by bringing together the three language media primary
schools that were located in the same vicinity. These schools were expected to share
the same school facilities. A joint coordinating committee would be set up by the
participating school administration to oversee the running of the school and the
respective parent-teachers’ associations were expected to combine their activities.
Meanwhile, pupils were also expected to participate jointly in co-curricular activities.
The establishment of integrated schools was, however, not well received by the
Chinese educationists who feared that by being part of integrated schools the Chinese
primary schools would eventually lose their identity as well as their autonomy. With-
out the full participation of the Chinese primary schools, the integrated school project
died a natural death.
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

Another attempt at desegregation of the primary schools was the introduction of

vision schools in the 1990s. Under this concept, selected schools were relocated to a
common, newly built facility within the same vicinity. The underlying concept of the
vision school was similar to that of the integrated school. But, in contrast to the inte-
grated schools, vision schools were placed in the same premises but with different
administrations, which meant that the vernacular schools would be able to maintain
their identities. As was the case of integrated schools, the Chinese educationists simi-
larly rejected the government’s efforts in the establishment of vision schools. The
government could not do much to alleviate their fears over the loss of identity and
autonomy of the participating schools.
The latest move by the government to foster ethnic interactions among primary
school pupils is to make national primary schools the schools of choice for all
Malaysians regardless of race. This move was outlined in the Ninth Malaysia Plan
(2006–2010) launched in March 2006.42 It was later incorporated into the Ministry
of Education’s Educational Development Blueprint (2006–2010). The strengthening
of the national primary schools involved a host of measures covering every aspect of
schooling.43 Most notable of all was the measure to ensure that learning at the
national primary schools was driven by information and communications technol-
ogy. A sum of RM204 million was allocated for the installation of ICT-related
facilities.44
The move by the government to make the national primary schools the schools of
choice has nevertheless been viewed apprehensively among non-Malays, especially
by Chinese educationists. The above measures were seen as a threat to the survival of
Chinese primary schools. The president of UCSCA, Yap Sin Tian, was fearful that the
strengthening of national primary schools would create disparity between the national
primary schools and all other types of primary schools.45 Meanwhile, UCSTA was of

42Malaysia, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010, 31.

43Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia [Ministry of Education Malaysia], Rancangan Malaysia
Ke-9: Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2006–2010 [Ninth Malaysia Plan: Educational
Development Blueprint 2006–2010] (Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan
Dasar Pendidikan, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2006), 76–88.
44Ibid., 83.
45Nanyang Siang Pau [Nanyang Daily], April 23, 2006.
 128 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

the opinion that this move would begin to marginalise the vernacular primary
schools.46
In another effort to further strengthen the national primary schools as the schools
of choice, the Ministry of Education, at the beginning of 2006, introduced a new policy
to incorporate the teaching and learning of Chinese and Tamil languages in these
schools. Under this new policy, the teaching of these two languages would be made a
permanent feature of the formal curriculum. It involved a total of 220 national primary
schools: 150 schools would offer Mandarin while another 70 schools would offer
Tamil language.47 In the past, one of the main reasons why most non-Malays, espe-
cially the Chinese, elected to stay away from national primary schools was because
teaching of the mother tongue, under the Pupils’ Own Language (POL) scheme intro-
duced in 1956, was on an ad hoc voluntary basis. These POL classes encountered a
host of problems such as a shortage of teachers; a high rate of absenteeism; an un-
conducive learning environment; and classes being held outside regular school hours.
These problems created many uncertainties over the formal status of the POL classes.
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

More often than not, these classes were dysfunctional.48 While the Chinese education-
ists were certainly alarmed by the above measure to attract more non-Malay students
into the national primary schools, they were, nevertheless, convinced that most
Chinese in Malaysia would stay with the Chinese primary schools.
It is clear that efforts by the government to desegregate primary schools were not
well received by the Chinese educationists who had instead favoured another sugges-
tion of the government: the Integration Plan for Unity Amongst Students. This
integration plan did not involve the merger of schools. Under this integration plan,
students from different schools would come together for extra co-curricular activities,
sports, competitions, and outings. Compared with other measures, this plan was
certainly less controversial. Nevertheless, its impact on ethnic interactions would
depend on how often these activities were organised.
At the secondary level, there are no significant desegregation measures undertaken
by the government. As all secondary schools use Malay exclusively as the medium of
instruction throughout the country, enrolment choice on the basis of a vernacular
language does not arise, as is the case with primary schools. Nonetheless, because
settlement patterns tend to be racially exclusive, enrolment in most of the secondary
schools tended to be racially segregated because of the demographic pattern of the
population. While access to fully residential schools established under the aegis of
NEP is possible for non-Malay students, their numbers remain small in terms of
having any significant impact in alleviating the problem of ethnic segregation.
At the tertiary level, the ethnic divide occurs between the private and public insti-
tutions of higher learning. Private universities and colleges have a predominantly
Chinese enrolment while public universities and colleges are predominantly Malay.
At the level of public institutions of higher learning, the implementation of an ethnic
quota has favoured Malay students and deprived many deserving non-Malay students
of a place in tertiary education. However, this had helped to increase the enrolment of

46Sin Chew Jit Poh [Sin Chew Daily], May 28, 2006.
47The Star, June 26, 2006.
48Chen Ye Hong, “Guomin Xuexiao Muyu Ban Jiaoyu,” [Mother Tongue Education in the
National School] in Jiao Zong 33nian [33rd Anniversary of the United Chinese School
Teachers’ Association of Malaysia], ed. United Chinese School Teachers of Malaysia (Kuala
Lumpur: The United School Teachers’ of Malaysia, 1987), 797–801.
 Paedagogica Historica 129

Malays in public institutions of higher learning. Before the implementation of an

ethnic quota, for instance, from 1963 to 1964 only 20.6% of Malay students were
enrolled in tertiary education as compared with 60% of Chinese students.49 In 1970,
as a result of the ethnic quota, enrolment of Malay students surged to 49.7% at the
expense of Chinese students whose enrolment dropped significantly to 42.7%. In
1975, the enrolment of Malay students increased further to 65.1%, while enrolment of
Chinese students continued to decline to a level of 31.1%. Besides enrolment in
general, the ethnic quota also had a significant impact on enrolments in critical courses
such as science, engineering, and medicine, which were dominated by non-Malay
students. For instance, enrolments of Malay students and non-Malay students at the
University of Malaya in the academic year 1966–1967 were 7.5% and 81.5% for
science, 1.6% and 90% for engineering, and 15.9% and 73.6% for medicine.50 In the
academic year 1976–1977, enrolment of Malay students in these courses had
increased significantly to 21.6% for science, 13.4% for engineering, and 33.6% for
medicine. Although the ethnic quota was abolished in 2002, the establishment of
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

matriculation colleges resulted in ethnic segregation at the pre-university level. It has

nevertheless continued to ensure admission of Malay students to critical courses at the
public institutions of higher learning. The government has tried to increase enrolment
of Malay students in private institutions of higher learning by sponsoring them to three
private universities established by government corporations, namely Tenaga Nasional
(the National Energy Board), Telekom Malaysia (Malaysian Telecommunications
System), and Petronas Malaysia (National Petroleum Malaysia).51 What is clear is the
effort of the government to break the disproportionate non-Malay participation in
higher education rather than desegregate the education system. Official policies have
in effect increased Malay participation in public institutions of learning considerably.
But the phenomenal growth of private higher education and non-Malay participation
in these institutions has again upset the social engineering efforts of the government.
More than 90% of students in the private institutions of higher learning are non-
Malays who have failed to gain admission to public universities because of the
imposition of the ethnic quota system and a preference of matriculation-mediated
students for selection into the public universities.

Conclusion and discussion

Ethnic segregation is a perplexing problem that pervades the entire fabric of
Malaysian society. It defies easy pragmatic analysis. The sensitivities of racial issues
in terms of ethnicity, race, religion culture, language, political relationships, and
economic policies mediate in any analysis. Since the 1970s there has been a major
shift in emphasis in educational, employment, and economic policies designed to
discriminate positively in favour of the Malays. They have been fraught with racial
and political overtones that threaten the fabric of Malaysian society. Non-Malays
resent what they see as the whittling away of what they believe to be their educational

49Diane K. Mauzy, “Language and Language Policy in Malaysia,” in Language Policy and
National Unity, ed. William R. Beer and James E. Jacob (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld,
1985), 163.
50Watson, “Education and Cultural Pluralism in South East Asia, with Special Reference to
Peninsular Malaysia,” 155.
51Lee, “Public Policies on Private Education in Malaysia,” 81–82.
 130 S.R. Raman and T.Y. Sua

rights. Among the non-Malays, the NEP is viewed as an open and blatant form of
racial discrimination. In a situation such as this, any effort to use education to foster
ethnic harmony is viewed with suspicion as another attempt to stifle the growth of
vernacular education. At all levels of education, enrolment choices and preferential
policies have strengthened alternative streams for getting an education that is divided
along ethnic lines. There exist educational pathways in which students go through the
entire process of schooling with little or no ethnic interaction at all. For instance,
Chinese students could first attend the Chinese primary school and then progress on
to the national-type Chinese secondary schools, that are predominantly Chinese in
student population, or to the independent Chinese secondary schools, and then finally
receive their tertiary education in private institutions of higher learning. On the other
hand, many Malay students attend national primary schools and then continue their
studies either in national secondary schools or special residential schools and finally
pursue their tertiary education in the public universities or the government-sponsored
MARA institutions. These students, whether Chinese or Malay, have little or no expe-
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

rience of inter-ethnic encounters during their entire schooling. It thus remains to be

seen whether they can, upon reaching adulthood, cope with the complexity of
Malaysia’s plural society. But, aside from ethnic segregation, some of the alternative
streams also produce other negative impacts on the fundamental role of education as
a common tool of enculturation. One example is Chinese education, which has
evolved into a formidable bastion for maintaining Chinese language and culture. This
has evoked feelings of apprehension among the Malays, who see the Chinese educa-
tionists as pursing a different course from mainstream education. The other is Islamic
education. Although Islamic education serves to strengthen the status of Islam as the
official religion of the country, it has nevertheless created unease among non-Malays,
who fear that over-zealous implementation of Islamisation programmes would even-
tually curtail their cultural and civil rights in a secular state. Yet another negative
impact involves the private and public institutions of higher learning. Most private
institutions of higher learning are conducted in English, which is in contrast to public
institutions of higher learning, which teach mainly in Malay, the national language.
Although, of late, there was a strong emphasis on the use of English in public institu-
tions of higher learning in response to industrial and commercial requirements of the
workplace and the current globalisation trend, Malay remains entrenched as the domi-
nant language. This would give rise to a possible clash between global culture, which
is transmitted through an international language, and local culture, which is ingrained
in the native language.
Ethnic segregation in education results in mono-ethnic educational institutions,
which are detrimental to the process of socialisation in a multi-ethnic society as they
perpetuate an atmosphere that is inimical to ethnic relations. Although racially insu-
lated environments tend to lead to a sense of “situational security”52 among students
who do not have to face the complexity of inter-group contact, students brought up
under such situations have been found to be less prepared to face new, and particularly
heterogeneous situations. Such negative effects are mainly due to the fact that “human
beings educated in homogeneous social settings generally feel awkward and ill at ease
and evince lowered performance when later placed in heterogeneous settings”.53
Although some critics might argue that inter-group education has created tension and

52Pettigrew and Pajonas, “The Social Psychology of Heterogeneous School,” 86.

53Ibid., 88.
 Paedagogica Historica 131

anxieties, “a social cost analysis indicates that whatever childhood comfort is gained
from a homogeneous environment may be purchased at the price of unrealistic prepa-
ration for the complex heterogeneity of the adult world”54 as “a heterogeneous world
demands heterogeneous training”.55 More importantly, “educational segregation of
ethnic groups reinforces prejudice, fear and hostility”.56
Viewed against this backdrop, desegregation of the educational system is of para-
mount importance and should be undertaken as an endeavour of social engineering in
order to prepare students for the eventuality of inter-ethnic encounters in a multi-ethnic
society. In the case of Malaysia’s education system, a complete structural revamp of
the existing educational system is not possible as can be seen from the attempts by the
government to establish integrated schools at the primary level and its own efforts at
promoting special secondary schools for the Malay students. Nevertheless, the attempt
to make the national primary schools the schools of choice appears to be heading in
the right direction to attract more non-Malay students to the national schools. At the
secondary level, the government has yet to come out with any comprehensive deseg-
Downloaded By: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] At: 05:44 28 April 2011

regation plan. At the tertiary level, the move by the government to increase the number
of Malay students in private higher institutions of learning would certainly help to
reduce ethnic segregation. Meanwhile, at the public higher institutions of learning,
increased enrolment of Malay students in critical courses would reduce ethnic segre-
gation by courses, but this has to be done in accordance with the basic principle of
meritocracy and not through any deliberate forms of institutionalised discrimination
that would lead to under-representation of the non-Malays in the public institutions of
higher learning. Educational planners should devise effective forms of educational
mobilisation that would lead to the lessening of ethnic polarisation. Other barriers that
have affected ethnic integration because of the peculiarities in the policy orientation
should be addressed as well. Far too much is expected of the education system when
other structures of the nation are pulling in different and opposing directions.

Notes on contributor
Santhiram R. Raman received his PhD at the University of Sussex on educational policy stud-
ies. At present he is associate professor of history education at the Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah
Institute of Education, University of Brunei Darussalam. He had previously served in a similar
position at the University of Science Malaysia, Penang. His research interests are in the areas
of education for ethnic minorities, education policy analysis and history of education. He has
written widely on educational issues relating to the ethnic Indian minority group in Malaysia.

Tan Yao Sua, PhD, is a senior lecturer and a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Research
and International Studies, University of Science Malaysia in Penang, Malaysia. His main
research interests are educational policy analysis, minority education, bilingual education, and
sociology of education. He has published a number of papers in these areas. He has recently
finished a manuscript with Santhiram Raman entitled “The Education of Ethnic Minorities:
The Education of the Chinese in Malaysia”.

54Ibid., 102.
55Ibid., 87.
56Chai Hon-Chan, Planning Education for a Plural Society (Paris: International Institute for
Educational Planning, 1971), 39.

View publication stats