1

Language Policies in Malaysia: From Colonial to De-colonial Era

Dr. Mehmet Ozay Faculty of Education Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 81310 Skudai, Johor

Bahru, Malaysia.e-mail: mehmet@utm.my

International Conference on Science Technology&Social Sciences(ICSTSS2012), 20-22 November 2012, Vistana Hotel, Kuantan,

Pahang.Universiti Teknologi Mara

Abstract

This article sketches briefly construction and re-constructionprocesses via language policies commencing from the veryoutset of the colonial establishment in Malaya to thecontemporary Malaysia. The present writer argues this wholeprocess normatively represents the plurality of the languagepolicy owing to the changing actors and changing purposesthroughout the various eras. Hence the research object of thisarticle is to draw attention into two overall languagepolicies: the first was implemented during the colonial era,and the second one has been the product of the Malay rulingelite after the independence. In the course of time, thelanguage policies, as the reflection of cultural force,inevitably have become significant catalysts to inculcate andtransmit respective cultural values as well. These processeswill be traced through significant data in archivaldocumentaries and contemporary researches.

From the education of the children of Malay ruling elites inBritish schools to vernacular schools and national schools,language policies took an impressive place in the history ofMalay Peninsula in the sense of reconstructuring the societydesigned on the basis of the political power. On the otherhand, the same era also witnessed development of national

1

2

awareness owing to some certain policies. It is plausible tourge that language policies seem to have been very decisivefor the formation of national conciousness starting from theearly decades of the last century. And the efforts of thefounding fathers of Malay community played crucial roles byintroducing language policies reconstructively as unifyingfactors of multilingual and multiracial society.

Key Words: Language Policies, Malay education, social change,colonial era, modern Malaysia.

INTRODUCTIONDuring the modern era, Malaya which was named in the 19thcentury by British administration emerged gradually as a multi-ethnic society by the large number of migrants from China andIndia/Sri Lanka due to the changing phases of economicproduction system in the Peninsula. The British administrators, asa result of their ethical approach commenced to establisheducational attempts. They aimed to educate all classes ofpeoples in Malaya by founding English schools, then after someinitial individual attempts opening Malay vernacular schools forMalay people. These initiatives were the very first steps of thedevelopments of English and Bahasa Malayu as national andofficial languages in modern sense.

In terms of this, the efforts of the missionorganizations cannot be underestimated. They also gavefull support to this policy by establishing both theirown schools and being a mastery in the creation ofoverall education policy. By this way, it may be arguedthat the secular administration and mission groups

2

3

designed together the route of education systemorganizing the English schools and allowing themissionary groups’ involvement in education. As aconsequence of the educational policy of the Britishthe natives gave much attendance to the newly groundedEnglish schools facilitated under both government andmission groups in the course of time, owing to fruitfulresults of the education system. The British colonial government language policy underoverall education policy was developed by ThomasStamford Raffles himself as soon as he established thestate organization in Singapore. The initial meetingwith the palace circles, nobility and leaders ofmigrant groups he highlighted general vision ofeducation policy. And what most significant issuepertaining to ethical policy, he emphasized the importof mother tongue education. Throughout the colonialera, language policy was considered under overalleducation policies commencing from the first FreeSchool’s opening in Penang (1816),1 and a soundcontribution initiated in 1867, when the Malay statesceased to be under the Indian government and became aseparate Crown Colony, under the Colonial Office inLondon. There were also some impacts of committeereports, such as the Woolley Report (1870) and theIsemonger Report (1894), which were the first seriousconstructivist initiatives by officials and had a

1 Cheeseman, p. 127; Gullick, 1981; Gale, p. 220. The aforementioned school in Penang commenced teaching Malay studentsin the Malay language around 1821 (Gale, p. 220). The other Free Schools started in Malacca in 1826 and Singapore in 1834 (Gale, p. 127); Wong and Gwee, p. 7; Chelliah, p. 36.

3

4

formative influence on planning and structural changeof education.2 In time, the colonial government started payingattention to the education of the various ethnicgroups’ young generations. Though this process lasteduntil 1816, when the first Free School was opened inPenang,3 the leading practices confined virtually toPerak and Selangor were taken seriously as a personalinitiative by some distinguished officials.4 However, asound contribution was not initiated until 1867, whenthe Malay states ceased to be under the Indiangovernment and became a separate Crown Colony, underthe Colonial Office in London. There were committeereports on this structural change, such as the WoolleyReport (1870) and the Isemonger Report (1894), whichwere the first serious constructivist initiatives byofficials and had a formative influence on planning foreducation.5 These reports openly criticised the decisionof the British colonial rulers to not expose nativeMalay youths to educational facilities and strongly

2 Chelliah, pp. 31–32; R.H.K. Wong, “Education and Problems of Nationhood”, in Malaysia: A Survey, ed. Wang Gungwu, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1965, p. 200.3 Cheeseman, p. 127; Gullick, 1981; Gale, p. 220. The aforementioned school in Penang commenced teaching Malay studentsin the Malay language around 1821 (Gale, p. 220). The other Free Schools started in Malacca in 1826 and Singapore in 1834 (Gale, p. 127); Wong and Gwee, p. 7; Chelliah, p. 36.4 Hyacinth Gaudart, “English Language Teaching in Malaysia: A Historical Account”, The English Teacher 16 (December 1987): 3; Loh, 1975, p. 18.5 Chelliah, pp. 31–32; R.H.K. Wong, “Education and Problems of Nationhood”, in Malaysia: A Survey, ed. Wang Gungwu, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1965, p. 200.

4

5

recommended the allocation of funds for the educationsector and the appointment of an Inspector of Schools.6

The British orchestrated a cumulative change startingfrom the role of language implementing English as themain medium of instruction at English schools. Thispolicy was very pragmatically exercised due to thefunctionality of English in both private economicdevelopmental sectors and also designing administrationcadres of colonial regime.

Regarding the historical and cultural basis of theMalay Peninsula both British colonial administrationand later on the founding fathers of modern Malaysiaemphasized the importance of Malay language as nationallanguage of the peoples living in the Peninsula. As itis worded in the Report of a Mission:

“…It must be recognized that Malay has been made anofficial language and is a required subject of instruction in allschools in Malaya. As the indigenous language of the country,spoken extensively throughout the Malayan archipelago, itdeserves study by all the peoples of Malaya. Such commonknowledge can contribute to communal understanding and co-operation” (Ross 1951: 5-6).

As seen in the above-quoted paragraph, the purpose ofMalay language to be national language was aparadigmatic change from colonial to de-colonial era.The latter one was recognized as the formation of anation-state which included variety of racial elementsin Malaya. 6 H.S. Barlow, Swettenham, Southdene, Kuala Lumpur, 1995, p. 368; Chelliah, pp. 31, 33.

5

6

Language Policy Under the Colonial Rule Language policy is very strategic field for thesovereign powers in order to continue their existenceand make it legitimate. When the British entered theMalaya, their main interest to unite people around thelanguage aspect in terms of both social and economicfavor of colonial regime. Hence the union could not beargued to have worked well since there were some moreparameters to be dealt with by the authorities. Forinstance, the variety of racial factors were compulsoryelement to think about not only union, but more thanthis, as a result of ethical and liberal approach, itwas interrelated between human rights and ethnicsensitivities. And more than this, the social systemamong the Malays, was much considered critically by theBritish authorities. As seen in the approach andattitude of Frank Swettenham, one of the veryinfluential Resident in Selangor then in Perak, themain policy was not to cause a drastic change thesocial fabric of Malay society. In this policy, theplace of English and Malay language were playedinterchangeably distinct functions. While Englishtuition to the members of ruling family served for thecontinuous relation with the British superioradministrative body, teaching Malay at vernacularschools was aimed to stabilize the society by its ownvalues simplistically without allowing creation of asocial domain which might cause a potential danger forthe British rule (Barlow 1995: 376; Cooke 2003: 374

The determination of language policy ensued of thegiven facts in Malaya. It means that there was a

6

7

variety of language groups which were considered to beeducated in their own mother tongues. Hence thefunctions of Malay language and English differed fromthe rest owing to their respective importance. Forinstance, Malay language was a melting potlinguistically. Though the minorities or migrant groupsdid not send their children to Malay vernacularschools, in their respective schools were entailed toemploy Malay language as a course subject. And Englishhaving an undisputable importance was the mainlinguistic target of almost all racial groups in termsof the former’s being administrative and businessinteractions throughout the Malay land. In thisjuncture, it is worth reminding the English schoolswere not only described as the one attended exclusivelyby the European and Eurasian families’ children, butalso English itself as the medium of language. Andthese schools “admitted native children” in the courseof time as well (Han 2009: 58). The current researcher urges the periodization oflanguage policy in order to understand the varioussteps emerged successively. In regard to this, thereare two classifications: the first is general approachof the various parties; the second is historicalprocess.

I) Main Elements of Development of Language Policya)Colonial regime’s political, economic priorities andethical responsibilities b)Missionary interests and investment in education c)Native peoples’ determination regarding not to bebackward comparatively with the European and Euro-Asiansocial sectors

7

8

a)Colonial regime’s political, economic priorities andethical responsibilities: Teaching of English was thepolicy of colonial rule since the very outset of theBritish existence. With or without the demand ofcolonial rule, the mission schools also materializedtheir education initiative aligned by this thought(Cooke 2003: 371). Hence the latter cannot beclassified only for economic bond of development.Emerging from very practical and pragmatic reason, thephenomenon of English schools with strict rule ofemploying English as the medium of instruction servedfor the economic progressiveness in Malaya (Cooke 2003:372).

Ethical responsibility was a sort of humanisticunderstanding and liberal approach to education emergedin the colonial lands due to the developments inEurope, particularly in England. As the related partsof the study highlights the facts starting from ThomasRaffles’ thoughts until Frank Swettenham and R. J.Wilkinson there were similar policy makers among thecolonial rulers in successive manner. These figures toprovide education to native peoples, particularly theMalay in their own mother tongue and supported thisidea by their own initiative establishing someinstitutions such as schools, publication houses,libraries etc. (Annual Report 1956: 10; Cooke 2003:372, 374). In terms of political and administrativeinclination led the British authorities to establishsome private institutions such as Malay College inKuala Kangsar, aimed not only to create its own cadreby the natives’ participation, but also prepare thenative administrative staff as professional as

8

9

themselves for future independence years (Johan 1990:119).

b)Missionary interests and investment in education: The economic reconstruction of Malaya attracted notonly new migrant groups from China and India, but alsonovel infrastructure in education domain. Thesociological characteristics of the migrants whichdiffered from the Muslim Malays were considered much bythe mission initiatives to invest in education. On thebasis of the economic development concept particularlyin the Western littoral of Malaya was classified moreattractive for the mission groups to concentrate morein terms of their initiatives. Thus while they wereestablishing more education institutions in the form ofboth government schools, and provided grants for theprivate or voluntary investors, mainly missionarygroups as known grants-aid-in schools, the medium ofinstruction was serving the demands of the newlydeveloping administrative and economic life. (Cooke2003: 370, 375).

Due to the mainstream colonial regime’s educationpolicy of English medium of instruction, as expressedin the sense of “liberal system of grants-in aid”,missionary groups found a very fruitful environment fortheir own existence and their investments flourishedwell in the course of time particularly graduallyincreasing from 1872 onwards (Annual Report 1956: 3;Cooke 2003: 372). On the other hand, as a puremissionary approach and attitude some mission groupssuch as London Missionary Society, had a palpable toconduct education in Malay medium of instruction(Annual Report 1956: 10).

9

10

c)Native peoples’ determination regarding not to bebackward comparatively with the European and Euro-Asiansocial sectors: The indifference approach of the Malaystock of natives along the 19th century towards theEnglish and mission schools commenced to be reformed bya new perception. In particular the first decades ofthe 20th century witnessed the economic boom in Malayaand the Malays were clearly observing the outsiders’own initiatives and progressiveness in socio-economicdomain. During this period, the former wished to havesimilar direction of development by having had the sameprovision of education for their children. This noveldesire among the Malays became a push-factor for thecolonial rule to take initiative in terms ofestablishing new schools with the medium of English(Cokee 2003: 370-1). This process was alsointentionally stimulated by the colonial ruleestablishing Malay College in Kuala Kangsar (1905)which was regarded as an elite school by recruiting ofthe sons of elites. Hence, this school became a modelencouraging common Malay families to send theirchildren after Malay vernacular schools to Englishones, particularly commencing from the end of World WarI (Johan 1990: 119; Annual Report 1956: 4, 12). Henceit is very striking fact that the former schools wereopen to all Malay sons, English medium schools werevery selective of the students making them to sit for avery formal examination known as the Cambridge LocalExaminations practiced since 1891 onwards (Annual Repot1956: 4). Sociologically, this can be argued to have been anexperience of proving the elites in societies play

10

11

leadership for the lower classes in their attitudes andactions in daily life.

II.Periodic developments of language policy:

a)1816-1867 (with impact of determining thefundamentals of language policy by Raffles himself):The initiator of this period, Rev. Robert Hutchings,from Anglican mission, intentionally lay thefoundations of English schools by forming Penang FreeSchool (21 October 1816) which was aimed to educate avery steril way the sons of crem de a’la crem nativefamilies without any discrimination among the racialstocks of the Malaya (Annual Report 1956: 2; Han 2009:58) (From Chelliah 1947: 37). In addition, it can beargued that the Free School policy was to cater all thevariety of races under the same school run by Englishmedium of instruction. As argued by some researchersthat this policy aimed to unite distinct linguisticgroups by the medium of English.

Initiation of this first phase is very supportive ofthe present writer’s argument that generally theeducation policy and particularly language policy wasdirected by the intellectual and formative capacity ofthe individuals from mission groups. Just few yearslater, the distinguished colonial administrator, ThomasRaffles, as the secular representative of the colonialregime followed the footsteps of Rev. Hutchings, whilehe was constructively involving the foundation ofeducation life in Singapore (Annual Report 1956: 2). Inthe latter issue, since Raffles was the politicalauthority, his initiative was more constructive thanRev. Hutchings. And his education policy since the very

11

12

early days of this administration would be moreeffective to mold the whole phases throughout thecolonial century. His approach was embodied in thesentence that giving full opportunity to the sons ofthe palace circles and nobility was the main objective(Raffles 1991. CONFIRM).

b)1867-1900 The year 1867 was a turning point in terms of this andthe Government of the Straits Settlements exercised itspower to give interest in Malay education. I urge thisis the second phase of the colonial initiative. Andthis phase witnessed establishment of vernacularschools for each racial group. Hence the specialattention was given to Malay stock of people since theywere regarded as the owner of the land. Since thispolicy caused a sort of differentiation among theracial elements in Malaya, it might be considered as aresult of divide-and-rule policy of the British ineducation domain. Nonetheless, this policy causedintroduction of Malay boys to schools to be educatedthe first time systematically. What is striking here isthat the classical Malay language also was commenced tobe transformed by the decision of education authoritiesto teach at schools as the medium of instruction inboth Arabic and Roman scripts (Alisjahbana 1976: 43).

This phase must be regarded significant at least astripatrie development which had a direct impact oneducation and of course development of language policy.While the political status of Malaya changed from theaffiliation to the authority of the Indian Governmentto a sort of independent Crown Colony (1867) (Cooke2003: 365) and economic prosperity and the paradigmatic

12

13

change in education policy during the reign of QueenVictoria.

In particular, during this period the educationpolicies were designed aligned with the samples inEngland. For instance, it can be argued that Foster’sEducation Act, 1870, which provided the right of eachchild to access education universally (Barlow 1995:368), was imitated in the education policy in Malaya.In addition, particularly two reports had gross impacton the improvements the education services in Malaya.For example, Woolley Report remarked the backwardnessof native education, particularly among the Malays(Barlow 1995: 368). By these efforts some sounddevelopments emerged after 1870s onwards.

Due to all above-mentioned conditions, it is safe toargue that the most striking improvements appeared theend of the 19th century. These reports highlightedvernacular education. But it ought not to be forgottenthat the vernacular education was a total expression ofnative/mother tongue education and was recognized as analternative for the native children who could not findany opportunity to attend the English schools. M.Skinner was the main initiator of the vernacular schoolproject around 1879 onwards (Barlow 1995: 369).

While the first phase can be defined as the result ofpersonal capacity of the colonial rulers, the secondone was much more formally designed on the basis of thepolitical reconstruction of the Malay land. By theauthority of London colonial bureau a committee wasemployed to restruct the state of education in theColony: a)An urgent appointment of an Inspector of

13

14

Schools; b) modifying then current grant-in-aid system;c)improving facilities for particularly Malayvernacular school system (Han 2009:60) (Wong and Gwee1980: 11/CONFIRM). The particular importance of thisnew design was that the colonial regime conceived thesocial hierarchy in the Malaya and prioritized Malayvernacular schools where the medium of instruction wasBahasa Malayu. This era is significant, since the firsttime education, particularly in “two most importantProtected States” as an institutional structure wasgiven attention as urged by Barlow (1995: 373). Againduring these decades, it is observed that the awarenessof language particularly English among the rulers wereincreasing. And this inclination gave a way of creationof new policies and establishment of novelinstitutions. In the connection with this, the Sultanof Perak requested English language education forhimself and young relatives and the latter were allowedthem to attend Government English schools later on(Barlow 1995: 374). Hence it cannot be said that theBritish authorities agreed on employing much attentionon English education at least beyond the chosen fewmembers of palace circles. For example, Swettenhamcritically approached this matter and urged that it wasnot proper to teach English to agricultural populationwhile his attitude to English education was verycritical, he was supporting to teach Bahasa Malayu withsome other few subjects which he assumed more practicaland useful in their social relations. The reason behindhis attitude was the experiences in India where theIndians became the opponents of English politicalexistence owing to the English education in largescale. Thus Swettenham opined not to repeat the samething in Malaya, instead restricting English education

14

15

to a selected individuals among the ruling circle andmainly supplying native language education (Barlow1995: 374-5).

c)1901-1942; This phase emerged as the result ofeconomic improvement/prosperity due to the productionsystem and the scholarly administrators’ involvement inthe education department such as R. J. Wilkinson and R.O. Winstedt (Loh 1965: 10; Annual Report 1956: 10-11).For instance, the contribution of Wilkinson varies frompublications to foundation of a Malay College inMalacca (Loh 1965: 9). And by these efforts he put hisprints in the education policy continued by Winstedt inlater decades.

As might be witnessed in all communities, educationfacilities have been often regarded salient first forthe nobility. And in Malaya it is a process since thebeginning commenced by Thomas Raffles himself which Ihighlighted at the outset of the paper. Hence, theevolution of language policy during this era had alsoimpact on the decision making process of the palace andnobility circles to supply English education to theirchildern took some time. In terms of this, the end ofthe 19th century ought to be regarded as adistinguished period when Selangor royalty and familiesof major elit circle invited some distinguished Britisheducators to be given a task for the education of theirsons. As a reflection of this approach, for instance,Reverend Haines, a British clergyman, was given fullresponsibility to take care of the children in 1889. Ina similar way, Perak elite also followed the footstepsof the previous one in terms of English education (Loh1970: 55).

15

16

The establishment of Malay College in Kuala Kangsar inPerak in 1905 aimed to produce subservient Malay cadrein administration and in terms of the British policythe medium of instruction was English. Thus thegraudates acquired English in a satisfactory level. Inaddition to this, the salient function of the schoolwas to introduce the students into British culturalenvironment. The latter one was based on the very earlyreport of educational policies written by renownMacaulay in 1835 (Tilman (no date) p. 231).

In spite of his short term, Wilkinson played aninfluential rule in education in Malaya. His effortswere more purposive and showed greater initiative thanother administrators’, even before his appointment tothe post of Federal School Inspector from 1903 to 1906.He served as the founding father of the Malay Collegein 1900.7 Wilkinson is noteworthy for his contributionto the expansion of Malay vernacular schools, as wellas for reintroducing the young Malay generation toMalay classics,8 and he is distinguished as a prominentand leading figure for future developments regardingnation-building and the establishment of Malay as thenational language in the modern era.

He clearly saw the need for educational change andsubmitted the following proposals: (a) Romanised scriptshould replace Arabic, so the new generations wouldpractise using a common language; (b) Romanised scriptshould be taught to the Chinese and other “Asiatics”;

7 Reid: 307; Roff, 1967, p. 132; Loh, 1965, p. 9.8 Roff, 1967, p. 130.

16

17

(c) The government should give priority to thepublishing of classical Malay texts in Romanised Malay;(d) A committee would oversee and control all theseprocesses; (e) A Malay training school would be openedin Malacca.9 Another of Wilkinson’s contributions was toadd a fifth year to the current four-year education byrevising the 1899 Educational Code. Since Malaystudents started studying Romanised script in theirsecond year, this change gave them the opportunity tocontinue their study in Romanised script for fouryears. All these reform-minded efforts of Wilkinsonwere strengthened by the publication and regenerationof classical Malay texts in Romanised script in 1906.10

Due to this, Malay children benefited greatly fromregaining their cultural background throughout thecourse of modernisation, while the Chinese and otherminorities studying in English schools started adaptingto and internalising the Malay cultural environment.The cumulative impact could be seen in the creation ofa social entity and union.

Though Wilkinson’s initiatives were not improved uponafter he left the post, they had concrete consequencesin the process of awareness in Malay society, when theMalays demanded advancements in educational facilitiesfrom the government in years to come.11

The purpose of Wilkinson’s giving importance to theMalay language and classical texts was to help Malaypeople succeed in their encounter with themodernisation process. Wilkinson expressed his idea9 Stevenson, p. 109; Cheeseman, p. 129.10 Stevenson, pp. 110–11.11 Roff, 1967, p. 137.

17

18

perfectly in his article titled “The Education ofAsiatics”:

Books of this type may not appeal to the modern Englishman,but they represent the road along which his own culture hastravelled, and the destruction of this road will hardly expeditethe progress of our Asiatic fellow-subjects.12

Wilkinson’s Malay Readers were not the only materialtaught at vernacular schools; there were also someother publications that were contributed to schoollibraries, and these publications represented the firstinitiatives in the development of the publishing sectorin Malaya.13 The vernacular schools benefited greatlyfrom these attempts.

There were some developments around the 1920s regardingthe argument based on the relation between language andthe development of national consciousness. In theprocess, the Malay masses who were educated not only inEnglish but also in their own native language at thevernacular schools gave direction to social movementsby demanding more civil rights and, eventually,independence.14 It cannot be said that Wilkinsonintentionally planned this result, but it is in someway ironic given that the initial purpose of thecolonial government was “to make the son of thefisherman or peasant just a more intelligent fisherman orpeasant than his father”. What happened in Malaya in12 Stevenson, p. 105.13 Stevenson, pp. 105, 106; Committee on Malay Education, Report of the Committee on Malay Education Federation of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1951, p. 1.14 Abd Rahim Abd Rashid, p. 17.

18

19

the first part of the twentieth century should be takeninto consideration as a social development induced bylanguage and education reforms. By reaching and usingthe media, the Malay masses that had created their ownintellectuals started interacting with Western circlesin Malaya and were exposed to developments in the West.After an analysis of developments through the decades,it may be concluded that the Malay intelligentsia werethe products of a vernacular education system.15

The significance of Wilkinson’s reformist initiativewas proven when the education programme was “geared tothe maintenance of a plural society in Malaya” in thesecond part of 1940.16 The revitalisation of the idea ofa national language was congruent with Wilkinson’sattempts at bringing the peoples of Malaya togetherthrough a common language. All these endeavoursresulted in Malay being accepted as the nationallanguage (bahasa kebangsaan) in the 1950s.17

Even though the vernacular schools initiallycontributed only to the improvement of youths’ Malaylanguage skills, they later contributed significantlyto the employment of Malays during the modernisationprocess and the publication of journals and magazinesin the Malay language. Wilkinson’s efforts thus showthe foresight of the founding fathers, who gaveimportance to the Malay language and culture around themiddle of the twentieth century.

Despite these successes, it should be also highlightedsome sorts of weaknesses of these policies. There were15 Roff, 1967, p. 127; Cheeseman, p. 129.16 Ongkili, p. 105.17 Maier, pp. 24–25.

19

20

several factors that prevented the policies frombecoming a sound success and having the intendedresults. These included the aforementioned individualsholding their posts for only limited periods, and thecentral government placing greater priority onpolitical and economic developments.18 It cannot bedenied that the endeavours of the distinguishedadministrators contributed to the awareness ofMalayness at various levels. Leading Malayintellectuals were able to find a channel to use theMalay language as a medium for propagatingnationalistic ideas. Although it is a potentialresearch subject, it should be stated here that thereasons for the discontinuation of the Malay vernacularschools included insufficient funding from the Britishcentral authority, and lack of teaching staff,especially for the upper-level students.19

d)1945-1957: This last phase was the result of the World War II andmainly on the way to challenge the difficulties infront of the nation-state building in Malaya.

The policy was also congenial with the report of boththe Barnes Committee (1951) and the Razak Committee(1956). The reports, bearing past historical imprints,recommended the establishment of a national educationsystem, with Malay as the national language in order to18 Board of Education, p. 139; Gullick, 1981, p. 221.19 F.A. Swettenham, “Annual Report by the British Resident of Perak for the Year 1892”, Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Reports, vol. I.D/32, 1892, Government Microfilm Unit, Government of the Colony of Singapore, Raffles National Library Archives, p. 406.

20

21

overcome the sociocultural gaps among the peoples ofMalaya on the eve of independence. In addition, thereports emphasized that the establishment of nationalunity should be based on the common language, and thatthis should be realised as the main objective. Asproven by these developments, “Malayness has beenconceived as a fundamental basis for state’s ideologyin Malaysia”.20 Both reports prove that the the ideasinitiated by R.J. Wilkinson materialised about half acentury ago. In addition, the same concern about thenational union became a central issue in the Fenn-WuReport (1951), which stated that the aim should not bejust to transmit the Malay language and culture viaeducational institutions to new generations at schools;the language and culture should also be a social cementfor the minorities to adapt to the spirit of nationalunity.21

A significant report on the relationship between nativelanguage and the building of a nation-state was writtenby the Education Committee in 1956. It read as follows:

… with a view to establishing a national system of educationacceptable to the people of the Federation as a whole, which willsatisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic and

20 Federation of Malaya Central Advisory Committee on Education, “Report on the Barnes Report on Malay Education and the Fenn-Wu Report on Chinese Education”, 10 September 1951, p. 3; See also Federation of Malaya, Central Advisory Committee on Education, First Report, May 1950, p. 1; Wong and Gwee, p. 118; Ongkili, pp.107, 109; R.H.K. Wong, pp. 201, 203.21 Federation of Malaya Central Advisory Committee on Education, p. 6; Stone, p. 186; Gullick, 1981; Gale, p. 221.

21

22

political development as nation, having regard to the intention tomake Malay the national language of the country …22

In this regard, Tunku Abdul Rahman mentions a salientexample in his book. Among the various ethnic groups,the Babas strikingly accepted the Malay culture andlanguage in their daily life and proved that they owedallegiance to Malaya.23

In the outset of the independence, the language policywas under the influence of a novel political approachof the colonial rule. The special committeesscrutinized the language issue aligned with the nation-state establishment. This issue was considered in agreat extent both in 1954 and 1956 working committees.Owing to the socio-political considerations, theofficial languages were decided to be English andBahasa Malayu and both were compulsory subjects in alllevel of education (Annual Report 1954: 32).

The priority was based on the establishment of nation-state by determining Malay language as nationallanguage and made it a prioritized language for allracial elements in Malaya. Thus, the aim was toreconstruct the language policy for the future of thenew-born nation. The committee appointed in 1956admittedly agreed on advising the government to

22 UNESCO, Toward Universalization of Primary Education in Asia and the Pacific, The Drop-out Problem in Primary Education: Some Case Studies, UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 1984, pp. 121–22; Tan Liok Ee, “Tan Cheng Lock and the Chinese Education Issue in Malaya”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 19, 1 (March 1988): 60.23 Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, p. 180.

22

23

determine Malay language to be official disregardingracial and linguistic differentiation in Malaya (AnnualReport 1956: 48). And as an encouragement for grants-aid-schools, the committee strongly advised theGovernment to implement this policy as a conditionallevel (Annual Report 1956: 51). In the pursuance ofenunciating language policy as a constructive factorfor a new nation-state, some institutions, such aslanguage institute was entailed inevitably for thedevelopment of language. This and similar institutionswere tasked to perform various functions for instance,creation of qualified Malay language teachers andconducting research aiming to enrich Malay language(Annual Report 1956: 51). Some other criteria inrelation with the facilitation of Malay language werei)requirement of admission to secondary school; ii)asubject in examinations after secondary and highschools; iii)a compulsory qualification for entry intogovernmental positions; iv)a condition to be able toget scholarship from government institutions; v) acompulsory element of all teacher training courses(Annual Report 1956: 52).

The Missionary Factor as a Constructive Stakeholder ofthe Education Department

Another factor contributing to the determination oflanguage policy was based on the missionary target. Oneof the significant figures among the mission workerswas Shellabear who prioritized insistingly to reach theMalays whom he regarded as “the most attractiveinhabitants, and true people of the country. Hence hefound that they were almost entirely neglected,practically nothing was done to reach them.” (Hunt

23

24

1993: 44). Shellabear, since he was convinced about thecritical function of the Malays had to be centralposition in mission works if the latter wanted to“found permanent, living and growing Christiancommunities” (Hunt 1993: 51). For all the importancefor the future of mission work in Malaya, Shellabearhighlighted the “primacy of the Malay language ineducation”. (Hunt 1993: 51). Shellabear, as a member ofMethodist Mission, approached to language issue with agreat of care. In terms of this, it can be argued thathe had a great palpable to initiate Malay publicationbeyond his function to highlight Vernacular schools. Infact, these both policies were cohered each other todevelop Malay language not only in formal education,but also informal settings (Hunt 1993: 51). He alsofunctioned constructively as a member of EducationCommittee in order to disseminate the importance ofvernacular schools (Hunt 1993: 52). As proved theabove-mentioned information, his contributions variedfrom establishing Vernacular schools and being a memberof Education Committee to publication a monthlyjournal, dictionary and grammar book of Malay language(Hunt 1993: 52, 3). His multi-facet initiatives nodoubt created a glossal effect on Malay language duringhis time and later processes.

The existence of the missionaries ought to beconsidered as a constructive power in the establishmentof generally education system and particularly languagepolicy. For instance, Methodists, as one of thesuccessful mission groups, emphasized on “organizingschools at least as early as its organized churches”.And also the characteristics of the mission workersdistinguished themselves to be very largely oriented to

24

25

education activity. Again, from the Methodist, it isinformed that “between 1900 and 1940 nearly 90 percentof the missionary personnel and the majority of thenational workers gave the major part of their time toeducation work” (Doraisamy 2006: 218).

It is important to see where they acquired their power.It is a salient question since by only determiningthis, we can reach a satisfying answer how they had animpact on regulating the language policy. We canhighlight some various aspects of this phenomenon asfollow:

a)The power of the missionaries was related to theirbeing significant representatives of the politicallegitimate regime, say, colonial rule, throughout thedecades; b) They had professional educated cadre todisseminate their religious ideology in theirrespective education institutions; c) theirinstitutions were very promotive (GELECEK VAAD EDEN)for the students’ both academic and work life. Allthese articles were very plausible reasons for thenative people, both the elite and common public to beunder impression of these bodies and they did nothesitate to send their children these institutions assoon as they found opportunities. In addition, thisinstitutional power of the missionary school made thema stakeholder of the education department of thecolonial regime.

Post-Independence Era and Language PolicyIn order to sociologically understand what occurred inMalaya, it should be emphasized that the power of

25

26

language, as a social phenomenon, “is a zealousinheritance of the social groups” and an inevitablecultural resource for each community.24 It is agreedthat there is an inevitable connection between “nation”and “language” and that these two phenomena have becomeintertwined. As a result of this, every self-respectingnation has to have a language, on an existentiallevel.25 In addition, a strong argument in functionalisttheory dictates that education fosters “a commonidentity” and “social integration”. Integration wasalso stressed upon in the past, for the promotion of acommon language.26 (AŞAĞISIYLA BİRLEŞTİR)

The power of language, as a social phenomenon, “is azealous inheritance of the social groups” and aninevitable cultural resource for each community(Hirschmann 1987: 557; Abd Rashid 2002: 21). It isagreed that there is an inevitable connection between“nation” and “language” and that these two phenomena havebecome intertwined. As a result of this, every self-respecting nation has to have a language regardingsocial unity (Coupland, Jaworksi 1997: 344-5). Languageand socialization issue is regarded significantthroughout the modern history of Malaysia which hasbeen, since the beginning, known as a multi-culturalsociety. Establishing a united society, language whichis also itself inevitable part of cultural entity “even

24 Charles Hirschman, “The Meaning and Measurement of Ethnicity inMalaysia: An Analysis of Census Classifications”, Journal of Asian Studies 46, 3 (August 1987): 557; Abd Rahim Abd Rashid, p. 21.25 Nikolas Coupland and Adam Jaworski, Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook, Palgrave, London, 1997, pp. 344–45.26 Richard T. Schaefer, Sociology, 11th edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, Boston, 2008, p. 393–94.

26

27

culture is a part of language”, plays a function(Jourdan, Tuite 2006: 9).

Though the issue of national language has been alwaystaken into consideration partly in various worksconducted by social scientists it is difficult to saythat there are many works emphasizing the relationshipsbetween Malay language and national awareness andintegration, pertaining to language and itssocialization. What has been historically salient in Malaysia is the nation-building and social integration among the various ethnicities.After World War II the renewed policy of the nation-building andsocial integration was based on the acceptance of a nationallanguage to ensure that all various ethnicities could live togetheras belonging to a single nationhood, say, being Malaysian. Thelanguage aspect was put as a unevitable condition by Malayruling elites and intellectuals to make all various ethnicities to beunited around a single national language, it means, BahasaMelayu which was conditioned as the main criteria (Wilson 1978:114).

The policy was also congenial with the report of boththe Barnes Committee (1951) and the Razak Committee(1956). The reports, bearing past historical imprints,recommended the establishment of a national educationsystem, with Malay as the national language in order toovercome the sociocultural gaps among the peoples ofMalaya on the eve of independence. In addition, thereports emphasized that the establishment of nationalunity should be based on the common language, and thatthis should be realised as the main objective. Asproven by these developments, “Malayness has beenconceived as a fundamental basis for state’s ideologyin Malaysia”.27 Both reports prove that the the ideas27 Federation of Malaya Central Advisory Committee on Education, “Report on the Barnes Report on Malay Education and the Fenn-Wu

27

28

initiated by R.J. Wilkinson materialised about half acentury ago. In addition, the same concern about thenational union became a central issue in the Fenn-WuReport (1951), which stated that the aim should not bejust to transmit the Malay language and culture viaeducational institutions to new generations at schools;the language and culture should also be a social cementfor the minorities to adapt to the spirit of nationalunity.28

A significant report on the relationship between nativelanguage and the building of a nation-state was writtenby the Education Committee in 1956. It read as follows:

… with a view to establishing a national system of educationacceptable to the people of the Federation as a whole, which willsatisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic andpolitical development as nation, having regard to the intention tomake Malay the national language of the country …29

In this regard, Tunku Abdul Rahman mentions a salientexample in his book. Among the various ethnic groups,the Babas strikingly accepted the Malay culture and

Report on Chinese Education”, 10 September 1951, p. 3; See also Federation of Malaya, Central Advisory Committee on Education, First Report, May 1950, p. 1; Wong and Gwee, p. 118; Ongkili, pp.107, 109; R.H.K. Wong, pp. 201, 203.28 Federation of Malaya Central Advisory Committee on Education, p. 6; Stone, p. 186; Gullick, 1981; Gale, p. 221.29 UNESCO, Toward Universalization of Primary Education in Asia and the Pacific, The Drop-out Problem in Primary Education: Some Case Studies, UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 1984, pp. 121–22; Tan Liok Ee, “Tan Cheng Lock and the Chinese Education Issue in Malaya”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 19, 1 (March 1988): 60.

28

29

language in their daily life and proved that they owedallegiance to Malaya.30

Why the Malay language has been considered as muchimportance as a life and death matter bases on the factmentioned by Hirchman language has been a major barrierin inter-ethnic relations. For the most part, eachcommunity keeps its own language as its mother tongue.This is also true for sub-communities of Chinese andIndinas who speak different languages. Among middleclass persons (teachers, professionals, governmentworkers etc.) in the cities, English is used as theinter-ethnic medium, while malay is the basic mode ofcommunicaton among the massses. However most-non Malayshave only limited mastery of the Malay language. In1957 only three percent of the Chinese population aboveage then, and only five percent of the same Indianpopulation said they were literate in Malay (Hirschman1972: 33).

Language: A Social Cement This historical reality leads the contemporary social-scientists have tried to find out a solution of thedisunity among the peoples. It emerges that theattention much more given on the significance ofnational language which is regarded as social cement tobuild up a common ground among the various socialelements. As William Marsden, who is regarded as awell-known scholar, the writer of first modern Malaydictionary, mentions that the Bahasa Melayu “supposedoriginal in the peninsula of Malayo, so as to become the lingua franca ofthat part of the globe” (Marsden 1811: 197).

30 Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, p. 180.29

30

After World War II, education in Malaya appeared asalient issue for the process of establishing a nation-state. Since education was a domain in which all ethnicbodies of Malayan land would be merged into a nationalunion. As Dr. Mahathir Muhammad says as follow: “Thefoundations of that nation must be laid in the schools”(Ministry of Education 1975: 2). The thought of Dr.Mahathir seems to be parallel with the arguments wordedin a report written in the year of 1951. Regarding thereport, the foundations of establishing a Malayannation should be based on educational policy (Ross1951: 7). Since the effort to restructure the educationsystem and mold into a national one several committeesnamed such as Barnes, Razak, Talib etc. were created toreexamine educational policy (Ministry of Education1975: 2).Regarding to the Malay Peninsula after above-mentionedperiod, Malay language was first determined as a mediumof instruction by the establishment of Malay vernacularschools. And the founding fathers continued thisprocess and decided decisively Malay language wouldbecome without accepting any objections from anycircles as the national language in the educationsystem in order to lead the nation to become united.Due to this decision, the cultural division among theethnicities would be bridged by the assimilation ofpeoples coming from various cultural and languagebackground to Malay. So it was an unavoidable decisionfor the building of national identity for all peoplesliving together for a long time. Though there arevarious ethnicities in Malaya (then Malaysia), thenation has become united around the idea of a nationallanguage whose importance cannot be overlooked in the

30

31

past decades. The fact of the national language whichhas become a salient social cement to strengthen themulti-ethnic structure ought to be taken intoconsideration to be able to understand the nation’sdevelopment, mainly in economy as commonly mentioned,but in a wider sense in almost each sector of thesocial life.

ConclusionLanguage as a social phenomenon plays an important rolein building national identity, and it is through thisfunction that language may be called the ultimatesymbol of a national union. In the case of Malaya, theuse of the Malay language and the adaptation ofclassical texts led to the creation of a sociopoliticalenvironment conducive to national consciousness. Ifclose attention is paid to Thomas Stamford Raffles’writings about Malays, it is evident that he was anunhesitating proponent of the Malay language and theMalayan nation.31 In addition to Raffles’ efforts, thestandardisation of language, giving priority to themother tongue in educational institutions, andimproving vocabulary among students were importantfactors in creating unity in Malay society. This inturn helped with the establishment of a nation-state.All these features can be seen in Wilkinson’seducational policy.

To sum up, there were three main initiatives in thecontext of the relation of the vernacular language withthe nation-building process: (a) standardisation of theMalay language in Romanised script; (b) the collection

31 Raffles, p. 15.31

32

and reproduction of Malay classical works; and (c) theintroduction of the Malay language in both Arabic andRomanised scripts as a medium of instruction in Malayvernacular schools. Throughout the various periodsduring which these ideas evolved into practice, successwas not immediate; but these initiatives wereinevitably congenial to the creation of a Malaynational consciousness.

During the colonial era, educational institutions wereestablished and gradually developed through theindividual initiatives of certain British officials aswell as through the colonial government’s policies.Through the creation of a new “society of outsiders”thanks to the British policy of facilitating themigration of Indians and Chinese, the Malay peoplegradually interacted with people of other ethnicities—both passively under the British strategy of divide andrule, and actively as participants in educational andgovernmental institutions. Despite all the obstaclesfaced by Malays in acquiring an education, as stated inSwettenham’s report, those who had the opportunity tobe educated in Malay vernacular schools gained aconsciousness of nationality over time. This slow andgradual change in the form of a politically well awareMalay intelligentsia at the eve of the modern time maybe explained as an “unintended and unanticipated consequence ofaction” according to Weberian sociology.

As a follow-up to the acquisition of national awarenessand identity, Malay politicians and intellectualsstressed the importance of having a common language asa social cement in order to create a new nation. Thethinking of the political elites was embodied in the

32

33

acceptance of Bahasa Melayu as the national language tounite all peoples in Malaysia.

REFERENCES

Abd Rashid, Abd Rahim. (2002). Education and Nation Formation in Malaysia: A Structural Analysis, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

Alisjahbana, S. Takdir. (1976). Language Planning for Modernization: The Case of Indonesian and Malaysian, Mouton, The Hague.

Fatt, Kok Loy. (1978). Colonial Office Policy Towards Education in Malaya: 1920-1940, Master Thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya.

Hirschman, Charles. (1987). “The Meaning and Measurement of Ethnicity in Malaysia: An Analysis of Census Classifications”, The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 46, No. 3. August,.

Hirschman, Charles. (1972). Ethnic Stratification in West Malaysia, PhDDissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Jourdan, Christine; Tuite, Kevin. (2006). “Introduction: WalkingThrough Walls”, (ed.), Christine Jourdan, Kevin Tuite, Language,Culture, and Society: Key Topics In Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Loh, Philip Fook Seng. (1970). British Educational Strategy in the Malay States: 1874-1940, PhD Dissertation, Stamford University.

Marsden, William. (1811). The History of Sumatra, London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ross, H. T. (1951). Chinese Schools and the Education of Chinese Malayans, The Report of a Mission invited by the Federation Government to Study the Problem of the Education of Chinese in Malaya, June 1951, Government Press, Kuala Lumpur.

33

34

Tilman, Robert O. “Education and Political Development in Malaysia”, In Tradition, Modernity and Social Change, (ed.) (no date).

ReportsEducation in Malaysia: 1974, Prepared By: The Educational Planning andResearch Division Ministry of Education Malaysia (RevisedEdition), Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, 1975.

26th august,Yeni yazılmaya başlandı. Çıktı alındıktan sonra ana metne eklenecek. “For the Malay nationalists, the Malay language would serve to regain sovereignty; language would release the Malay from the shackles of British colonialism which was best represented in thevestiges of the English language.”32

“Under the British, English soon superseded Malay for, according to Asraf the British could not permit Malay to develop and flourish because ‘the buds of a national language were the buds of nationalism and that was dangerous to colonial economy and politics”33

Post-independence era has been remarked as the process offounding a nation. In terms of this, all the language policyefforts have concentrated on nation-building process and unionamong the various racial elements. “The government tended to viewlanguage more pragmatically, it also resorted to highly symbolicterms, developing a rhetoric that evoked images of nation,progress, democracy, and ethnic loyality. The rhetoric thatevolved centered on language as a means of linking disparatepeoples; language was the key to uniting the people of Malaysiaunder a single ideology.”34 “Bahasa Malaysia was promoted as thefoundation of unity and the key to integrating the various

32Mitchell Carol Lynn, Language as an instrument of national policy, PhD Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1993, p. 61. 33Mitchell Carol Lynn, Language as an instrument of national policy, PhD Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1993, p. 62. 34Lynn, p. 62.

34

35

communities; however, other themes were employed to promote thelanguage.”35

“Christian missions have been closely associated with theeducation of the young. The government was content to standaside, leaving the task of running schools to concernedindividuals and charitable bodies. … We have already noted theschools run by Samuel Milton and Claudius Thomsen. To them mustbe added the labours of another lady missionary Maria Newell, whoarrived in 1827 and ran the first school for girls. In 1829, theLMS reported that it was managing four schools in Singapore: twousing the Cantonese dialect, one in Hokkien and another English.… In 1834, the Anglican Chaplain Rev. Fred Darrah, seeing thegross neglect, in public education, appealed for action to remedythis.”36

… “An association called the Singapore School Society was formed.Fund was raised from the public and the government offered an oldbuilding at High Street for its use. On 1 August 1834, theSingapore Free School was opened with an initial enrolment of 46pupils. … 28 years later, it acquired the name by which it isknown today –Raffles Institution.”37

PUBLICATION: …”Bishop Thoburn came from India to visit theSingapore mission which he had founded in 1885, I asked in whatcould be done for the Malays. He wrote six brief tra ts which Iput into Malay and we started street meetings in the Malay partof the ton, and sang half-a-dozen hymns that I had translated,which were the beginnings of my work for the evangelization ofthe Malay people”38 “Shellabear’s failure in evangelizing the Malays has been over-shadowed by his success in another area-publishing. On his returnfrom England in 1890, he established a Mission Press at ashophouse situated at the junction of Selegie Road and SophiaRoad. Although origanlly it was meant to publish Malay Christian

35Lynn, p. 63. 36Bobby E. K. Sng, In His Good Time: The Story of the Church in Singapore: 1819-1978, Graduates’ Christian Fellowship, Singapore,1980, p. 110.37Bobby, p. 111. 38Bobby, p. 118.

35

36

literature, the Press event in another areas of printing. Itpublished tracts and bible portions for the Bible Society. Inorder to make it financially viable, it also took, (p. 119), oncommercial publishing. Such was the growth of the Press that itsoon had 100 persons in its employ and its literature waspublished in 12 languages.(p. 120).”39

“The church’s interest in education has had a long history andstems from its understanding of certain principles that arerooted in the Bible, Christian educationist Dr. frank e Gaebeleinstates: “ Christian education is rooted in Scripture. From itsbeginning the religion of the Bible has gone hand in hand withteaching...” … From the beginning, Christian missions have beenat the forefront of Western-type education on the island. Thecolonial government, through neglect of its own directinvolvement, saw to it that the missionaries received sufficientsupport in their educational enterprise for it to become (p. 150)a kind of partnership between British administration andChristian missions. The government needed the clerks produced inthe Christian mission schools and the Christian missions neededthe government for their protection.” (p. 151)”40

YENİ REFERENECES (16th august)

Annual Report. (1956). Federation of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Khoe MengPress.

Annual Report. (1954). Federation of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Nan YangPress.

Barlow, H.S. (1995). “Education”, In Swettenham, Kuala Lumpur:Southdene.

Cooke, D. F. (2003). “The Mission Schools in Malaya 1815-1942”,Paedagocica Historica, Vol. 6, Issue 2.

39Bobby, p. 119-120.40Bobby, p. 150.

36

37

Doraisamy, Theodore R. (2006). “Patterns of the Ministry inMethodism in Singapore and Malaysia”, In Religions and missionariesAround the Pacific: 1500-1900, (ed.) Tanya Storcky, Hampshire: Ashgate,Variorum.

Han, Lim Peng. (2009). “The Beginning and Development of EnglishBoys’ and Girls’ Schools and School Libraries in the StraitsSettlements, 1786-1941”, Malaysian Journal of Library&Information Science,Vol 14, No. 1, April.

Johan, Khasnor. (1990). “Keeping the Malay College Exclusive:Perceptions and Attitudes of British Officials and theTraditional Malay Elite”, Jebat, 18.

Loh, Philip. (1965). “The Beginnings of Higher Education inSingapore: Raffles College 1928-1938”, Malaya in History, Vol. IX.No. 1-2.

37