Reply to Ian Beh

Ian Beh, a form 5 student from a school in PJ, recently wrote this provocative and insightful open letter to myself and Tony in regards to the issue of SPM Chinese. It's an issue which I've given some thought to on and off in the past and I'll take this opportunity to respond to Ian's letter in detail.

Ian's main concern with Chinese at the SPM level is that it has become so hard that (i) nobody would take it if they were not forced to (ii) that it is so difficult to score an A in the subject that it affects the ability of some students to obtain a JPA scholarship.

Ian is not the first person who has told me that they have no interest in taking Chinese after primary school, much less for PMR and SPM. I have my own take to explain this which many of our readers might not agree with.

Basically, any subject that is taught at a higher and higher level will have fewer and fewer students who are interested or even capable of taking this subject. For example, most people can indulge in a little bit of algebra, do a little bit of differentiation and integration, but once we get more a sophisticated level of Math, it becomes accessible to far fewer people. Not everyone is expected to take Additional Math at the SPM level and they shouldn't be expected to take Math at that level if they don't have an aptitude for it.

We can apply a similar logic to the study of languages. I'm studying Chinese right now, to improve my reading and writing, and I'll be very happy once I can get to the level where I can easily read Chinese newspapers and websites and listen to Chinese news on the TV and the internet (I'm getting there). I have less desire to obtain a standard where I can enjoy Chinese classical literature or poetry (I'm not sure that I can reach that level). Similarly, there are many students in Malaysia which might do well just to reach a level of English proficiency where they can write using proper grammar and sentence structures but not necessarily be able to write a literary criticism of Toni Morrison or Michael Ondaatje.

Language is of course a little different from Physics or Math or History. Most teachers or educational planners want students to be continually exposed to language lessons because it needs to be kept fresh in one's mind and incremental improvements can be made in regards to a student's command of a language. In addition, there might be symbolic or socio-political reasons why a language should or must be taught and learned throughout one's pre-tertiary school life.

But there is also another important distinction between the teaching of languages and of other more 'objective' subjects like Math and Physics which is that the level of a language that is taught is very much contextual. One might find that teaching Shakespeare to a 13 year old in England is very much the norm but would find that to be a stretch even to 17 year olds in Malaysia. Most English schoolchildren would have been exposed to some Shakespeare either on TV or in school by the time that they reach secondary school. But that's not the case in Malaysia. Hence, SPM English is very different from let's say O level English in the UK. The latter is much more difficult. This is one of the main reasons why English is so much easier than BM at the same grade. Peribahasa is much more familiar to most Malaysian students compared to English proverbs. More Malaysians will understand 'katak di bawah tempurung' compared to 'a friend in need is a friend indeed'.

There is a second factor (in addition to context) which explains the different levels of English, BM and Chinese exams in Malaysia. This factor is the number and category of students who are taking these exams. The more students taking a particular subject, the easier the exams for these subjects. If English was not compulsory, I think that you'd find that the standard of the English exams at the SPM level would quickly increase. BM exams, another compulsory subject at the SPM level, are harder than English because of the first factor (context) but it is easier than Chinese because of the 2nd factor, the number of people taking this exam. If the BM exams was set too hard, then the Ministry would find that a lot more people would fail the BM exam and fewer people would be scoring A's in BM.

Because Chinese at the SPM level is taken by relatively fewer students (a few select national schools and the Chinese independent schools) and presumably, Chinese is the native tongue of most of the students taking Chinese, those who set the Chinese papers can afford to make it tougher (context and numbers) which explains why Chinese is harder than BM. It also explains why more Chinese student's in Ian's school (which I presume is Catholic High in PJ) score A's in BM compared to Chinese.

One also has to remember that those setting the Chinese exams do so with the Chinese independent school students in mind, which, to my knowledge, form the majority of students taking the Chinese exam at the SPM level. There is undoubtedly pressure on those setting the Chinese exam to ensure that it fulfills the high standards of Chinese proficiency set in the Chinese independent schools.

It would be interesting to compare the Chinese SPM exam with that of the Tamil SPM exam. My sense is that the Tamil SPM exam should be much easier that the Chinese SPM exam (at least measured in the % obtaining As). The reason is that there are no independent Tamil secondary schools which means there is less of a context factor operating at the secondary school level for those taking Tamil. Following this, there will be less pressure for those setting the Tamil SPM exam to make it hard, even though almost all the students who are taking this will be Indian students from Tamil speaking households. But it should be harder than the English SPM exam.

Lastly, I need to include the factor of political pressure. No doubt, there is political pressure in the Ministry of Education to ensure that the BM exam is harder than the English exam (or to make the English exam relatively easy). At the same time, there is probably less pressure on the part of the Ministry to make the Chinese SPM exam so hard. I suspect that the MOE leaves this issue solely in the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats within the MOE who are in charge of setting these exams. If these bureaucrats are making the Chinese SPM exam harder, it does not hurt the majority in Malaysia so there is little pressure on the part of the MOE to intervene. Furthermore, the MOE would not want to be seen as 'interfering' in the 'sensitive' issue of deciding the standard of Chinese exams at the SPM level.

So how should we respond to the current situation in Malaysia?

In an ideal world, I'd get rid of compulsory language exams after Form 3. One should have obtained a sufficient degree of literacy in BM, English and Chinese or Tamil by that time. If one is interested to pursue these languages further, they should be given the option to take subjects like Malay or English or Chinese literature.

But this is not an ideal world and I can see the need to force students to continue to learn English up to the SPM level (at least) given that English proficiency among our students is still very poor. I can also see the need to force students to continue to learn BM given that the command of the national language among non-Malay students is also quite poor. This leaves us with Chinese at the SPM level. I don't think this should be made compulsory in national schools such as Catholic High since these schools, in theory at least, don't need to have a 'Chinese' identity and most of the subjects at the SPM level are taught in BM. (In reality, I'm well aware that most students in schools like these are Chinese and speak Mandarin or Chinese dialects inside and outside of school). This would immediately solve one of Ian's dilemmas which is how taking Chinese would impact his ability to score all A's and get a JPA scholarship. (which probably affect only a small % of students)

I'm in more of a quandary in regards to whether Chinese should be compulsory in Chinese independent secondary schools. On the one hand, one can argue that taking Chinese is central to the character and identity of these schools much like how BM is compulsory in national schools. On the other, one can also argue that since most subjects are already taught in Chinese in these schools, there is less of a worry of these schools losing their 'Chinese' identity or character.

One possible way out is for those setting the Chinese SPM exam to grade on a curve such that more people will get A's. This reduces the disincentive for many students who might want to take this course but are afraid that it will affect their overall grades. And at the same time, the examiners don't need to 'dumb down' the standard of the Chinese SPM exam.

I'll leave the questions of revamping the syllabus for Chinese at the secondary school level or changing the teaching methods aside since I don't know enough about it to give an informed opinion.

For now, there is no easy solution or quick fix apart from making Chinese non-compulsory in national schools. In regards to the growing importance of Chinese as a language, I would say this - it is possible to maintain a high level of interest and activity in the Chinese language without resorting to forcing Chinese students to take it at the SPM level. I think that the cultural and business spheres are much more important and influential in trying to achieve this aim.