EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: THE QUEST FOR NATIONAL UNITY IN MALAYSIA*

By ~rahim Saad

May 13th 1969 will be remem~red in Malaysia less for the racial riots that took place between the different ethnic groups in the country, than for being the catalyst that revamped the government strategy towards national unity.

The quest for national unity is common to many countries which are divided by sharp and persistent cleaveages, which threaten their dissolution. National unity involves the process of bringing together people of different racial, ethnic and religious or language groups. In Malaysia, the search for national unity involves the whole range of economic, social and political activities. Since 1969, a new set of strategies have been formulated. These include (i) the new education policy with national language as the main medium of instruction. English medium schools have been converted into national language (Bahasa Malaysia) schools as from 1970, and although Chinese and Tamil Schools continue to exist, they operate only at the primary level. (ii) The formulation of the National Ideology -to express the beliefs and p~n~iples of the nation and to lay down the foundations of national unity. (iii) The New Economic Policy, launched in 1971 involves a long term, two-pronged strategy for the eradication of poverty and the restructuring of Malaysian society to correct economic imbalances so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the identi- fication of race and economic function.

These long-term institutional changes were supplemented by short-term measures taken immediately after the rising. The Department of National Unity was set up in July 1,969 to promote Goodwill Committees or Councils at the local, District, State and Federal level. The main task of the latter was to entourage. the promotion of goodwill among the various ethnic groups in the country and

to assist in the organisation of voluntary and welfare work at all levels. While they were effective in reconciling local ,differences and conflicts, the Goodwill Committees proved incapable of sustaining long-term programmes, consequently, five years later, in 1974 a Community Relations Programme replaced them.

Before the discussion is taken further, a little background will be useful:

Malaysia’s*‘* plural society is of recent origin. It followed British colonialism and the economic development of the country. The indigenous population in the early colonial period was sparse and ,devoted to life in tile traditional agrarian system which was adequat.e for the needs of the population. In order to exploit the country’s resources profitably, an abundance of cheap labor was needed. It was sought from the populous neighbouring lands of China and India. Through a policy of induced, unrestricted immigration, Chinese and Indians flooded the country between 1880- 1920 (Ooi 1963). It was estimated that there was a total of sixteen million Chinese and India immigrants over the period 1900- 1940 (Gullick 1969). Most of them came, made their fortune and left. Nevertheless, significant numbers remained, as the following figures revcal.

In 1880, Malays made up about 90% of the population, but in 1890 only 66%. By 1911, when the first census was held, they made up only 51%. By 1931, their propor- tion was reduced to 49.2%, but then held steady, so that by 1957 (the year of indepen- dence} the Malays made up 49.7%. In 1975, Malays made up 53.7% of the population, the Chinese 35.1%, Tndians 10.4% and others 0.8%. Today the percentages are more or less the same.

* Note: Papea delivered at a conference convened in Arusha Tanzania by W. I. Qzanne & Associates.

** Malaysia here refers only to Peninsular or Western Malaysia. The states of Sabah and Sarawak are not included.

249

The differences between the Malays ~ind~~enous~~ Chinese, Indians and Europeans in Malaysia have been termed racial, ethnic and communal. We shall restrict ourselves to the term “racial”. The differences in race are reinforced by differences in language, religion, culture, economic activity and status, pattern of settlement and ~p~ilation distribu- tion. “Many other Countries have internal divisions . . . but in no country arc so many divisions so primordial as in Malaysia, in none each division so deeply reinforced by ail the others at once“. $Chopra 197s 1.

Langnage exclusiveness in Malaysia not only obstructs comnlunication but also tends to isolate the groups from one another and evoke antipathies among them. Linguistically, it is only the Malays who may bc said to form a homogenous group. Malay does have its regional dialects but they do not deviate so much from one another as to render them mutually u~ntel~~ble. Among the Chinese there are distinct cultural and linguistic sub- groups. There are at least ten Chinese dialects which constitute not only separate linguistic (oral) systems but are also mutually un~ntell~~ble. The majority of the Indians are from Southern India and speak Tamil. In Malaysia, one might say that language con- stitutes one maior source of seDaratism and divisiveness in iiter-racial terms.’

Virtually all Malays are Muslims. the Malays, to abandon Islam would renunciation of their way of life and Ioss legal and political rights accorded them

“on the basis of their claim of

For be a of all

being jl~d~genous people, Islam gives the Malays bonds of communal identity as stro’ng as those developed by social and political institutions. For the Malays, the sense of community is inextricably bound up with the concept of community of the believers. In practice, it appears that most Malays have a strong sense of racial identity reinforced by Islamic atti- tudes towards the infidels” (Means 1970)

1 raditionally the majority of the Chinese follow a syncretic form of religion or more appropriately an eclectic form. Generally they are simultaneously Buddhists, Taoist, Con- fucian& and Ancestor warshippers, Indians in Maiaysia are mostly Hindus. There are

250

also Sikhs, Christians and Muslim among them.

To a large extent, there are con~n~at~o~ of certain racial groups in certain geographical areas. The non-Malays are mostly concent- rated (70 per cent.) in the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The Malay population is concentrated in the northern and eastern states of the Peninsula. In those states, Malays make up 70% of the total populatio8n. Another feature of the Malaysian population is its urban-rural differences. The non-Malays arc evenly divided between rural and urban areas, the ~~alays concentrated in the former. In 1975, 82% of the Malays and 49.3% of the Chinese were rural.

Indeed, with all these differences, one cannot help but agree that national unity is cf prime importance in Malaysia. These various racial groups exert rival pulls upon the loyalties and allegiance of Malaysia’s citizenry. [The 1969 riots demonstrated the destructive- ness of such national division.] The funda- mental question here is how can Malaysia achieve national unity amidst all these differences?

The Community Relations Programme was conceived as one means of answering this question. As its realisation involved a con- cept of c~~~rnun~ty development, it will be as well to consider a couple of definitions.

The United Nations refers to Community dcvetopment as

Community development has also be defined as

“all forms of development activity in the field and has been described as a move- ment to secure the active co-operation of the people of each community in pro- grammes designed to raise the standard of living and to promote development in all its forms . . . Community development thus covers all forms of betterment re- quired by the community in the areas in which its members reside” (du Sautoy 1958).

Community development as the term itself suggests is concerned with development, with going forward towards defined goods, with purposeful activity aimed at real achievements, material, moral and social.

Griffiths (1,974) distinguished 6 types of community development:-

(i> Community work type

(ii) Colonial Social Development type

(iii) Urban Renewal Type

(iv) Adult Education Type

(v) Institutional Type

(vi) The Idealist/Political Activist Type

Both definitions and typology imply homo- gcneous communities and societies. In a plural society like Malaysia, community development takes on an additional objective. It is seen as a process carried out for the purpose of national unity. Community development is undertaken not solely for utilitarian purposes, e..g. implementing a pro- ject or getting the people to be involved in undertaking a project. Rather, projects are undertaken to improve relations between multi- racial participants. In this sense, community development becomes part of community rela- tions. The main objective of community relations is to bring people of different races to’gether and create greater understanding and rapport between them. Prejudices and ill- feeling can arise from fear and ignorance, while personal contacts and interaction can go a long way towards removing some of these barriers.

Education and National Unity

Malaysia’s survival as a nation depends very much on its success in unifying the various races in the country. Most of the government’s policies are directed toward fulfilling such a goal. Education has become an important instrument in fulfilling such a policy. The stress has always been on education in the national language for national unity. Various steps were taken in this direc- tion. First, all public schools adopt the same common content syllabuses to be covered within a common time allocation. Second, all government and government aided schools used Malay as a medium of instruction. Another important step taken in education toward integration was the introduction of the Rukunegara (national ideology) in schools. It is not only incorporated into the civic syllabus but permeates most of the other sub- jects. How successful education is as a vehicle for national unity is dis’cussed elsewhere (Saad 1979).

Only children who are in schools are exposed to the education system. Parents are not exposed to the new socialising agency since they were educated before independence and before 1970. Thus other agencies had to be created to support the schooling process. The other agencies besides the school are very important, and they must be congruent with the effort, of the school. Langton and Jenning (‘1968) showed that curriculum did affect the kinds of political values developed by the students and its effect was accelerated, when the values being taught were in harmony with those articulated by other socializing agencies. If parents, teachers, school curriculum, scout- masters, symbol system, peer groups are all urging the child ‘to obey the law’, then the correlation will be higher between the message of any one agent and the child’s attitude. On the other hand, the more various agencies are pulling in different directions, the less success- ful will any one of them be.

Even though most other socialization agents are beyond the effective control of the government, every effort is being made to create more of such agents so as to control the socialization process, to align it with efforts for national unity. One such effort is the Depart- ment of National Unity. This department organises the community relations programme.

251

Community Relatiorls Programmc for National Unity

The Community Relations Programme aims at uniting the multi-racial urban com- munities and also at strengthening relations between government and the people through developing mutual respect, trust and con- fidence.

It covers two aspects. The first emphasises activities which bring the various races together for better understanding and rapport between them. It is designed primarily to stimulate community consciousness through action programmes. The second aspect of the programme aims at getting closer co-operation between the community and the local authority. The community may bring to the attention of the local authority its needs and the local authority may try to obtain co-operation and support of the community to participate in programmcs dcsigncd for their benefit.

Because of its primary objective, com- munity relations can be implemented only in areas where the population is multi-racial. This is particularly applicable in peri urban areas, where the population consists of Malays and non-Malays. In inner cities, the popula- tion is wholcly Chinese, while in the rural areas the population is almost completely Malay. In thcsc areas forms of programme other than community relations arc carried out.

Past experience suggested that racial tension is high, especially when there is contact between the different races. This usually happens on the fringes of urban areas, where the Malays reside when they migrate from the rural areas. The populations in these arcas are almost evenly distributed in terms of per- centage. Neither of the races has an absolute majority over the other. Positive or negative inter-racial attitudes and relations could result from contact (Amir 1979). The May 13, 1969 incident was an example of negative :ittitudcs growing from inter-racial contact. The riots were most intense in thcsc fringe arcas. Amir also summarizccl some of the conditions that arc conducive to favourable

inter-racial attitudes and relations. Among them are “. . . .(b) positive perception of the other group as result of contact. . . .(d) con- tact situation requiring intergroup co-operation (e) contact situation requiring interdependent activities. . . .”

In order to provide a contact situation c\ here the various races could meet purposive- ly, various group activities are prepared in areas of education, recreation including culturti activities, health and housing (Appendix A). The essence of the activities is to encourage the people concerned to mobilize themselves to improve projects in which they themselves provide a large portion of the material and manpower, with the government providing some financial assistance. It is assumed that through these interactions, in the course of ja,intly improving their welfare, there will cvolvc an. effective bond of friendship and understanding, which will function to instill in them the value of co-operation as the basis of t!rcir co-cxistencc.

Community Relutions und Educution

The major work of the community relations programme is in the field of education. There are two areas which are of significance: the kindergarten and solidarity classes’~‘. The Ministry of Education does not provide prc-school education in the country. C onscqucntly, kindcrgartcns arc run by private institutions or other quasi-government aLTcncics. Private kindcrgartcns are expensive &d a majority of the population cannot afford slich luxury. So the community relations pro- grammc has set up kindcrgartcn classes, cspccially on the fringes of urban areas. These kindergartens do not only provide opportunities for the disadvantaged but also bring together children of different races. In this way, chil- dren are exposed to the other races at an early ::ge.

Solidarity classes focus on civics and national language. A section of the popula- tion, especially of the older generation and those who are not exposed to the national schools, are poor in their national language. As

:l’ A third area, vocational classes. has been less emphnsised. becnuse of provision through several other agencies.

252

a result, they are unable to communicate with the other communities in the national language. One of the objectives of the Solidarity classes is to teach the national language so as to make it an important tool of communication between the various races. At the same time, the non- Malays who have failed their national language in the school system, can learn the same subject in the solidarity classes. Civics educa- tion is a very important aspect of the solidarity classes and is directed towards those who have not been exposed to the school system. Soli- darity classes are a form of ‘compensatory socialization’ in the process of national unity.

Community Relations Without Community Participation

The aim of community relations pro- gramme in Malaysia is to involve community participation in community development. Participation in terms of children attending kindergarten has been very encouraging (Appendix B) . But these classes do not generate community participation or com- munity development. These kindergarten classes are more or less run by the Department personnel with no help from the parents them- selves. Teachers and supervisors become employees of the Department. Even though kindergarten classes are multi-racial in com- position, it has not been possible to bring about community participation and involvement.

The solidarity classes are run by the Department almost on the same lines as the kindergartens. The teachers of these classes are employees or are being paid by the Depart- ment of National Unity. Although the enrol- ment in the classes has been good (Appendix C), how far their objective has been achieved is not known. But again, community partici- pation in running these classes is almost nil. Classes are organised formally along the lines of functional literacy classes. As the result the dropout rate is high. Furthermore as there is no incentive given to attend such classes, it is dilhcult to motivate adults to attend.

Conclrrsion

The community relations programme has created a new dimension in community development. However, using certain aspects of education to promote community relations has not been very successful. Education has not generated community efforts. Educational activities in the community relations pro- gramme have become simply another avenue by which people acquire some form of educa- tion, like so many other such institutions found in the country. Community involvement in generating educational institutions like kinder- garten and solidarity classes is almost non- existent.

Appendix A

Activities of Community Relations Programme

The activities of the Community Relations (c) Health:- Programme will ‘comprise the following;

(a)

(b)

(i) Nutrition; Education:-

(i) Kindergarten classes for poor children;

(ii) Library and reading rooms; (iii) Extra tuition facilities; (iv) Vocational classes; (v) Adult education;

(ii) General cleanliness;

(iii) Health ‘campaign (anti dengue/ family Planning etc.) ;

(iv) Health education.

(d) Housing & Welfare . , (vi) Civic education;

Recreation:- (i)

[ii’,

(iii)

(iv)

Indoor and outdoor games; Playgrounds, skating rinks, swimming pools, parks etc; Community sports and cultural activities; Film shows.

(ii)

(iii)

General maintenance (roads, drains, refuse disposal etc) ;

Improvement of public utilities (Lifts, bus services, marketing facilities etc.) ;

Welfare (self-help projects, anti-drug campaign, relief work, consumerism etc. )

253

Appendix B

Kindergarten Classes 1976-l 980

Year

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

Number of Classes Malays Chinese

25 406 255

51 841 415

106 1832 823

174 3534 1166

227 4680 1856 -~

Students

Indians

182

325

441

655

945

Others

7

11

12

94

192

Total

850

1592

3108

5449

7673

Appendix C

Soidarity Classes I970-1981

: f T T Students

Total Malays Chinese Indians Grand

Total

26757

64174

61244

59998

64705

68563

68928

69833

69606

67716

36194

38164

Others L

Female Male I zcmale Male 1 Female

- - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - -

16191 15751 14141 10694

1615b I5784 15712 10696

14044 15447 15704 11982

13606 15565 14918 10515

12954 14240 14883 10133

11626 13105 14857 9592

-

1681

1850

1844

2278

‘751 _-.

2389

-

1520

1831

2057

2332

2371

283 1

- -

34384 30321

36678 31885

35549 34379

35465 34368

35309 34297

33926 33790

-I-

1

f

Female

-

-

-

Male Year

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980y

1981*

Male

- -

- -

- -

- -

2371 2356

2960 3574

3957 4893

4663 5956

522 1 7553

5054 8262

-

-

-

-

-

-

L * breakdown according to race not available.

254

References

Awang Had Salleh, Education and National Unity in Malaysia, Negara Vol. 1, NO. 3, 1976

Amir, Y., The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In Katz P.A. (ed) Towards the elimination of racism, New York: Pergamon Press, 1979

Brokensha, David and Hodge, Peter, Community Development: an interpretation, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. 1969

Chopra, Pran, “Malaysia’s Strategy for Survival”, Pacific Afjairs, Winter 1974/75.

du Sautoy, Community development in Ghana, London Oxford University Press, 1958

Fong, David, People Participation in the Community Relations Programme: Some observations and proposal: Evaluation Paper. Research Divison, National Unity Board; Kuala Lumpur 1976.

Community Relations Background Paper &d its Philosophy, Kuala Lumpur, L.P.N. 1975

Gullick, J.M. Malaysia. London: Ernest Berm. Ltd. 1969

Griffiths, Hywell, The Aims and Objectives of Community Development, Community Develop- ment Journal, Vol. 9, No: 2- April 1974

Jabatan Rukun Tetangga dan Perpaduan Negara, Lnpuran Tahun 1981, K.L. JRT & PN 1981’

Langton, Kenneth & M. Kent Jennings, “Political Socialization & High School Civic Curriculum in The United State,” American Political Science Review 62, 1968

Means, Gordon P. Malaysian Politics, New York, New York Univerity Press 1970

National Unity Board, Rules of the Community Relations Programme, Kuala Lumpur: National Unity Board 1979

National Unity Board, Corak Taburan Kenal Huruf dalam Bahasa Malaysia (1970-l 975)) Kuala Lumpur Lembaga Perpaduan Negara 1976

Kelas Perpaduan Rakyat, Kuala Lumpur,’ L.P.N. 1977

Laporan Persidangan Perpaduan Pengeuuii-Pengerusi Majlis Perhubungan Mas- yarakat, K.L. LPV 1980

, Tabika, K.L. LPN 1979

K.L. L<N Laporan Kelas Perpaduan Negara,

1979

Community Relations Programme, K.L. NI?B, n.d.

Ooi Jin-Bee, Land, People and Economy in Malaysia (London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., 1963)

Saad, I.B., Social Engineering the Role of the School in Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 1979

Competing Identities in a Plural Society, ’ The Case of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore: Institute of South East Asia Studies 1980

Townsend Coles, Edwin K., Adult Education in Developing Countries Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1971

Thompson, Jane L. (ed) Adult Education for a Change, London, Hutchinson, 1980

United Nations, Public Administration aspects of Community Development Programmes, New York: United Nation 1959

255