Part 3 of “The UEC: Another
Vote-Baiting Issue?”
In Part 1 of this series, "The UEC: Another Vote-Baiting
Issue?", I argued that the UEC issue has often been used as a
political football rather than approached as a genuine policy challenge.
In Part 2, "Malaysian Voters: Are We Thinkers or Suckers?",
we applied the first step of the ZUBEDY DEAR Method: Define Reality. We
examined the actual policy changes, looked at the numbers involved, and
discovered that the issue is far more nuanced and limited than the emotionally
charged narratives often presented by politicians and their supporters.
Before we move to the next step of the DEAR Method, namely Envision, two
important points should be noted.
First, while the number of UEC students directly affected by the recent
policy change may ultimately involve only a couple of hundred students
annually, the issue remains important. These are fellow Malaysians and
citizens. More importantly, affordability matters. For lower-income UEC
graduates, alternative pathways often come with significantly higher costs,
while students from wealthier families generally have more educational options
regardless of government policy.
Second, we cannot meaningfully discuss a more united Malaysia by looking
only at UEC students. Any serious conversation about educational pathways,
opportunity, and national unity must also include students from tahfiz
institutions, pondok and madrasah schools, as well as other non-mainstream
education streams. A united Malaysia must work for all Malaysians.
Having defined reality, we can now move to the next step of the DEAR
Method: Envision.
E – ENVISION
In envisioning a better future, one of the most important things we must
do is inspire ourselves and fellow Malaysians with a bright vision that
provides hope. Hope is critical because without hope, Malaysians become
cynical. We stop looking for solutions and start looking for someone to blame.
We begin to see every issue as another reason to fear, distrust, or oppose one
another.
Hope allows us to see possibilities. It allows us to believe that
Malaysians can become more united, whether they come from the national
education stream, UEC schools, or religious schools such as tahfiz, pondok, and
madrasah institutions. Hope moves us beyond arguments and towards solutions.
Once we have hope, we can identify specific mission areas that deserve
our attention. We can focus on education, re-learning, training, communication,
and building greater understanding between communities. Instead of arguing
endlessly about problems, we begin making new plans.
However, envisioning must not remain merely as documentation or wishful
thinking. A meaningful vision requires human touch. It must connect with the
hopes, concerns, and aspirations of ordinary Malaysians. It must be practical
enough to eventually translate into action.
Most importantly, envisioning a better future generates new energy. It
allows us to build on whatever strengths we already possess, however small they
may seem. We work from our niche.
And Malaysia has many strengths. We have decades of experience living in
a diverse society. We know how to compromise. We know how to negotiate
differences. We know how to work together despite our many races, religions,
cultures, and languages. We have not always done it perfectly, but we have done
it often enough to know that it can be done.
The purpose of envisioning is therefore not to dwell on what divides us,
but to build on what unites us.
The challenge for Malaysia has never been whether we should have
diversity in education. Educational diversity has existed for decades and is
likely to continue. The real challenge has always been how to balance
educational diversity with a common national framework that helps unite
Malaysians.
In my view, the answer is unity without uniformity.
Today, it is neither realistic nor practical to expect every Malaysian
child to study under one roof or attend the same type of school. Malaysia has
evolved significantly since Merdeka. Multiple educational pathways are now
deeply embedded in our society and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable
future.
The question therefore is no longer whether multiple educational pathways
should exist.
The real question is whether we can achieve the best of both worlds.
Can we preserve educational diversity while strengthening national unity?
Can we allow different educational pathways to flourish while ensuring
that every Malaysian acquires certain common foundations by the time he or she
reaches adulthood?
In my view, the answer must be yes.
Every Malaysian should have a reasonable command of Bahasa Malaysia. We
do not expect every Malaysian to be fasih in Bahasa Malaysia. However,
every Malaysian must be able to menguasai Bahasa Malaysia sufficiently
to communicate, work, interact, and participate fully in national life.
Likewise, every Malaysian should have a deep understanding of Malaysian
history and feel personally connected to it. History is not merely about
examinations, dates, or memorising events. It is about understanding how our
nation was formed, the sacrifices that were made, the compromises that were
reached, and the challenges that continue to shape us today.
More importantly, every Malaysian should be able to see Malaysian history
as part of his or her own personal story. While we may celebrate our various
ancestral, cultural, religious, or civilisational histories, our common
national history must remain Malaysian history. We should not project another
country's historical narrative onto Malaysia. Instead, we should understand
Malaysia on its own terms, through its own experiences, struggles,
achievements, and aspirations.
But perhaps even more important than language and history is social
interaction.
The earlier Malaysians interact with one another, the better.
One of the challenges of UEC schools, religious schools, and certain
private schools is that students often spend most of their formative years
within relatively homogeneous environments. As a result, many have fewer
opportunities to mix with Malaysians from different races, religions, cultures,
and socioeconomic backgrounds.
For a country like Malaysia, this is not ideal.
Unity is not built through slogans. Unity is built through relationships.
It is built when Malaysians study together, play together, eat together, travel
together, work together, and solve problems together.
It is difficult to fear someone you know well. It is difficult to dislike
someone whose home you have visited, whose food you have tasted, whose stories
you have heard, and whose friendship you value.
If our vision is a more united Malaysia, then one of our priorities must
be to create opportunities for Malaysians from different educational streams to
interact meaningfully with one another as early as possible. We should not wait
until they enter the workforce before they begin discovering fellow Malaysians
from different backgrounds.
If such interaction cannot happen fully at the school level, then it
should happen at the university level. The earlier the better. If not at
university, then through structured national programmes, community activities,
volunteerism, sports, leadership initiatives, and other platforms that bring
young Malaysians together.
The objective is simple: create opportunities for Malaysians to know one
another before stereotypes and misunderstandings become deeply entrenched.
Whether they come from a UEC school, a madrasah, a tahfiz institution, a
private school, or a national school, no Malaysian should grow up without
meaningful interaction with the rich diversity that makes Malaysia unique.
Every Malaysian should leave school with a reasonable command of Bahasa
Malaysia, a deep understanding of Malaysian history, meaningful interaction
with fellow Malaysians from different backgrounds, and a strong sense of
belonging to this nation.
The pathway may differ, but the destination should remain the same.
That, in my view, is the vision worth pursuing.
This concludes Part 3 of this article series.
In Part 4, we will move to the next stages of the DEAR Method: Action and
Reflection. Having defined reality and envisioned a better future, the next
question becomes: What practical actions can we take to move Malaysia in that
direction, and how do we continuously assess whether those actions are
producing the outcomes we seek?
Peace,
Anas Zubedy
