Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Ethnic Relations at School in Malaysia pp 43–59Cite as

Government’s Weak Quality Management: Incorporation of Allport’s Optimal Conditions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 141 Accesses

Abstract

The government and schools have been required to maximise the effect of the RIMUP towards the development of national integration. It has been generally understood that contact with Allport’s four conditions is more effective in reducing prejudice than contact without these conditions. In this chapter, whether and how each condition has been incorporated in the programme will be examined. This examination found that four conditions are not fully or partly incorporated in the RIMUP. To ensure an effective outcome of the RIMUP, it is necessary for the government to reform the structure of the programme and to develop the quality management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On 13 May 1969, the Chinese, celebrating an election victory, clashed with Malays fearing the extension of Chinese power. Approximately 200 people died in these riots.

  2. 2.

    The ratio between the mean monthly household income of Malays and Chinese was 1:2.3 in 1970. In 1970, the ownership of share capital by the Bumiputeras in the corporate sector was only 2.4 per cent, whereas the non-Bumiputera share was 28.3 per cent (Malaysia 1971, 1976).

  3. 3.

    The government enacted the Industrial Coordination Act (ICA) in 1975. Under this act, all enterprises in the manufacturing sector with more than 25 full-time paid employees (the size increased to 50 in 1985 and 75 in 1986) and shareholders’ funds of at least RM 250,000 (the size increased to RM 500,000 in 1977, RM 1 million in 1985, and RM2.5 million in 1986) had to register and comply with the statutory conditions governing the distribution of employment and equity to receive a manufacturing licence from the Trade and Industry Minister. The government established more state-owned companies and expanded the scale and arena of existing state-owned companies, which were active in promoting Malay participation in all sectors and occupations (New Straits Times 24 August 1975, cited in Milne 1976, 245). These preferential treatments were expected to shift Malays from low-income sectors, such as the agricultural sector, to modern sectors, such as the manufacturing sector, and from non-professional occupations to professional occupations. In addition, under the ICA, the Ministry of Trade and Industry dictated that all enterprises in the manufacturing sector had to designate at least 30 per cent of their equity to Malay interests (Jesudason 1990, 137). More details are provided in Segawa (2019).

  4. 4.

    This approach was discussed in Segawa (2013). Vociferous calls for the elimination of Malay preferential policies were made during and after the 2008 election. Prior to the election, the BN government emphasised the need to continue the Malay preferential policies, whereas opposition parties called for the abolition of the NEP. The success of opposition parties in the 2008 election exerted strong pressure on the BN government to dismantle these policies. After the election, the government indicated the need to improve the strategies and instruments that were implemented in the NEP (a shift towards a need-based approach and the development of multiculturalism) at least to some degree. Najib introduced the 1 Malaysia concept, suggesting that the government would downplay its Malay dominance stance and that nation-building would be based on the idea of multiculturalism (Malaysia 2009). In April 2009, the liberalisation of 27 service sub-sectors was announced in an attempt to create a business environment conducive to attracting more investments, attracting more professionals and technology, creating higher value employment opportunities and strengthening competitiveness (Najib 22 April 2009). Under liberalisation, the government removed the condition providing 30 per cent of equity to Malays in the sectors. In 2010, Najib introduced the New Economic Model (NEM) with the goal that Malaysia would become a fully developed nation with a high income, inclusiveness and sustainability by 2020 (National Economic Advisory Council 2009, 9). Towards the goal of the NEM, he planned to liberalise the country’s market and revise Malay preferential policies to ensure compatibility with the more competitive economic context (Najib 30 March 2010). In the Tenth Malaysia Plan, the government suggested improvement in the strategies and instruments implemented in the NEP (Malaysia 2011, 165). The government implemented certain policies based on meritocracy while maintaining core aspects of Malay preferential policies. The BN government was apparently confronting a dilemma and did not determine the direction of Malay preferential policies.

  5. 5.

    Although it has Malay and Indian members, this party has been recognised as a Chinese party.

  6. 6.

    During the 2008 election, the PKR, the DAP and the PAS worked together under the name of Barisan Rakyat. After the election, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) was established on 1 April 2008. However, as a result of the resurgence of antagonism between the PAS and the DAP in 2015, the PR collapsed. A new Islamic party, Amanah, was formed by moderate and progressive PAS members, which provoked PAS’s withdrawal from the PR. In the DAP, the PKR and the Amanah established a new opposition coalition, PH, in September 2015.

  7. 7.

    However, Malay preferential policies have had a positive impact on nation-building in Malaysia. In 1970, the percentages of Malay and Chinese students enrolled in degree courses at public universities were 39.7 per cent and 49.2 per cent, respectively (Malaysia 1981, 1986; Lee 2006). Following the adoption of the quota system under the NEP, the percentage of Malays increased dramatically to 63.0 per cent, whereas that of Chinese decreased to 29.7 per cent by 1985 (Malaysia 1981, 1986; Lee 2006). In addition, the percentage of Malays employed in the agricultural sector slightly decreased from 67.6 per cent in 1970 to 61.6 per cent in 2000, and the percentage of Malays employed in the manufacturing sector increased from 28.9 per cent in 1970 to 49.1 per cent in 2000 (Malaysia 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991a, 1996, 2001, 2006). The percentage of Malays having professional and technical work and administrative and managerial work increased from 47.2 per cent and 22.4 per cent in 1970 to 63.9 per cent and 37.0 per cent in 2000, respectively (Malaysia 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991a, 1996, 2001, 2006). Since it has been said that the agricultural sector has the lowest per capita product and income of all sectors (Malaysia 1976, 6), and professional and managerial workers constitute the so-called ‘middle class’ (Abdul Rahman 1998, 92), Malays held predominantly lower-income jobs in 1970. Furthermore, ownership of share capital in the corporate sector by Bumiputeras (consisting of Malays and other indigenous people) increased from 2.4 per cent in 1970 to 19.6 per cent in 1990 (Malaysia 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991a, 1996, 2001). Although the share of Bumiputera ownership did not meet the NEP target of 30 per cent, the level attained was a significant achievement (Malaysia 1991b, section 1.33). The BN leadership claimed that Malay preferential policies had succeeded in narrowing the gap between ethnic communities and thus promoting social stability.

  8. 8.

    Interviews with the Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur on 9 September 2015.

  9. 9.

    The Merdeka University movements started in 1968. Although the establishment of the university was authorised by the government before the 1969 ethnic riots, it was ultimately denied in 1978. Instead, the government established the Tunku Abdul Rahman (TAR) College, using English as a medium of instruction, in Kuala Lumpur in February 1969 under the leadership of the MCA. The college has succeeded in facilitating the tertiary education of Chinese students. The TAR College now has a main campus in Kuala Lumpur and five branch campuses; approximately 170,000 students have graduated from the college. This college has had 50 per cent of its costs subsidised by the state. In 2013, it was upgraded to a University College.

  10. 10.

    Subsequently, under the Private High Education Institutions Act (PHEIA), implemented in 1996, the government approved the establishment of the New Era College, Southern College and Han Jiang College, all of which use Chinese as a medium of instruction. These universities offer a curriculum that includes Chinese studies.

  11. 11.

    Because of the introduction of ethnic quotas for entrance into public universities, many Chinese students went overseas for tertiary education. For example, 87 per cent of Malaysian students in Australian universities were Chinese (Patience 1995, 7).

  12. 12.

    In May 2008, Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, announced that 45 per cent of the PSD scholarships would be allocated to non-Malay students, compared to the 10 per cent previously allocated (Anonymous 2008).

  13. 13.

    http://educationmalaysia.blogspot.com/2006/05/scholarship-quotas.html (accessed on 17 June 2011).

  14. 14.

    In contrast, some Malays argue that Chinese primary schools have much better facilities than Malay schools. Although it seems that the amount of development funds to Chinese schools has been smaller than that to Malay schools, there is a trend that Chinese schools have better facilities because wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs are the board members of the schools.

  15. 15.

    In my interview research, some headmasters expressed the same opinion.

  16. 16.

    Ten of 23 programmes engaged in cultural activities.

  17. 17.

    One headmaster had the misunderstanding that schools can implement only cultural activities under the RIMUP programme.

  18. 18.

    Eleven of 23 programmes engaged in sports activities.

  19. 19.

    According to my survey results (see Table 4-1), the RIMUP of the 4 × 100 metre relay does not contribute significantly to the improvement of ethnic relations since the score difference between immediately before and immediately after the 4 × 100 metre relay activity was usually smaller than immediately before and immediately after cultural activities.

  20. 20.

    Interviews with the Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur on 9 September 2015.

  21. 21.

    Malakolunthu (2009) argued that there were no special pedagogical interventions to help students understand the concepts of race, religion and culture in a student interaction programme.

  22. 22.

    Interview with headmasters and/or teachers of primary schools in March and September 2017.

  23. 23.

    Insufficient understanding and knowledge of the RIMUP among headmasters and teachers might stem from their low motivation, at least in part.

  24. 24.

    One headmaster had the misunderstanding that schools can implement only cultural activities under the RIMUP programme.

  25. 25.

    Needless to say, low motivations among headmasters and teachers lead to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the purpose of the RIMUP. Therefore, low motivations could result in the selection of inappropriate activities.

  26. 26.

    In my interview research, some teachers said that they did not receive a booklet.

  27. 27.

    Interview with the Ministry of Education on 14 March 2016.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

References

  • Abdul Rahman, Embong. 1998. Social Transformation, the State and the Middle Classes in Post-Independence Malaysia. In Cultural Contestations: Mediating Identities in a Changing Malaysian Society, ed. Zawawi Ibrahim: 83–116. London: ASEAN Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aboud, Francis E. 2003. The formation of in-group favouritism and out-group prejudice in young children: are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology 39, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, Abdul Razak. 2005. Building Friendship that Unites the Races. New Sunday Times, 7 August 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiam, Yan Tuan. 2013. Principle and Objective on National Education. In Reforming National Education: Analyses and Recommendations on Malaysia Education Blueprint, ed. Research Team on Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: 61–63. Kuala Lumpur: LLG Cultural Development Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua Soi Lek. 10 October 2010. Presidential Address. The MCA’s 57th Annual General Assembly. http://www.mca.org.my/en/presidential-address-of-the-mca%E2%80%99s-57th-annual-general-assembly-by-mca-president-datuk-seri-dr-chua-soi-lek/ (accessed 19 February 2011).

  • Crouch, Harold. 1996. Government and Society in Malaysia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esman, Milton J. 1994. Ethnic Politics. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green Arena. 2005. NEP had Widened the Gap Between Rich, Poor Bumi, Malaysiakini, 27 July 2005. http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/38321 (accessed 30 July 2007).

  • Jesudason, James V. 1990. Ethnicity and the Economy: the State, Chinese Business, and Multinationals in Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jomo, K S. 2001. Malaysia’s New Economic Policy and “National Unity”. In Conference on Racism and Public Policy. Durban, South Africa: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jugert, Phillip, Noack, Peter and Rutland, Adam. 2011. Friendship Preferences among German and Turkish Preadolescents, Child Development 82(3), 812–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku Samsu, Ku Hasnita, Ab Halim, Adlina, Lee, Yok Fee and Sulaiman, Mohd Hafiz. 2012. Teacher’s stand on the establishment of single-stream school, Journal of Teaching and Education 1(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kua, Kia Soong. 1999 (third edition). A Protean Saga: The Chinese Schools of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dong Jiao Zong Higher Learning Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hock Guan. 2006. Globalisation and Ethnic Integration in Malaysian Education. In Malaysia: Recent Trends and Challenges, eds. Saw Swee-Hock and K. Kesavapany: 230–59. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malakolunthu, Suseela. 2009. Educational Reform and Policy Dynamics: A Case of the Malaysian “Vision School” for Racial Integration, Education Research for Policy and Practice 8, 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1971. Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975. Kuala Lumpur: The Government Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1973. Mid-term Review of the Second Malaysian Plan 1971–1975. Kuala Lumpur: The Government Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1976. Third Malaysia Plan 1976–1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1981. Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981–1985. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1986. Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986–1990. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1991a. Sixth Malaysia Plan 1991–1995. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1991b. Second Outline Perspective Plan, 1991–2000. Kuala Lumpur: National Print Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 1996. Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996–2000. Kuala Lumpur: The Economic Planning Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 2001. Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001–2005. Kuala Lumpur: The Economic Planning Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 2006. Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010. Kuala Lumpur: The Economic Planning Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia. 2009. 1 Malaysia: Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan. Putrajaya: Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture. http://www.kpkk.gov.my/pdf/Booklet_1Malaysia.pdf (accessed 10 December 2010).

  • Malaysia. 2011. Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011–2015. Kuala Lumpur: The Economic Planning Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2013. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Preschool to Post-Secondary Education. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2014. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report 2013: Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2015. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report 2014: Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2016. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report 2015: Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2017. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report 2016. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2018. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report 2017. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najib, Razak. 22 April 2009. Liberalisation of the Services Sector. http://www.pmo.gov.my/?menu=news&page=1729&news_id=39&news_cat=4 (accessed 21 July 2009).

  • Najib, Razak. 30 March 2010. Keynote Address. The Invest Malaysia 2010. http://www.nitc.my/index.cfm?&menuid=104&parentid=103 (accessed 14 January 2011).

  • National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC). 2009. New Economic Model for Malaysia Part 1. Putrajaya: NEAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Boon Hooi. 2001. Build Chinese, not Vision School, in USJ: Education Movement, Malaysiakini, 21 September 2001. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/4773 (accessed 30 November 2006).

  • Ooi, Kee Beng. 2008. Lost in Transition: Malaysia under Abdullah. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patience, Allan. 1995. Authoritarian Regimes and Multiculturalism in South East Asia: An Australian Perspective. In The Politics of Multiculturalism in the Asia Pacific, ed. Myers David: 1–13. Darwin: Northern Territory University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, Thomas F and Tropp, Linda R. 2006. A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5), 751–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prime Minister’s Department Malaysia. 2010. Government Transformation Programme: the Roadmap. Putrajaya: Performance, Management and Implementation Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Team on Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. 2013. Reforming National Education: Analyses and Recommendations on Malaysia Education Blueprint. Kuala Lumpur: LLG Cultural Development Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodzi, Nadirah H. 2018. Malaysia to Train Bumiputera to Be More Competitive Rather Than Spoon-feed Them: Mahathir, The Straits Times, 1 September 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-to-train-bumiputera-to-be-more-competitive-rather-than-spoon-feed-them (accessed 7 March 2018).

  • Segawa, Noriyuki. 2013. Affirmative Action and Nation Building in Malaysia: The Future of Malay Preferential Policies, African and Asian Studies 12, 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segawa, Noriyuki. 2019. National Identity, Language and Education in Malaysia: Search for a Middle Ground between Malay Supremacy and Equality. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan Liok Ee. 2002. Baggage from the Past, Eyes on the Future: Chinese Education in Malaysia Today. In Ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia: A Dialogue between Tradition and Modernity, ed. Suryadinata Leo: 155–71. Singapore: Times Media Private Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troop, Linda R, O’Brien, Thomas C, and Migacheva, Katya. 2014. How Peer Norms of Inclusion and Exclusion Predict Children’s Interest in Cross-Ethnic Friendships, Journal of Social Issues 70(1), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 2008. Fairer Distribution of Scholarships for All Races, Bernama Daily Malaysian News, 28 May 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 2010a. UEC Students Can Now Enter Teacher Training Colleges, My Sin Chew, 23 September 2010. http://www.mysinchew.com/node/45356?tid=136 (accessed 1 July 2011).

  • Anonymous. 2010b. Recognise the UEC, My Sin Chew, 1 May 2010. http://www.mysinchew.com/node/38431?tid=8 (accessed 1 July 2011).

  • Anonymous. 2018a. KL to Review Race-based New Economic Policy, The Straits Times, 25 July 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/kl-to-review-race-based-new-economic-policy (accessed 7 March 2019).

  • Anonymous. 2018b. Malaysian PM Mahathir Says Affirmative Action Policy to Remain, The Straits Times, 2 October 2018. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysian-pm-mahathir-says-affirmative-action-policy-to-remain (accessed 7 March 2019).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kindai University, Osaka, Japan

    Noriyuki Segawa

Authors
  1. Noriyuki Segawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noriyuki Segawa .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Segawa, N. (2019). Government’s Weak Quality Management: Incorporation of Allport’s Optimal Conditions. In: Ethnic Relations at School in Malaysia. Palgrave Pivot, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9857-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9857-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9856-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9857-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation