On Asean languages as electives in Malaysian schools

Malaysia’s education system has long stood at a crossroads – torn between national aspirations and the politicisation of language, access and curriculum.

Few issues have generated as much tension, debate and division as the choice of language in education. From the Rahman Talib report of 1961, which reaffirmed the earlier Razak report’s recommendation of Malay as the national medium of instruction, to continued debates over the place of vernacular schools, language has remained not just a pedagogical question but a political one.

Today, new developments make the case for a careful and principled review of education policy, especially regarding language.

Most significantly, recent High Court decisions have begun to recognise the constitutional right to education. This is not merely a rhetorical shift. It signals that decisions once seen as the prerogative of ministers and bureaucrats must now meet a higher standard of justification. Language and curriculum policies must serve constitutional values, such as equality, access and non-discrimination – and not just administrative or nationalistic goals. It must prioritise the developmental needs of students, now and in the future.

This evolving constitutional landscape means that ad hoc or symbolic decisions, such as the recent announcement by the education minister to introduce Thai, Khmer and Vietnamese as elective subjects, require deeper scrutiny.

While fostering regional ties is important, the introduction of Asean languages into schools must not be viewed as an isolated gesture of diplomacy. It must be part of a coherent, well-researched and broadly supported national education strategy that serves all stakeholders.

At the same time, broader global developments demand urgent policy recalibration. The once-reliable pathways to international education, particularly in the US, are rapidly closing. The US, traditionally a top destination for Malaysian students, is becoming increasingly inward-looking. The defunding of education, the harassment of international students through immigration restrictions, and the rise of xenophobic political rhetoric suggest a retreat from global engagement.

These trends, though most evident in the US, are not confined to it. Other Western nations have begun to re-examine their openness to foreign students, research collaborations and academic mobility.

In this shifting global environment, Malaysia must develop a more resilient and self-sufficient education system. That process starts at home. There must be clear, coherent policies at the primary and secondary levels that reflect both national needs and global realities.

Language is central to that task. Malaysia’s multilingualism is both a strength and a source of persistent policy conflict. The country has managed, albeit uneasily, to maintain a system that supports Malay as the national language, English as a key medium of instruction in higher education, and vernacular schools that offer instruction in Chinese and Tamil. Despite repeated legal and political challenges, vernacular schools have survived, thanks in part to continued community support and judicial reluctance to endorse their closure.

Rather than sidelining this linguistic diversity, Malaysia should view it as a foundation for future policy. A reaffirmation of support for vernacular schools, coupled with clear policies to strengthen Malay and English proficiency for all students, would serve national unity far better than piecemeal additions of Asean languages made without public consultation or pedagogical planning.

Introducing regional languages may well have a place in Malaysia’s educational future, but only if pursued with transparency, research and a long-term vision. Such a move must involve a detailed study of curriculum feasibility, teacher training and student interest.

More importantly, it must be part of a broader regional dialogue. If the goal is to enhance regional cooperation, Malaysia should engage with Asean partners to explore shared educational goals, including the possible development of a common working language such as English to enhance academic and professional mobility within the region.

Introducing Asean languages without first resolving ongoing national issues risks adding confusion rather than coherence. These issues include the role of English in science and technology, the constitutional status of vernacular schools, insufficient emphasis on critical thinking in the curriculum and the changes AI is poised to have on education. It may also stretch limited educational resources and further politicise language debates at the cost of pedagogical clarity in a changing world.

Ultimately, what Malaysia needs is not another language in the classroom, but a national education policy that is constitutionally sound, globally aware and regionally relevant.

That policy must reaffirm commitments to linguistic inclusion, educational equity and academic excellence. It must also create the conditions for students in Malaysia students to thrive in a world that is increasingly uncertain, where old alliances may fray and new regional opportunities are only beginning to emerge.

Any changes made to primary and secondary education must also take into account the future of higher education and Malaysia’s already established position as a destination for higher education.

The move must be towards a regional higher education system that will match the best that is offered in the countries which are now the destination of our students and academics. Malaysia has a lot to offer the region in fulfilling such an ambition.

Until such a policy is developed through real and meaningful engagement with all stakeholders, including teachers, student bodies, parents, communities and regional partner, decisions like the introduction of Asean languages should be held in abeyance.

The future of education in Malaysia deserves more than symbolic actions. It requires vision, commitment and constitutional fidelity.