Language, economic development and social cohesion
Keynote address by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
at the third session of the 9th International Language and Development
Conference in Colombo on October 19, 2011
Language policy in Sri Lanka has been a total mess for the last
century. Unfortunately, most measures taken to remedy the situation
created greater problems. The aim of this paper is to provoke debate on
what should be done in trying to promote economic development and social
cohesion. In that respect I am perhaps luckier than my peers speaking in
other sessions, since the second element in my title suggests a clear
goal, whereas in other cases we are simply given abstract terms. We need
to argue then about what needs to be achieved with regard to identity,
education and the arts, and about these there might be disagreement. But
about the need for economic development there can be no dispute, just as
there can be no dispute about the need for social cohesion, if we are
not, all of us, of all communities in the country as a whole, to suffer
again the anguish of the last few decades.
|
Prof Rajiva
Wijesinha, MP |
What are the problems we face now because of absurd language
policies? With regard to social cohesion, first we have a situation
where members of different communities cannot in general communicate
with each other, because they are straitjacketed in monoligualism.
Second, members of minority communities are at a disadvantage when it
comes to employment, in particular in the state sector, because they do
not know the principal language of administration. Third, springing from
both these factors, members of minority communities cannot readily get
responses when dealing with the state sector. Fourth, where there are
requirements about documentation etc being available in all languages so
that all citizens can gain awareness, there are immense difficulties and
delays about translation.
Economic development
All these contribute to slowing up economic development. But there is
another factor that is even more destructive with regard to development,
namely the difficulties most of our citizens have in dealing with the
world at large. This slows business down considerably, not only with
regard to discussions private individuals have but also with regard to
authorizations necessary from the state sector. In addition, our
officials are at a disadvantage in dealing with officials from other
countries. We can be exploited, unjust criticisms pass without
challenge, deadlines are not met.
How did all this happen? The rot started with the second measure
introduced to overcome what was felt to be the unfair position English
enjoyed in Sri Lanka. The negative feelings this generated can be summed
up in a statement of J R Jayewardene, perhaps the most preposterous he
made in a career marked by blunders, when he introduced a bill to make
education in the mother tongue compulsory. He claimed then that “...
your educational Structure is divided into two types of educational
institutions; some institutions giving instruction through the mother
tongue, and the other institutions giving instruction through English.
This particular defect has created to my mind, two different nations;
one nation learning Sinhalese and Tamil and speaking in Sinhalese and
Tamil, and the other speaking and learning English”.
Rural youngsters
Amongst the many ironies of this measure was that it had already been
addressed by a more practical visionary. Our first Minister of
Education, C W W Kannangara, had understood the inequity of only a small
minority being able to function in the language of privilege and power,
but instead of leveling downward, he had sought to increase
opportunities for others. He had accordingly begun Central Schools in
all parts of the country where bright children could learn in English
and develop capacities in tune with their intelligence to take their
places as equal partners in society.
Sometimes I wonder indeed if Jayewardene were not just stupid, but
positively evil, in introducing his bill which in effect destroyed this
egalitarian innovation Kannangara had made just a few years earlier. By
insisting that children learn compulsorily in Sinhala or Tamil, he
ensured that rural youngsters were once more deprived of English.
Different communities
It is more likely however that this was simply unthinking populism
rather than destructive strategy. Fresh from his by-election triumph at
Kelaniya, when he had used religion as a tool to defeat his opponent E W
Perera, he moved to strengthen his chauvinistic credentials by moving
that Sinhala be the only compulsory medium of instruction. Horrified by
this denigration of Tamil, senior members of the party suggested that
Tamil too should be included, which he accepted. The original motion was
also watered down, in that Sinhala and Tamil were only made compulsory
as mediums of instruction at primary level, and choice was allowed
later. But the principle had been established, and in the early fifties,
when Eddie Nugawela was Minister of Education, he made Sinhala and Tamil
compulsory at secondary level too, by means of regulations.
English speakers
In theory English continued as a compulsory second language, with no
requirement that Sinhalese students should learn Tamil and Tamil
students Sinhala. Doubtless decision makers such as Jayewardene thought
that the different communities could communicate with each other in
English. But, given the hostility to English, given the absence as he
knew well of competent English speakers to become teachers, given the
failure to make it compulsory to pass in English at any public
examination, English was naturally neglected in many schools. The elite
of course continued to practice English, and in fact science could be
done in English for a few years more, which meant that major schools
teaching science continued to use the language actively, in contrast to
the many rural schools which hardly had science teachers, let alone
science teachers who could function in English.
So inevitably Jayewardene’s claim continued to be valid, with a small
class continuing to function in English and reaping the benefits of
this, while the majority were stuck in monolingualism. And of course
what he does not seem to have even thought of occurred, a solid barrier
to communication between Sinhalese speakers and Tamil speakers.
For over half a century this divisive and ineglaitarian situation has
continued. In the nineties measures were taken to make Tamil compulsory
for Sinhalese students and Tamil for Sinhalese students, but no
effective steps were taken to produce enough teachers for the purpose.
Then, in 2001, the Ministry of Education allowed English medium
education to be started at secondary level, but the plans that had been
developed to produce good materials and train enough teachers were
stymied by the change of government. Not entirely surprisingly, it was
Jayewardene’s nephew Ranil Wickremesinghe who seemed determined to stamp
out English medium again, though the commitment of his Minister of
Education, Karunasena Kodituwakku and the support given by the
President, enabled it to survive. Sadly, in spite of the continuing
support of the current President, the stratagem of limiting English in
the rural sector has reared its head again, with the withdrawal of
permission to teach History in English. Thus English will once again be
the preserve of schools that teach science, and the vast majority who do
arts subjects will have no incentive to try to learn in English.
One argument for restricting English medium with regard to history is
that it must be taught in the mother tongue, so as to preserve our
national culture. This is preposterous, because it suggests that science
and mathematics are nothing to do with culture. Rather, the argument is
in line with the mindset that seemed determined to keep our youngsters
in ignorance of the world around them. The National Institute of
Education managed for instance during one memorable period to avoid
mention of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution in the
entire grade span of secondary school. Sadly these so-called
professional educationists do not seem to understand that with knowledge
comes power, not deracination.
Innovative ideas
Given the massive impact the world has on all of us now, to propagate
ignorance is culpable. But the question arises whether this should be
forgiven because it also springs from ignorance, an incapacity to read
and know current trends in historical studies, so that we continue to
see history as a collection of facts that are repeated and learnt by
heart, not a discipline that encourages comparing and contrasting and
understanding of the different compulsions that led countries in
different directions during different periods.
In short, the idea that history like science should be about
thinking, with discriminating knowledge of the subject to make it
applicable to one’s current situation, is beyond our educationists.
Despite this many able youngsters manage to explore and produce
innovative ideas. But if we could permit them to do this without one
hand tied as it were behind their backs, we would develop much more
quickly.
The second reason given for not doing more to promote English medium
education, and allow even schools concentrating on arts subjects to
encourage their students to do more in English, is that there are not
enough teachers. This springs from the fact that the teacher training
programmes begun in 2002 were stopped, and instead the NIE went back to
the old traditional systems that have led to even teachers of English as
a subject not being able to fulfil their responsibilities
satisfactorily. They concentrate on theory rather than practicing the
language, they see their role as ensuring rote learning rather than
discussion and understanding.
In this regard, as with other areas in which the education system
keeps children in rural areas deprived through teacher shortages, it is
necessary to think outside the box. If the state system has failed over
several decades to produce enough teachers, and to ensure that they are
deployed in the areas that need them most, clearly it is necessary to
look at a different methodology.
In this regard, as with other areas in which the education system
keeps children in rural areas deprived through teacher shortages, it is
necessary to think outside the box. If the state system has failed over
several decades to produce enough teachers, and to ensure that they are
deployed in the areas that need them most, clearly it is necessary to
look at a different methodology.
The President advanced in his 2005 manifesto the idea of school based
recruitment of teachers, and he has mentioned this again recently, but
the Ministry of Education, along with Provincial Ministries of
Education, will not permit this, not least because the power they have
will be reduced.
Without that I believe we will never solve the problem of shortages
in rural areas that contribute to increasing disparities. I hope
therefore that the Ministry of Social Integration will promote change,
drawing attention to the manner in which unequal opportunities led to
much social unrest in the last half century.
In this regard another measure that seems desirable is the
facilitation of private sector teacher training, in particular in
science and mathematics and languages, not just English but also Sinhala
for Tamil students and Tamil for Sinhala students.
There are no sensible arguments against this, what is often heard
being the claim that the private sector is interested only in money and
therefore cannot be counted on to maintain good standards. The obvious
answer to that is to require accreditation by the state, if necessary by
introducing a state examination as is done with regard to the
professions for those who qualify in other countries and in institutions
within Sri Lanka that are not run by the state.
In addition to providing a pool of teachers who could be used in
areas which now get few teachers in essential subjects - and teachers
who could be employed specifically for a single school, to ensure that
they will not get themselves transferred out the minute they have
confirmed employment - private teacher training institutes could also
help us regain the position we once held of being a source of good
teachers for the region. In the old days our teachers were hired in
Malaysia and Africa and the Middle East, but unfortunately this practice
is in abeyance except for the few who are competent in English. If the
state system cannot provide the training that will allow our youngsters
to take advantage of the opportunities available for good teachers, it
is churlish to prevent private institutions fulfilling this need.
One of the corollaries of better language education nationwide, and
extending opportunities for English medium, is the possibility of
developing student exchanges. We need to do much more of this, not just
in sports, but also in cultural activities that allow joint performance,
and also in learning together and exchanging ideas. I still recall the
workshop Trinity College conducted shortly after English medium
commenced, for students from Colombo and Kandy and Jaffna and
Batticaloa, and also for students from two state schools in the region
that had taken on the challenge of providing English medium classes for
their students who otherwise would never have had opportunities to
practice the language. There should have been much more of this, but
with the blight that the Wickremesinghe regime cast over English medium,
no efforts were made to add value to the programme.
One aim indeed of the programme initially had been to encourage
working together, if possible by schools running joint classes. For
instance the shortage of teachers in English medium at Advanced Level
could have been addressed by a few schools working together, with
students of different communities coming together for particular
classes. Indeed this concept could be taken further, as suggested to me
by three principals of relatively small schools in Mutur. At the height
of the conflict, in which indeed Mutur had suffered badly, they
suggested that their three schools could be combined into one English
medium school. Instead of each school having a cadre of 20 odd teachers,
with the actual number on roll being much less, a combined school would
have the same cadre which would then be complete in actuality. And if it
was argued that no English medium teachers were available, clearly the
existing teachers could be trained through an intensive course that
would cost less in the long run than having to find and pay for a much
larger cadre.
Unfortunately I see no effort at the Ministry of Education or in
Provincial Ministries to bring students of different communities
together into a single school. Such an initiative would help
considerably with the current appalling shortages of teachers in the
plantation sector for instance, and in much of the Eastern Province.
This would do much for social integration and also increase skills in
a manner that would help considerably with economic development. But
unfortunately we continue to think of education as being a theoretical
construct, without considering its impact of the social and economic
needs of the country.
I have dwelt much on this topic which might have seemed outside my
brief, given that there is another session scheduled on Language and
Education and Social Integration. But I hope my argument, which has
addressed all the questions cited with regard to my topic, as well as
some raised with regard to other topics, has made clear the centrality
of a saner and more productive education and teacher training system if
we are to achieve the goals of economic development and social
integration we aspire to, and which our youngsters who have suffered so
much now deserve. |