[IRF] Why the Prime Minister’s statement on UEC controversy is immature
Muziru
Ahmad Farouk Musa || 21 January 2026
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
I write this letter out of deep concern for the future generation and for the country, even though I am aware that some friends from my liberal circle may not be entirely pleased with my position.
I refer to your recent statement on the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) controversy, as reported by several news portals yesterday. You declared that the long-standing controversy surrounding the UEC has been resolved once and for all, given that Bahasa Malaysia (BM) and History are now compulsory subjects for students seeking admission into public universities.
One cannot but question the timing of this declaration. It comes at a moment when support from the Chinese community for your Madani government appears to be at its lowest, particularly among so-called “fixed-deposit” Chinese voters. Dissatisfaction has been voiced over numerous political issues, not least the government’s much-touted commitment to fighting ‘corruption’. How, for instance, can the public reconcile anti-corruption rhetoric with the decision to grant No Further Action (NFA) to an individual facing 47 graft charges, where a prima facie case had already been established? While we may understand his importance to your administration, retaining someone widely perceived to be emblematic of corruption undermines the moral credibility of a government that claims to champion integrity. At best, it signals a lack of substance; at worst, it borders on deception.
Against this backdrop, the UEC issue appears to be a convenient means of regaining support from the Chinese community. Education, after all, is among the most emotive and important issues, alongside the economy and governance. Malaysia is one of the few countries that allow vernacular schools to exist within its national education framework―something neither common in Western countries not even in, the neighbouring country across the causeway. Yet the concern is not merely about the existence of vernacular school, but about the education system itself.
It has long been argued that the vernacular education system entrenches ethnic silos, which hinders the formation of a unified national identity and perpetuating tension between cultural preservation and national integration. While this is a debate that deserves deeper engagement, I will set it aside for another day.
What I wish to highlight instead is the glaring discrepancy in the standards of BM and History between national schools and vernacular schools. Even without delving deeply into History, one need only examine the standard of BM in many vernacular schools. A significant number of their graduates struggle to string a correct sentence in BM. This is evident even in parliamentary debates, where some vernacular-school-educated representatives perform poorly in BM, to the detriment of both discourse and dignity.
At the same time, BM taught in national schools has become excessively complex. Compared to my years at Penang Free School, the subject has undergone a transformation that raises fundamental questions about its purpose. Language is meant to facilitate communication―so why has it been made so difficult, as though students are being trained to become national laureates instead of competent communicators? Under the current standard I seriously doubt whether any vernacular school students could pass unscathed.
My point is simple: the standard of BM taught national and vernacular schools must be aligned. Lower it in national schools and increase it in vernacular schools. In that way, students from both streams are on an equal footing–whether they pursue public universities or the UEC pathway. The same principle should apply to History.
Although I was a science-stream student and did not study History in Forms Four and Five, I later tutored my son for his SPM History examination, now a compulsory subject. I found it extraordinarily confusing―arguably more confusing that memorising cranial nerves during anatomy lessons in medical school. This is not said disrespectfully, but to highlight the pedagogical problem. The sheer number of rulers sharing similar names across different Malay states forced me to resort to mind-mapping techniques just to make sense of the material.
History should be taught in a way that engages students, sparks curiosity and fosters understanding―much like how Hollywood transformed the otherwise boring vocation of archeology into the thrilling adventures of Indiana Jones. Ultimately, both national and vernacular schools should teach the same historical content and assess it using the same standards. If educationists truly believe that national identity is fostered through a shared language and a shared understanding of history, then there must be a revamp in how BM and History are being taught in our schools.
Finally, I wish to share how deeply I miss my schooldays in Penang. At that time, there was no sense of cultural encroachment or alienation. Today, national schools are no longer attractive to non-Malays who increasingly feel marginalised by the prevailing school culture. Why not make the national schools’ secular like they used to be and move religious studies to the afternoon, allowing students to choose whether they wish to learn Mandarin, Tamil, Arabic, or other languages during that session as well. The morning session could then focus on core subjects–BM, English, Science and Mathematics.
At the secondary level, Science should continue to encompass Biology, Chemistry and Physics, with strong emphasis on English – and perhaps to be taught in English – since it is the language of knowledge, the language of science and mathematics. Mastering this language opens the doors to the world’s accumulated wisdom. In an increasingly competitive environment, proficiency in English is not a luxury, but a necessity.
Dato’ Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa holds a PhD in Surgery from Monash University Australia. He also holds a Master of Medicine in Surgery from Universiti Sains Malaysia.