Language and education policies in Southeast Asia: reorienting towards multilingualism-as-resource

ABSTRACT

Over the past few decades, many Southeast Asian governments have promoted English language education (hereafter ELE) as a linguistic pathway for developing human capital and improving global economic competitiveness of their nations. However, Kirkpatrick (2017. Language education policy among the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.2) raises a valid concern that if the current language education policy of teaching only the national language plus English is retained in Southeast Asian polities, future multilinguals in the region will likely be transformed into bilinguals with proficiency in the national language and English. While instrumentalist discourses have shaped ELE policy in the region, the current status of English has also been facilitated, to a large extent, by a set of common ELE ‘fallacies’ [Phillipson (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press]. This paper seeks to firstly address the ideological fallacies of ELE that underlie the pursuit of English. We then call for a reorientation towards viewing multilingualism-as-resource(s), and propose a ‘Na/ver/in’ multilingual model for Southeast Asian primary education. This model seeks to promote the combined use of the (na)tional language, (ver)nacular language(s)/regional lingua franca and (in)ternational language for primary education. We further argue that the way forward is a more balanced, inclusive, socially equitable and ethical approach to language policy and planning, informing the Naverin model.

KEYWORDS:

• Language and education policy
• language policies in education
• language-as-resource planning orientation
• Southeast Asia
• mother-tongue based multilingual education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The Philippines is the only Southeast Asian nation that has implemented the MTB-MLE policy by incorporating twelve languages that can be used, where appropriate, as languages of instruction from Primary 1–3, a radical change from the earlier bilingual education policy in operation since 1974 (Benson, 2017).

2 The Naverin model uses ‘Vernacular language (wherever possible) or regional lingua francas’ in place of the term ‘mother tongue’. By not using ‘mother tongue’ in the Naverin model, we may be able to avoid engaging in terminological disputes, i.e. varied interpretations of ‘mother tongues’.

3 Despite its laudable multilingual narrative, the implementation of the South African model, has resulted in an unintended policy consequence of elevating the status of English by virtue of the prominence of English within the ecology of languages in education (Heugh, 2013), thus defeating its initial well-intended agenda of addressing the hegemony of English in the curriculum. Reports also show a disjunction between constitutional and other government policies that advance a multilingual policy on paper which is implemented through an assimilatory drive towards English since it is believed that the use of 11 official languages might be impractical (Alexander & Heugh, 1999).

4 In the implementation of the Three Language Formula in India, however, Hindi is often viewed as superior to the respective state languages, particularly in non-Hindi speaking states (Gupta & Sharma, 2019). As such, states have often implemented reactionary policies against the federal government’s enthusiasm to promote Hindi. For example, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal made it compulsory to learn their state languages across schools in the respective states.