Abstract
Malaysia is a multi-racial country where about a quarter of the population are ethnic Chinese. Arguably, Malaysia is also the only country outside of Greater China to have a ‘complete’ Chinese education track from primary to higher education. The Malaysia higher education system, consisting of both public and private higher education institutions, has five private higher education institutions that can be considered as ‘Chinese community-based’. These institutions were established by various interest groups in the Chinese community with seemingly different purposes. Hence, based on interviews with 23 participants, ranging from institutional leaders, administrators, mid-level academic managers and academic staff across three ‘Chinese community-based’ institutions, this paper explores the identities of these ‘Chinese community-based’ institutions. Using the concept of ‘roots’ (根) as an analytical lens, this paper illustrates three distinctive identities of these institutions which can be described as the ethnically proud (寻根问祖), the accommodator (落地生根) and the uprooted (失根群族). The understanding of these different identities illuminated the fact that there are subtle but crucial differences even across the three selected ‘Chinese community-based’ higher education institutions in Malaysia. More importantly, this diversity has crucial implications for policymaking in the governance of higher education institutions, positioning and branding of these institutions, as well as understanding of educational development of the Chinese diaspora outside of Greater China.
Introduction
The higher education in Malaysia is highly diversified where it is generally divided into public and private higher education institutions (
Within such a diverse higher education system and society, as well as an increasingly globalised higher education landscape, this paper explores the identity of Chinese community-based
Chinese in Malaysia
Malaysia is a multi-racial country where about 25 per cent of the Malaysian population is made up of Chinese (or huaren 华人). In 2010, there were 6.9 million Malaysian nationals who identified themselves as Malaysian-born or foreign-born people of Chinese descent (Department of Statistics, 2015). This essentially placed Malaysia as the second largest community of overseas Chinese living outside Greater China (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) after Thailand.
Chinese is not only the second largest ethnic group in Malaysia, the term ‘Chinese’ is also a state-recognised and official classification of ethnic groups. The earliest presence of Chinese in Malaysia can be traced back to the early 15th century as documented in the Ming Imperial Annals (Ming Shi-lu) that contains a large number of references to Malacca (Wade, 1997). One popular historical narrative tells that a Ming dynasty princess married the sultan of the Malacca empire (Worden, 2001; Wade, 1997). The intermarriage between the Chinese and the local Malays results in their descendants becoming a separate and unique group of Chinese who identify themselves as Peranakan Chinese (Straits-born Chinese), referring to Chinese born in the region between 15th and 17th centuries (Tan, 1997). One of the traits of Peranakan Chinese is that they have been assimilated into the local communities, hence, creating a unique and hybridised culture, language and tradition.
However, the largest wave of emigration of Chinese into Malaysia (then Malaya) only took place in the 19th century. This emigration from the southern provinces of China, particularly Guangdong and Fujian, was mainly due to economic reasons, where on the one hand the political volatility in China, such as the Opium Wars, rebellious activities of the Qing dynasty and civil war, have resulted in economic hardship. On the other hand, early 19th century until the Second World War was a booming economic period in Malaya for tin mining and rubber plantations. Encouraged by the British, many of the Chinese emigrated to Malaya to work in the tin mines and were involved in trade. For traders and many settlers in this period, they were Chinese emigrants who left China due to the social unrest of civil war, which Weidenbaum and Hughes (1996) described as part of the ‘Bamboo Network’. In comparison to the Peranakan Chinese, the Chinese emigrants of early 19th century were more strongly influenced by the values of Confucianism and pragmatism, which in turn have much stronger influence in the Chinese’s insistence for Chinese education as a means to maintain their identity.
Apart from being the second largest community of overseas Chinese, Malaysia arguably is the only country outside Greater China to have a complete Chinese education system (Voon, 2008). From primary to higher education, there are schools and institutions that provide education in Chinese. In the Malaysian education system, there are national-type Chinese schools at the primary and secondary level, where the Ministry of Education supports the operational cost and provides teachers. In the national-type Chinese primary schools, the medium of instruction is Mandarin for most subjects and students are required to learn Malay and English as additional languages. Even in the national secondary schools where the main medium of instruction is Malay language, Chinese language (Mandarin) and Chinese literature are offered as elective subjects. In addition to the national-type Chinese schools, there are also Independent Chinese Secondary Schools at the secondary level. These independent schools mainly exist to cater for students from the national-type Chinese schools to continue their secondary education in Mandarin. Students in these independent schools will undertake the Unified Examination Certificate (
Chinese Community-Based Higher Education Institutions: an Ambivalent Development
Although one can claim that there exists a complete Chinese education system in Malaysia, the higher education level pale in comparison to the primary and secondary levels. There is no
Nanyang University
2
(also known as Nantah) was established in 1953 in Singapore and its unique feature was using the Chinese language (Mandarin) as its official medium of instruction. The idea of a university using Mandarin was mooted by Tan Lark Sye, the president of the largest Chinese clansmen’s association (Singapore Hokkien Association) (Wong, 2000). Through donations and supports from the Chinese of all walks of life in Singapore, Malaya and Southeast Asia, the university was materialised in Jurong, Singapore (the current site of Nanyang Technological University (
Inspired by Nantah, the Chinese community in Malaysia through the United Chinese School Committees Association (Dong Zong) and the United Chinese School Teachers Association (Jiao Zong), or more commonly known as Dong Jiao Zong, mooted the idea of the Merdeka University in 1967. Dong Jiao Zong remains a legitimate organisation within the Chinese-speaking community in Malaysia (Ang, 2014) and is often considered the ‘defender of Malaysian Chinese identity’ in their fighting for Chinese education (Collins, 2006). Similar to Nantah, the proposed Merdeka University was to use Chinese language (Mandarin) as the official medium of instruction, which illustrated the aspirations of Dong Jiao Zong to establish a complete system of Chinese education in Malaysia (Tan & Teoh, 2015).
However, with the introduction of the Universities and University Colleges Act (
However, unlike other private
The Identity of a Chinese
To explore the identity of Chinese community-based
Furthermore, specifically in the context of Southeast Asia, the concept of Chinese is also diverse. While the ethnic-Chinese population in Malaysia and Singapore has integrated into the societies by explicitly maintaining their identities as reflected through the continued usage of Chinese names (Chua, 2009), Chinese in Thailand and Indonesia have assimilated into the local societies. Although the latter groups may have continued the traditions and cultural practices such as celebrating Chinese New Year, officially, they have adopted local names that do not distinguish them from their fellow countrymen of other ethnicity, which in the case of Indonesia began from the name-changing regulation of 1966 (Hoon, 2006; Purdey, 2003; Suryadinata et al., 2003). The consideration of integrating or assimilating the Chinese in Southeast Asia has its roots with the local sentiment and context at that point in time to either forged a united identity of a society or for the governing/colonial powers to be inclusive, which therefore has resulted in a diverse yet hybrid identity of being a Chinese in this region.
The concept of ‘Chineseness’ has been used as an analytical lens to understand Chinese, more specifically the cultural context and related ‘ways of doing things’ (Lo, 2016; Wang, 1991; 1993). ‘Chineseness’, also known as zhongguo xing or huaren xing (literal meaning: Chinese’s heart), refers to the nature and consciousness of being Chinese and emerged from the question, “What does it mean to be Chinese?” (Wang, 2009). However, it is crucial to recognise that concepts such as Chineseness and what it means to be a Chinese evolve over time, as well as differ across geographical, political and nationalistic context. Hence, the understanding of identity using these frames may also change.
Concept of ‘Roots’
As a way to capture the different yet changing identities, five major types of Chinese identities were proposed by Wang (1991a), more specifically referring to the Chinese American identities. The five identities were derived from the concept of ‘roots’ (根, gen), which in Chinese symbolises genesis and maintenance of life. In addition, the use of ‘roots’ implies a two-pronged meaning. On the one hand, roots associate to the allegiance of the motherland, specifically in terms of the Chinese culture, traditions and language. On the other hand, the concept can signify the taking of roots in a foreign soil. Hence, the two-pronged meaning of ‘roots’ has been helpful to understand the cultural and heritage connection, as well as to inform the development of the Chinese identity in a foreign context. Using this framework, five types of identity are proposed: the sojourner mentality (叶落归根, yeluo guigen), assimilator (斩草除根, zancao cugen), accommodator (落地生根, luodi shenggen), ethnically proud (寻根问祖, xungen wenzu), and uprooted (失根群族, shigen qunzu). See Wang (1991a) for the detailed description for each of the five identity.
Although this concept originated from the literature about Chinese identity in the American society, the typology and characteristics that differentiate each of the identity provides a versatile theoretical framework that can be applicable to the context of Chinese identity in a multi-racial Malaysia. Specifically in this study, the root may not refers to China or Greater China as the country, but importantly it refers to the Chinese identity, culture, traditions and language.
Methodology
The aim of this paper is to examine the identities of Chinese community-based
What is the identity of a Chinese community-based
In what ways and to what extent does the
A multiple case study design was chosen to connect the questions with the empirical data (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2009). The unit of analysis in this study is the higher education institution. The aim of the paper suggests that we adopt the interpretivist paradigm to approach the research, where the paradigm posits that a reality cannot be separated from our knowledge and values, and the truth and meaning of reality is to be negotiated between the researchers and participants through dialogue (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). The meaning relies on a naturalistic method, and therefore, the primary data collection method was semi-structured interviews with institutional leaders, administrators and academic staff, and supplemented by institutional documents.
As there are five Chinese-based
Each interview comprises of an interviewer and a note taker, and interviews were digitally recorded Interview notes were then reconciled and checked against recordings by two research team members. Twenty of the interviews were conducted in English and three were conducted in Mandarin. Thematic content analysis was used to identify themes that emerged from the interviews to develop a case study (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In addition, the constant comparative method was used to analyse the case studies as a way to further enrich and clarify the emerging themes (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). A total of five themes emerged: (i) establishment, (ii) governance, management and financing, (iii) academic programmes, (iv) campus and environment, and (v) the people and their interactions.
Findings
Establishment
Although the three colleges are all regarded as Chinese community-based institutions, the specific group and motivation behind the establishment of these institutions differ significantly. However, an important point to note is that all three colleges were established during a period when an ethnic quota was being enforced for admission into Malaysian public universities. Lotus College, for instance, was established by a Chinese political party with the purpose to provide an alternative access route into higher education for Malaysian generally and Chinese specifically, to pursue post-secondary education and training. In particular, Lotus College was seen as an essential form of social mobility for the Chinese community through education. Hence, from the very beginning, Lotus College was driven by the principles of affordability, accessibility and employability, and the ‘Chineseness’ of the institution was never emphasised. It is also worth noting that many of the key leaders of the Chinese political party were Peranakan Chinese themselves and they had integrated into the Malaysian society for several centuries. As pointed out earlier, the Peranakan Chinese were starkly different from the Chinese who had emigrated into Malaya in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as many of the former received English education and were highly ‘Westernised’.
Conversely, Gingko and Bamboo Colleges were established by different groups of Chinese with seemingly different purposes. Bamboo College was set up and supported by the Chinese community in a specific geographical region of the country. These communities include Chinese from all walks of life, but predominantly the Chinese business community and clan/cultural associations. Interestingly, Bamboo College was established to provide post-secondary trainings in areas of demand by the Chinese community. For example, as a way to address the needs of the Chinese community at that point in time, one of its first academic programmes was Malay Studies. This programme was introduced to train more Chinese teachers with the ability to teach Malay language in the independent Chinese secondary schools. Importantly, an emphasis on multiculturalism and multilingualism was also instilled from the beginning of Bamboo College.
Gingko College was established by the Chinese education groups with the purpose to ‘complete’ the Chinese education system in Malaysia. This college was intended to symbolise the apex of Chinese education as a form of continuation to the primary national-type Chinese schools and independent Chinese secondary schools throughout the country. More crucially, Gingko College was also seen as a symbolic institution that connects the past, present and future development of Chinese education in Malaysia.
Governance, Management and Funding of Institution
The differences in the establishment and ownership of these colleges entail a vast difference in terms of the governance, management and funding of the three colleges. Gingko and Bamboo Colleges are private higher education institutions, and therefore, both colleges are set up as a company under the Companies Act. These two institutions have a board of directors, board of governors and senate. Although, in principle, the board of directors is responsible for the financial matters and the board of governors on institutional policies, however there were instances in both Gingko and Bamboo Colleges where the board of directors and board of governors have intervened and acted beyond the jurisdiction of their roles and responsibilities. For instance as an academic staff in Bamboo College explained:
The management style is dominated by Eastern culture; very strong to the point where members of board of directors can intervene into the administration. Even when we were building the new building, the acting chairman of board of directors appointed himself as the chairman of the construction project to oversee the project.
These interventions by the board of directors on institutional matters as well as board of governors on academic matters, despite the latter under the purview of the senate, to some extent encouraged a top-down management style in Gingko and Bamboo Colleges. This also suggests a lack of institutional and academic autonomy internally. Specifically in Bamboo College, at the point when this study was carried out, the management of the college was undergoing a transition. In a year or so, Bamboo College has brought in a group of retired academics with substantial management experience from other more Western-like colleges and universities. These institutional leaders have brought with them a more ‘systematic’ management style with strong emphasis on performance. Hence, key performance indicators were introduced for the very first time, and this clearly underlined a shift from a more communal culture in governance and management based on human relationship, volunteerism and loyalty, to one that is more performance driven.
To illustrate the communal culture in Bamboo College, many of the academic staff have served in the college for more than a decade. They stayed despite the relatively low increments in their salaries because to many of them, their service has been a contribution to the community through educating the next generation and preserving the culture and heritage. A similar sentiment was also shared and expressed by many academics in Gingko College. Thus, with the introduction of a management culture driven by performance, this may be at odds with the existing communal culture and have resulted in some dissatisfaction among academics.
Although Bamboo College advocated bilingual use of Mandarin and English in administration, the usage of English only became more common with the inclusion of the Western-styled group of academic leaders into the management of the college. However, Mandarin continues to be the main administrative language in Gingko College although there are staff members in the college even at mid-level management who are not proficient in Mandarin.
As Gingko and Bamboo Colleges were set up as companies, by default they have been regarded as for-profit private institutions. Their main sources of finance are tuition fees and donations. Interestingly, the ownership of these institutions also reflected in different forms of donation the institution received. On the one hand, Gingko College named every buildings and rooms after its donors and contributors. This college has attracted significant donations under the pretext of contributing to Chinese education. On the other hand, due to the wider spectrum of stakeholders in Bamboo College, donations generally come from the Chinese foundations, businesses, clan associations, and more interestingly, even from Chinese cultural and religious groups through fund raising events during the Hungry Ghost Festival. According to a senior academic, Bamboo college was financially in the red almost every year, and the loss was absorbed by the board of directors through donations. Hence, although it is a for-profit institution, members of the board of directors incurred more losses and have not enjoyed any dividend from the surplus over the years.
On the contrary, Lotus College has a different set up. This college only has a board of trustees and a board of governors. The board of trustees mainly focuses on financial matters, which include fund raising and property development. The board of governors, which comprises of representation from the political party, focuses on institutional policies. Similar to the other two colleges, Lotus College also adopts a top down management style, more so than the others as this college has more than one campuses and therefore even greater need to centralise its management and administration. The administrative language of the college since its inception has been English.
Due to the fact this college was established by a political party in the government alliance, Lotus College also received partial support from the State. The financial support has evolved from the previous model of a top-up allocation based on the number of students to a block grant allocation. Unlike the other two colleges, Lotus College is a non-profit private institution in the form of a foundation. Although financially secured with partial State allocation as well as healthy source of revenue from the large number of students, Lotus College maintains a thrifty attitude on financial matters that is commonly associated with a ‘Chinaman company’ in Malaysia, as pointed out by an administrator during the interview.
Academic Programmes
All academic programmes in Malaysia higher education institutions have to adhere to the Malaysia Qualifications Framework and regulations of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (
Although English is the medium of instruction in Bamboo College, the issue of language can be problematic for certain academic programmes, most notably Chinese Studies and Traditional Chinese Medicine. The restriction to only use English as stipulated by the
We are now offering the Master of Chinese Studies. The programme was approved using English. With English, how to study Chinese?
In terms of the types of academic programmes, Lotus College focuses heavily on market-oriented, industry-relevant and professional programmes. As an academic in Lotus College noted:
We are very much driven by market forces. We actually developed our programmes in such a way that are industry relevant and professionally inclined so our graduates can fit very well into the industry and into the professions.
Lotus College has also developed strong ties with professional bodies and employers from the vast networks of its alumni. Furthermore, the curriculum of Lotus College is reviewed frequently with inputs from alumni and other external stakeholders. Yet, importantly, the academic programmes of Lotus College are entirely in English with no observed influence or connection to Chinese language, culture or heritage.
Conversely, Gingko and Bamboo Colleges offer academic programmes more selectively in accordance to their capacity and needs, in addition to the typical programmes offered by most Malaysian private
In terms of twinning programmes, Bamboo and Lotus Colleges have developed strong collaborations with English-speaking universities in the United Kingdom and United States. Lotus College has no international linkage or collaboration with universities from Greater China region, and Bamboo College has formed collaboration with universities in China. Gingko College, on the contrary, has established strong linkage and ties with universities in Mainland China and Taiwan. Many of their students after obtaining a diploma from Gingko College will continue their degree programme in Mainland China or Taiwan. Interestingly, Gingko College also acts as the local host for a collaborative Master degree programme with a Taiwan university, where this Taiwanese postgraduate programme is conducted entirely in Gingko College.
Across the three colleges, the emphasis is almost exclusively on teaching of academic programmes. Although academics have been encouraged to conduct research, minimal effort has been devoted into this academic activity due to limited funding and lack of training and exposure among academics to conduct research. Many of the academics in these three colleges have yet to obtain research qualifications such as the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).
Campus and Environment
Apart from the ownership and academic programmes, the campus and its environment reinforce the image and identity of the institutions. The campus of Bamboo College, arguably, is the most distinctive among the three and perhaps the strongest identification as a Chinese community-based institution. To be precise, the building has the characteristics of Chinese Buddhism influence, where the pillars are coloured in red and the roof are in green to resemble the bamboo shaft. There are also relics and sculptures of renowned Chinese historical figures in the campus. Many of the signage are bilingual, and the main entrance of the college has an arch with the institution’s name of Bamboo College written in both Chinese and Malay. The building is located on a slope, and from afar, anyone could have easily mistaken this to be a Taoist temple instead of a higher education institution. As one of the academics shared:
One day I took a taxi to work when my car broke down. That Malay taxi driver was nice and he was chatting with me. Suddenly his face changed when we arrive at the college. “Apa ini? Tokong ah? Ini ada kolej ah? Ada orang Melayukah?” [What is this? Is it a temple? This building is a college? Is there any Malay students?]
Gingko College also has strong characteristics of a Chinese institution. However, unlike Bamboo College that resemble a temple, Gingko College can be mistaken as a college or school in Taiwan or Hong Kong. The building is fairly modern and not too distinctively painted in white. However, one is likely to understand this as a Chinese institution the moment he or she enters the campus, as almost all signage are in Chinese characters. More interestingly, the main buildings of the college are ‘decorated’ with big Chinese slogans/words in black. In contrast, the campus of Lotus College, except for several Chinese characters of its name, shows no resemblance to a Chinese institution. The buildings across the campuses are relatively similar to most other private
The People and Their Interactions
Lotus College has the biggest student enrolment across the three institutions. There are about 29,000 students enrolled in Lotus College, and nearly all of its students are from national and government-supported Chinese secondary schools. It was only in the last two years that Lotus College has recognised
Gingko and Bamboo Colleges are significantly smaller in terms of student population with about 2,000 to 3,000 respectively. Although both colleges recognise
In terms of academics, Lotus College has more diversity than the other two colleges, whereby in the latter, academics are predominantly Chinese. Furthermore, many of the academics in Gingko College, and to some extent in Bamboo College as well, are not comfortable conversing in English. Some of the academics who participated in this study from these two colleges have requested for interviews to be conducted in Mandarin, and this is surprising given the fact that academics in these two colleges are mandated to teach in English.
The student-teacher interaction across these colleges also differs considerably between Gingko College and the other two colleges. First, given that Gingko College is relatively small in terms of students’ population, in some programmes, the concept of class or batch has been introduced. Each class or batch has a ‘class teacher’ where the roles and responsibilities of the academic assigned as ‘class teacher’ extends beyond handling academic matters, but also social and pastoral matters. Second, students in Gingko College still maintain gesture of respect by taking a slight bow when greeting their lecturers. More interestingly, students will collectively greet and thank a lecturer before and after a lecture or tutorial. In other words, Gingko College maintains the respectful ethos that has been strongly emphasised by Confucius’ teachings of respecting the teacher, but a similar practice or ethos is less obvious in Bamboo College and certainly not in Lotus College.
Interestingly, while there is a concept of Ketuanan Melayu in the Malaysian society, which can be broadly described as Malay sovereignty (Liow, 2015), the reversal concept can be observed across these three institutions. As an academic, who is a Chinese but is not proficient communicating in Mandarin, explained, at times it is a situation of Ketuanan Cina (Chinese sovereignty) in the campus. Students and academics took it for granted to converse openly in Mandarin without taking into consideration of those from other ethnic groups or Chinese who are not conversant in Mandarin. As the academics further shared:
It is inevitable that the dominant ethnic group will take the minority for granted. It is almost like a role reversal. Here is Ketuanan Cina and it is not something that I like. So when I witness it, I will slam the students “You are in a position when you are outside and you are complaining about everything that is unfair and now you are speaking as if that person doesn’t exist”. It is hard to correct that and it comes with a lot of awareness.
Discussion: the Identities of Colleges
From the above description about the three colleges, it is clear that each of these Chinese community-based
First, the sojourner mentality (叶落归根, yeluo guigen) refers to the identity of those who refuse to assimilate into the foreign society and strongly holds on their loyalty to the Chinese society, 5 values, heritage or culture. The factors that contributed to this identity is the high social and cultural value associated with the Chinese society, and this identity can somehow lead to ethnocentric, chauvinistic and racist tendencies in dealing with other cultures and societies. Conversely, this identity can also be a result of discrimination and racism towards the Chinese by locals that prompted to a non-assimilation attitude.
Closely related to the sojourner mentality is the second concept of ethnically proud (寻根问祖, xungen wenzu). This ‘roots’ refer to the reconceptualization of the Chinese identity in a foreign context, leading to a hybridised new identities such as Chinese American or Malaysian Chinese. The identity of Chinese described by the ethnically proud involves seeking their ancestral roots of being a Chinese, and at the same time, developing a new identity grounded in the collective experiences of Chinese in the foreign context, and the shared interests and common destiny with the locals.
In regards to the two ‘roots’ of sojourner mentality and ethnically proud, Gingko College has portrayed a combination of these two. At times, this college maintains and jealously guards its identity as the college that sits at the apex of Chinese education in Malaysia. Understandably, this college was jointly established by the Chinese educationalist groups and therefore the need to maintain the identity of a Chinese higher education institution can be clearly observed. However, we would argue that Gingko College is not blindly maintaining its identity as a Chinese college in Malaysia, but has subtly evolved to create a unique characteristic of being a college that aims to serve the educational needs of Malaysian Chinese without forsaking its Chinese identity. Hence, the identity of Gingko College can best be described as ethnically proud.
Contrary to the sojourner mentality is the concept of assimilation (斩草除根, zancao cugen). This concept refers to Chinese who chose to reject their identity, values and cultures, and in the process of doing so, acquire a new personal identity. The literary translation of the concept illustrates that “to eliminate the weeds, one must pull out their roots” (Wang, 1991a:197). Furthermore, this identity is also closely related to feeling inferiority to one’s own identity and superiority of the acquired identity. Typical examples were American-born Chinese who were Americanised educationally and religiously to the point that they deny their racial and cultural identity, ‘Anglicize’ their Chinese family names and suppress their Chinese speaking ability.
Closely related to the assimilation is the concept of the uprooted (失根群族, shigen qunzu). Instead of pulling out the roots and assimilating into the foreign culture, this concept refers specifically to the ‘wandering intellectuals’ of the Chinese diaspora where they are not rooted in any particular societies. In other words, they may have hold on to their identity as Chinese, but they maintain a set of universal values.
The identity of Lotus College can be described by the two concepts of assimilation and uprooted. From the beginning, this college has intended not to portray its ‘Chineseness’ in any particular manner. The only remnant of Chinese connection remained was the fact that it is owned by the Chinese political party, and that a large majority of its students are Chinese. However, instead of assimilating, Lotus College has underlined the aspirations of becoming a Western-institution through numerous collaboration and joint degree programmes with the UK and US universities. Thus, the uprooted concept is more appropriate in describing Lotus College rather than the assimilation.
The fifth concept proposed by Wang (1991a) is the accommodation (落地生根, luodi shenggen). Unlike assimilation where the Chinese aspire and choose to become a part of the local culture and society, accommodation is about accommodating the host society to allow Chinese to settle down. The concept is a pragmatic approach used commonly by the Chinese in Southeast Asia as a survival strategy in an alien setting. Interestingly, the concept of accommodation can be seen as the in-between of assimilation and sojourner mentality, whereby as situation changes, the identity of Chinese in a foreign context also changes either by becoming assimilator or sojourner.
The identity of Bamboo College can best be described as an accommodator. This college, although established by the Chinese community of a particular geographical region of Malaysia, has from its inception aimed to position itself as being part of the Malaysian society. Embracing multiculturalism and multilingualism as the founding principles, and the fact that one of the first few academic programme offered was Malay Studies instead of Chinese Studies further reiterated the accommodator identity of this college.
Conclusion
Gingko, Bamboo and Lotus Colleges are higher education institutions in Malaysia set up by the Chinese community. Although the three colleges may share similar ‘roots’ as Chinese community-based institutions with an almost exclusively Chinese population of students, their nature of establishment and developments over the years in aspects like governance, management, funding, academic programmes, campus environment, academics and students have allowed them to morphed into significantly different institutions with their own unique identities. Gingko College is argued to be “ethnically proud”, Bamboo College as “the accommodator” and Lotus College as “the uprooted”.
The identification and understanding of the different identities of these Chinese community-based institutions underscored the subtle diversity of Malaysian higher education institutions, and the conceptual limitation of the current dichotomy of public and private institutions. The fact that three of the five Chinese-based private institutions have subtle yet crucial differences highlighted the need to better understand the characteristics of institutions in a higher education system. Such understanding, would for instance, contribute towards the marketing of these institutions, as well as illuminate the diversity within the Education Malaysia brand. Importantly, the understanding has vast implications for policymaking, regulating and monitoring of higher education institutions. For example, although these institutions have been classified as private, they are essentially community-based institutions and non-profit in nature. In addition, these three institutions to some extent can also be considered as outliers among the many hundreds of private higher education institutions in Malaysia, and understanding them in greater detailed also helped in providing more in-depth knowledge about private institutions and their sustainability. In a way, some forms of flexibility in policymaking, regulating and monitoring can be extended to these outlier institutions such as Bamboo College and Gingko College, for instance, allowing the usage of Chinese language in teaching and learning of specific disciplines can help these institutions to maintain their identity and at the same time provides diversity within the higher education sector of Malaysia.
While Lotus College has been relatively successful in providing the alternative access into higher education for the masses, especially to the Chinese community, as well as developing the foundation to ensure the college remained competitive and sustainable within the domestic private higher education market, this development may have been seen to be at the expanse of uprooting its Chinese identity and turning itself into a mainstream institution. Bamboo College, in maintaining the Chinese culture and identity, has accommodated itself to survive and strive to compete in the local, regional and global higher education setting. To what extent Bamboo College can continue to accommodate its Chinese identity while becoming a regional or global institution remained to be seen. For the ethnically proud Gingko College, the greatest challenge of survival and sustainability of this institution lies in the ways and the extent to which future generation of Malaysian Chinese will deem maintaining the identity and ethos of a Chinese education institution a worthy pursuit in a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society.
Conceptually, the subtle distinction of identity across the three Chinese community-based institutions illuminates the hybridisation of higher education institutions in Malaysia. Hybridisation in this case refers to the interaction of external and internal forces in creating a unique outcome. Despite the fact that these three institutions were established by the Chinese community, where the Chinese heritage can be seen as an external influence extended from the Confucianism’s influence on education and society, the ways in which these institutions interacted with the internal influence which encompass local Malaysian culture, legislation, policy and higher education system portrays a unique strain of hybridity of institutions in the Malaysian higher education system.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on a larger research project entitled “East-West-Islamic Tradition and the Development of Hybrid Universities in Malaysia” led by Morshidi Sirat and Chang Da Wan, with co-researchers Molly N. N. Lee, Hazri Jamil, Munir Shuib, Guat Guan Toh, Nur Rafidah Asyikin Idris and Wen Zhuo Heng. The funding of the project is from Universiti Sains Malaysia Research University Grant: 1001/CIPPTN/816264.
1
Increasingly, the independent Chinese secondary schools have diversified to also provide the English-medium International General Certificate of Secondary Education (
2
In 1980, Nanyang University merged with the then University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore.
3
College was used as a generic term to ensure anonymity.
4
The positions and designations mentioned have been made generic to allow for comparability and avoid identification.
5
Important to note, the Chinese society does not refer to the political, country or national-based sentiment in relations to the People’s Republic of China or Taiwan.