The Use of Chinese as a Medium of Instruction in Private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia: A Qualitative Exploration

The Use of Chinese as a Medium of Instruction in Private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia: A Qualitative Exploration

Azizan Othman, Mok Soon Chong, Raha Jaafar & Nur Amira Mohammad Azman

New Era University College, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0370

Received: 20 June 2025; Accepted: 01 July 2025; Published: 30 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This qualitative study aims to explore the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in teaching and learning at private higher education institutions (IPTS) in Malaysia, focusing on its impact on students’ comprehension, lecturers’ teaching experiences, and graduates’ employability. The study highlights the perspectives and experiences of twenty Chinese students and ten Chinese lecturers selected through purposive sampling from several IPTS across Malaysia. Participants were chosen based on their proficiency in the Chinese language and their experience using it as the medium of instruction. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and analyzed thematically to identify the main patterns that shape perceptions toward the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction. The findings reveal that the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction offers several advantages. It enhances students’ understanding of academic concepts, especially in technical and social science subjects, by allowing instruction in their mother tongue. This facilitates smoother communication between students and lecturers and enables lecturers to incorporate culturally relevant examples into their teaching, making lessons more meaningful and contextually relevant. Moreover, the use of Chinese helps students preserve their cultural identity and strengthen their mastery of their mother tongue. However, the study also identifies several challenges. Students often struggle to transition from secondary education, where Malay and English are more commonly used, to a Chinese-medium IPTS environment. This linguistic shift creates adjustment difficulties, particularly when dealing with academic terminology in Chinese. Additionally, the limited availability of high-quality academic resources in Chinese forces students and lecturers to rely on materials in English or Malay, further complicating comprehension. Concerns regarding employability were also raised, as graduates from Chinese-medium IPTS are perceived to be less prepared for the job market, which predominantly values proficiency in Malay and English. The study recommends that IPTS adopt a multilingual educational approach by strengthening the teaching of Malay and English alongside Chinese. Developing high-quality bilingual academic resources and providing additional language support programs would enhance students’ competitiveness in the job market. These findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, IPTS administrators, and employers in developing a more inclusive and responsive education strategy that aligns with Malaysia’s multilingual and multicultural realities.

Keywords: Chinese, IPTS, Perception, Challenges, Teaching and Learning

INTRODUCTION

The question of medium of instruction in teaching and learning remains a significant agenda in national education discourse. Decisions regarding language policy, alongside efforts to develop teaching resources and strategies supporting the chosen language, are critical discussions within the national education arena. Typically, the medium of instruction could be the students’ mother tongue, which is spoken at home and within their community (Oral & Lund, 2022), the official or national language (Civan & Coskun, 2016), an international language such as English (Lasagabaster, 2022), or a combination of these.

Students may initially learn in one language and then transition to another language after several years. Conducting Teaching & Learning (T&L) in students’ mother tongue is often considered one of their fundamental linguistic rights (Ozfidan, 2017). Several recent studies focusing on education in developing countries advocate for using the mother tongue at least in the initial years of schooling (Alimi, Tella, Adeyemo & Oyeweso, 2020; Awopetu, 2016).

For instance, Nishanti (2020) explored attitudes and approaches to mother-tongue education over recent decades across various countries and concluded that children educated in languages other than their mother tongue tend to face higher dropout rates and difficulties in early learning stages.

Other studies similarly indicate that children’s first language is most conducive to achieving optimal literacy and learning throughout primary school (Getie & Popescu, 2020). A UNESCO publication cited by Peyton (2015) highlighted case studies from Mali, Papua New Guinea, and Peru, demonstrating the strengths and challenges associated with mother-tongue education. According to Zafeirakou (2015), teaching foundational skills (early literacy and numeracy) and critical thinking in a child’s spoken and understood language effectively reduces early school dropout rates and academic failures.

Additionally, Bar and Shaul (2021) noted that these foundational skills significantly enhance learning capabilities when students transfer these competencies into another language. Goldenberg’s findings (2008), focusing on reading instruction language choice in the United States, concluded that children should ideally be taught reading in their primary language, which strengthens first-language literacy, encourages English literacy, and is practical since students simultaneously learn to read and study other academic content in English.

Proponents of bilingual or multilingual education emphasize the importance of preserving students’ linguistic abilities and stress using the primary language as the instructional medium, especially in early schooling (Okal, 2014; Gorter & Cenoz, 2017). Apart from these educational reasons, students typically display stronger identity and agency when their mother tongue is valued and utilized in schools (Oral & Lund, 2022).

Furthermore, teacher effectiveness increases when educators can communicate with students and parents in their shared mother tongue (Zafeirakou, 2015). Some scholars argue for extending high proficiency in mother tongues beyond elementary education, facilitating easier acquisition of national or international languages.

High-level multilingual skills allow effective participation in global societies and promote better family and community relationships. There is a broad consensus among scholars about the value of bilingual or multilingual proficiency across developed and developing countries.

However, Kim, Raza, and Seidman (2019) argue that teaching quality and educational context significantly affect student learning, suggesting these aspects should be considered alongside language choice. In Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) serves as the primary medium of instruction in national schools as mandated by the Education Act 1996. Exceptions exist for institutions primarily instructing in languages other than the national language, provided Bahasa Melayu is taught as a compulsory subject, such as in vernacular schools utilizing mother tongues like Chinese and Tamil.

Hence, using Chinese as a medium of instruction in Malaysia is not an unfamiliar concept. The brief review above highlights that the medium of instruction can be studied from various perspectives. This research specifically explores the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in Malaysian private higher education institutions, considering historical, policy-related, and current implementation aspects.

Additionally, the study evaluates how using Chinese influences students’ higher education development and academic achievements, comparing the outcomes with institutions primarily instructing in other languages like Bahasa Melayu and English. Such comparative analyses help deduce goals and formulate educational strategies moving forward. In line with this purpose, the study sets out to explore the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in private higher education institutions in Malaysia, focusing specifically on the advantages and challenges it presents from the perspectives of both students and lecturers. It also seeks to assess the impact of Chinese-medium instruction on student comprehension, academic development, and graduate employability.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The History of Chinese Education in Malaysia

Chinese schools in Malaysia today are the result of efforts made by the Chinese community since the early 1800s. Their development can be traced through two distinct phases: during British colonial rule and post-independence Malaysia. Under British colonial administration, the Chinese were given the freedom to establish their own educational system, as they were perceived as migrants who would eventually return to their homeland after accumulating sufficient wealth.

After independence was achieved, Malaysia’s language policies shifted focus to the promotion of the Malay language, in recognition of the need to establish a national identity. This emphasis was vital, as language is often seen as a symbol of identity, loyalty, and the embodiment of a group’s values, culture, and traditions (Lee, 2019). In light of the importance of a national language to a sovereign nation, legislation was introduced, and acts were enacted to ensure uniformity in official educational objectives and to promote national unity. The Razak Report, the Rahman Talib Report, and Article 152 of the Federal Constitution made explicit provisions regarding the languages of non-Malay citizens.

The Razak Report stated that the ultimate goal of the country’s education policy must be to unite children of all races under a national education system in which the national language is the primary medium of instruction. It proposed teaching through a unified national education system that would be acceptable to the people of the Federation as a whole, and would fulfill the needs of cultural, social, economic, and political development, while acknowledging the goal of making Malay the national language of the country. At the same time, it aimed to preserve and sustain the growth of the languages and cultures of other communities residing in Malaysia (Lee, 2019).

Although the Razak Report was intended to promote national unity, it contained two core objectives. On one hand, it aligned with a mono-ethnic cultural framework, as Malay had been implemented in many governments educational acts such as the Education Act of 1996, despite the existence of multiple school systems (Owen & Chibundu, 2020). On the other hand, it accepted the idea of a multicultural national education policy due to the need to preserve and sustain the languages and cultures of other ethnic groups.

However, these dual objectives were seen as problematic by the Rahman Talib Committee, which recommended the elimination of communal secondary schools in the interest of national unity. The Rahman Talib Report argued that it would be impossible to fully accommodate the specific demands of every ethnic group (Gill, 2007). As a result, Malay became the main medium of instruction for all types of national secondary schools, at the expense of mother tongue-based education.

To further elevate the status of the Malay language, Article 152 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia declared Malay as the national language, although citizens were free to learn and use other languages, except for official purposes, namely those concerning the Federal or State Governments and public authorities. Unfazed by government policy, the Chinese community continued to champion Chinese-medium schools, which led to a rise in enrolment in Chinese vernacular schools after 1969 (Gill, 2007).

However, the Chinese community remained skeptical of the Education Act 1996, as it did not guarantee the continued or permanent use of the mother tongue as the main medium of instruction in existing Chinese vernacular primary schools (Lee, 2019). Despite these challenges, there are currently about 1,301 Chinese primary schools (Education Planning and Research Division [EPRD], 2010) and 61 Chinese independent schools (United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia, 2010).

The relatively large number of Chinese schools compared to national schools reveals the Chinese community’s determination to maintain Chinese education as relevant, even though the government has shown no intention of building new Chinese primary schools as stated by former Education Minister Najib Tun Razak in 1999 (Thock, 2009).

A Brief History of Language Policy in Malaysia

The implementation of the national language goes beyond serving merely as an official medium of communication; it also functions as a marker of identity, linking individuals to their national citizenship. The national language, as described by Jamil and Raman (2012), plays a crucial role in fostering national unity in countries formerly colonized by Western powers. Similarly, Kaur and Shapii (2018) argue that the use of Malay as the national language instead of English, the colonial language was seen as a symbolic effort to assert independence from British rule.

Most nationalist leaders in Southeast Asia introduced national languages to integrate heterogeneous communities. This approach was also intended to strengthen their national identity while maintaining ideological and political authority over other societal groups (Albury, 2021). In the Malaysian context, the national education policy has been aligned with political objectives aimed at achieving unity, national identity, and political stability. Prior to independence, Malay nationalists were committed to establishing a monolingual education system, using Malay as the national language.

The use of Malay was viewed as an essential element in asserting the country’s independence and freedom from former Western colonizers. This is reflected in the Federal Constitution, under Article 152(a), which states that Malay shall be the national language. However, it also provides that no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using, teaching, or learning any other language (Yamat, Umar & Mahamood, 2014). The status of Malay as the national language was officially recognized, and other ethnic groups accepted the development of the national language.

In contrast, Chinese and Tamil were regarded as “foreign” languages associated with immigrants and minority groups. As a result, these languages were excluded from being adopted as national or official languages (David, Dealwis & Ching, 2018). According to Khoo (2020), the use of Malay as the national language was a consequence of Malay political dominance in the country. This implies that the language of a politically dominant ethnic group is more likely to become the national language, as they possess the authority and power to make decisions affecting other communities.

Gill (2013) characterized this as a top-down policy in Malaysia, referring to policymaking led by higher authorities where the ethnic majority has the power to control and influence the medium of instruction in national education. Studies have shown that the language used by national leaders is closely associated with national benefits, particularly in bridging ethnic divides rather than maintaining ethnic separation.

In Malaysia, primary education is delivered in students’ mother tongues, but most students especially those from Chinese-medium schools undergo a language transition to Malay as the medium of instruction at the secondary level. The elevation of Malay as the national language is evident in its role as a prerequisite for entry into civil service, selection for secondary schools and government exams, scholarship applications, teacher training courses, and public examinations.

The limited opportunities for the Chinese community to develop high-level proficiency in their mother tongue, and the unequal treatment of their language’s growth, have led to disappointment among Chinese Malaysians, who perceive this as an affront to their cultural identity (Helen, 2013).

Vernacular Language Policy

At the time of Malaya’s independence in 1957, it was agreed that Malay would become the sole national language; however, the study of other languages would still be permitted. This provision was later enshrined in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution of Malaya. Over the years, the use of the National Language, later referred to as Bahasa Malaysia was increasingly emphasized in education and administration. Education, the medium of instruction, and the language of examinations had long been sources of controversy and ethnic division even before independence.

The educational landscape at the time was characterized by a variety of school types. At the top were English-medium schools, primarily located in urban areas. Then came Malay-medium schools, found mostly in rural areas, which were not allowed for imperial policy reasons to go beyond the primary level. The Chinese and Indian communities were largely self-reliant. As previously discussed, the Chinese community did not look to the British to provide Chinese-language education. In nearly every Chinese village, they established their own primary schools and provided their own teachers.

They also built several secondary schools in urban areas. Although the certificates awarded by these schools were not recognized by the government, this did not concern the Chinese community, as they were accepted in the Chinese private sector and that was good enough. The Tamil community was not as fortunate. Their primary schools, located on rubber estates, were few and far between. The standard of these schools also suffered due to a lack of qualified teachers. This was the situation before and after World War I.

Following independence, this situation could no longer continue. As noted earlier, the 1956 Razak Report, 1960 Rahman Talib Report, and later the amendment to Section 21(2) of the Education Act 1961 dramatically reshaped the national education system. In line with the recommendations of the Razak Report and the 1957 Education Ordinance, Chinese and Tamil primary schools were “persuaded” to convert into standard-type schools that would receive government support. The Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) undertook significant efforts to convince Chinese and Tamil primary schools to adopt the standard-type school model, where they could continue to use their mother tongue as the medium of instruction while following the national curriculum set by the Ministry of Education. Malay and English would also be mandatory subjects.

The next major step was to integrate Independent Chinese Secondary Schools (ICSS) into the national education mainstream. Once again, the MCA tried to persuade these schools to become national-type secondary schools, in which Malay or English would be the medium of instruction and examinations. Chinese would be offered only as an additional language. However, this time the resistance was stronger. The independent schools refused the change and opted to preserve their autonomy. Although many eventually gave in to government pressure and became national-type schools, some did not and remained independent.

Today, there are around 60 Independent Chinese Secondary Schools that have rejected conversion into national-type schools. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education was required to accommodate Pupil’s Own Language (POL) programs, a provision generally acknowledged to have been poorly supported by educational authorities. Under this policy, if 15 parents requested that their children be taught Chinese or Tamil, the Ministry would be obliged to arrange these classes.

However, POL has often been implemented half-heartedly and neglected by Malaysia’s education authorities. In an effort to reform the program, various teachers’ associations and unions have consistently urged the government to improve the facilities for these language classes. One such effort came when the National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP) urged the Ministry of Education to introduce appropriate syllabi and teaching guides for Chinese and Tamil, so that teachers handling POL classes could teach more effectively (The Star, February 28, 1995).

Chinese and Tamil primary schools faced many challenges in the years following independence. These ranged from drastically declining enrollment (especially during the 1960s), inadequate infrastructure (such as a shortage of trained teachers), and perceived restrictions viewed by the Chinese community as deliberate attempts to alter the character of Chinese and Tamil schools. While Chinese education survived the threat posed by English-medium schools in the 1960s despite plummeting enrollment, Chinese schools in recent years have recorded increased enrollment, including among non-Chinese students.

In 1993, there were 14,246 Malay students enrolled in Chinese primary schools (New Straits Times, March 21, 1994). Tamil schools, on the other hand, have continued to face serious challenges. Without proper intervention, they may fail. Their inability to produce successful graduates and the Tamil community’s reluctance to cooperate with the MIC’s efforts to improve infrastructure such as consolidating scattered schools have left Tamil education in a precarious position.

Separation of Chinese Secondary Schools: The Development of ICSS in the 1960s

The Chinese community was deeply disappointed by previous education reports, which indicated that the government had no intention of safeguarding the status and position of Chinese secondary schools. These concerns intensified following the implementation of the Education Act of 1961, which raised fears over the abolition of Chinese as the medium of instruction in secondary schools, and proposals to convert them into national secondary schools. Schools that refused the conversion faced the threat of having their government funding withdrawn.

Chinese secondary schools that did not comply with these requirements were to be classified as private schools under Section 54(1)5, bearing full responsibility for their operational costs without any government assistance, including expenses related to hiring teachers. The government recognized the importance of financial support for the survival of Chinese secondary schools and hoped that the schools would eventually accept the proposal.

However, the ideal of providing quality and equitable education for all children as stated in Section 3 of the 1957 Education Ordinance was not reflected in the implementation of the 1961 Education Act. The government’s education policy excluded Chinese secondary schools from the national education system due to their use of a different medium of instruction. In this context, Chinese language and education were viewed not as contributors to nation-building but rather as obstacles to it.

The 1961 Education Act mandated that all secondary schools must convert to national or national-type schools to receive full funding from the state. All Chinese secondary schools were given a deadline to make a final decision by 1 January 1962.

This difficult reality forced 54 out of the 70 existing Chinese secondary schools to comply with the education policy, adopting Bahasa Malaysia and English as the mediums of instruction. However, they were still allowed to continue teaching Chinese language and literature as separate subjects. Most Chinese secondary schools agreed to the conversion, as they could not afford to lose government funding.

Despite the harsh circumstances, 16 Chinese secondary schools chose to retain their autonomy, continuing to uphold Chinese as the medium of instruction (Tan, 2014). These schools became the first group of Independent Chinese Secondary Schools (ICSS), or Du Zhong, in Malaysia.

One of the main reasons behind these schools’ resistance was the fear of losing their “Chinese identity” and the original character of their institutions if they were forced to conform to the national model. Today, ICSS are private secondary schools that use Chinese/Chinese as their primary language of instruction. For the Malaysian Chinese community, the development of ICSS is seen as vital to preserving cultural identity and as educational institutions dedicated to the younger generation.

Sustainability of ICSS in the 1970s

The conversion of most Chinese secondary schools in the 1960s was seen not only as a major development in Chinese education history in Malaysia, but also as a reflection of the Chinese community’s struggle between cultural loyalty and social mobility. While Independent Chinese Secondary Schools (ICSS) were successfully established and continued using Chinese as the medium of instruction, their long-term survival has remained a critical concern.

Government education policy and the Chinese community’s perception whether positive or negative were both regarded as significant elements in determining the future development and sustainability of ICSS in Malaysia. For instance, the role of the medium-of-instruction policy was central to the persistence of the Chinese language and influenced parental perceptions of Chinese education. Both policy direction and community sentiment were equally important in determining the sustainability of ICSS.

As Malaysia’s language policy increasingly emphasized the strengthening of the national language, it culminated in the 1970 National Education Policy. The Malay language was later renamed Bahasa Malaysia. All English-medium schools were required to convert into national-medium schools, and public universities gradually adopted the national language as the language of instruction by 1983.

As a result, admission to public universities was only granted to those who sat for national public examinations. This affected ICSS, leaving them with no option but to align with the national education system by offering extra classes to prepare students for these public exams. Generally, ICSS students were expected to take both internal exams (Unified Examination Certificate – UEC) and optional national public exams. Some ICSS adopted a dual-session model, with Chinese-medium classes in the morning and Malay-medium classes in the afternoon to prepare students for both sets of examinations (Ang, 2014).

This system allowed many ICSS students to become bilingual. However, some Chinese parents opted to send their children abroad, contributing to a continuing brain drain of Chinese professionals who were concerned about their children’s educational and professional future in Malaysia. According to statistics (The Star, 2015), 20–30% of ICSS graduates pursued higher education in Taiwan (as the UEC curriculum has been adapted from Taiwan since the mid-1970s), 4% in the United Kingdom or the United States and other European countries, and 1% in Japan, France, and other non-English-speaking nations (UCSCAM, 1985).

Malaysia’s education system, which discouraged the use of Chinese, may have contributed to this brain drain. Many believed that the use of Malay at the higher education level did not serve economic interests or allow for upward social mobility. As a result, they often felt excluded or undervalued. The Chinese community’s trust is a critical factor in ensuring the continued development and survival of Chinese schools and ICSS. The 1970s marked a turning point, where many Chinese parents who were reluctant to send their children to national schools began to regard ICSS as the best alternative.

The development of ICSS has relied heavily on Chinese primary schools, where most of their students originated making these feeder schools essential to ICSS’s sustainability. ICSS schools are known for their competitiveness, discipline, and trilingual education (Chinese, English, and Malay). The Chinese community has viewed ICSS as a success story, driven by strong passion for Chinese education and community support. ICSS are not only carriers of cultural identity but also a symbol of pride (Collins, 2006; Cushman & Gungwu, 1988).

During this period, ICSS began to experience stable growth and development. Records show that enrolment increased from 15,890 in 1970 to 41,356 in 1980. Scholars have argued that ICSS were able to meet the Chinese community’s needs, especially as government-aided schools had adopted Malay as their medium of instruction (Tham, 1979).

ICSS development was led by a group of ambitious Chinese educators under the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association (UCSTA or Jiaozong) and the United Chinese School Committees’ Association (UCSCA or Dongzong), collectively known as Dongjiaozong. They mobilized support from the community, Chinese associations, and Chinese political parties as pressure groups to lobby the government for more inclusive education policies. Dongzong acted as the national head of ICSS in Malaysia, overseeing the unified curriculum, syllabus, examinations, and administration.

ICSS internal examinations were conducted in Chinese and organized by Dongzong as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in 1975. Dongzong was also responsible for textbook preparation, curriculum development, examinations, teacher training, school fees, student enrolment, and career planning.

The strong and emotional response from the Chinese community showed their support for the 60 ICSS schools established in the 1960s, recognizing their role in preserving mother tongue education. These Chinese educators championed the right to learn in the mother tongue and successfully earned the support of Chinese parents for their role in preserving the community’s cultural identity.

The ICSS system offers a six-year education program, consisting of three lower and three upper secondary levels (3+3). At the final stage, ICSS students must sit for the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in their final years, similar to the national public examination system.

The main challenge to the UEC’s recognition stems from its lack of official recognition by the Malaysian government. As a result, its graduates have not been eligible for admission into public universities since 1975. This has eroded parental confidence, as the value of Chinese-medium education is not formally acknowledged. While parental support remains strong at the primary level, many are forced to choose national or international schools to secure officially recognized certificates and ensure their children’s career prospects.

Nevertheless, the sustainability of ICSS has been bolstered by the rise of China, where Chinese is now one of the most widely spoken languages across China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Apart from China and Taiwan, Malaysia is the only country with a comprehensive Chinese education system, despite Chinese not being an official national language. Chinese education is recognized for its holistic approach, contributing to globalization and various sectors.

Chinese language clearly has a positive impact on Malaysia’s educational development and nation-building. While Malay remains the official language, the practical dominance of English and Chinese has influenced parents’ preferences. This helps explain why many Chinese parents hesitate to send their children to national schools.

At the same time, Chinese still lacks official status in Malaysia’s education policy, preventing it from gaining full protection. As China’s economic influence grows, Chinese language proficiency will allow younger generations to seize job opportunities and strengthen Malaysia–China economic ties. The development of Chinese-medium ICSS is well-positioned to produce Chinese-literate individuals who can meet labor market demands and contribute to nation-building.

This also explains why Chinese educators continue to urge the government to reconsider the role of Chinese as a medium of instruction within the national education system. These educators aspire not only to preserve Chinese as a language of instruction but also to realize a vision for a complete Chinese education system in Malaysia. Since UEC graduates were excluded from public university admission, ICSS development has inspired the establishment of New Era College, a Chinese higher education institution launched in the 1990s.

This national medium has somehow accelerated ICSS growth. According to statistics from national schools in 2002, out of a total population of 2,211,971 students, only 46,470 (2.10%) were ethnic Chinese, while Indian and other minority students accounted for 95,180 (4.3%) and 59,423 (2.78%), respectively. This indicates the consistently low participation of non-Malays, especially Chinese students, in the national school system, posing challenges to national unity efforts.

The national media’s portrayal of ICSS as outsiders to the national education system has compelled these schools to operate independently to meet the Chinese community’s demand. Many Chinese parents believe ICSS is more culturally and linguistically aligned with their community.

Beyond preserving the Chinese language, Malaysian Chinese parents are primarily concerned with ensuring upward mobility for their children, regardless of the language of instruction. Many believe the use of Malay in higher education does not meet their economic aspirations or promote social mobility. In fact, the declining quality of national secondary schools over time has led most concerned parents to view ICSS as the best alternative for their children’s education (Tham, 1979).

For example, ICSS enrolment reached 54,690 in 1990, 57,092 in 1996, exceeded 60,000 in 2009, and increased to 85,304 by 2017 (Dong Jiao Zong Secondary School Committee Report, 2000; UCSCAM, 2017).

Issues and Challenges of Chinese Vernacular Schools

The dilemma between implementing language policies that preserve vernacular education and the need to promote national integration remains a continuous challenge in a multiracial country like Malaysia. To explore whether the medium of instruction used in Chinese vernacular schools contributes to national unity, this section examines three key issues:

support and opposition to Chinese-medium schools,

the loyalty of the Chinese community, and

proposals to establish a single-stream education system emerging from the 1Malaysia concept.

There has been a strong viewpoint among some Malaysians, evident in letters to the editors of mainstream newspapers that the low number of Chinese students in national schools is due to the increasing appeal of Chinese education and the growing number of vernacular schools adopting mother-tongue education. These individuals argue that using Chinese to teach all subjects (except for Bahasa Malaysia and English) contradicts efforts to promote the national language. The struggle to uphold the status of Bahasa Malaysia (BM) can also be seen in the case of the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) policy, which was ultimately abolished as it was deemed to conflict with Article 152 of the Federal Constitution (Azrin, 2011).

Such factors are believed to have hindered the Malaysian school system from achieving its goal of promoting unity among different ethnic groups. This is supported by Norhashimah Jalaluddin (2011), President of the Linguistic Society of Malaysia, who questioned who is considered more patriotic: a citizen who wants the national language to be the medium of instruction, or one who rejects the national language of their country. She further reminded the public that Bahasa Malaysia, as the national language, is the essence and soul of the national identity (Jalaluddin, 2011).

On the other hand, Khoo Kay Peng (as cited in Gill, 2007), Executive Director of the Sedar Institute, a think tank of Gerakan, a multiracial political party in Malaysia argued that children are better able to access knowledge and information when learning in their mother tongue, due to stronger literacy skills. This issue is also seen as a struggle between the “warriors” of the national language comprising politicians and their supporters (Asmah Haji Omar, as cited in Chong & Norsimah, 2007) and the hua jiao dou shi (defenders of Chinese education), who advocate for mother tongue education (Chong & Norsimah, 2007).

Malaysia’s education system, as summarized in the diagram referenced in the original text, reflects Schmidt’s argument. There is no doubt that the existence of two school types has led to a complicated language policy. On one hand, BM is viewed as a tool for cultivating national identity by proponents of national unity. As a result, Chinese vernacular schools are often dismissed due to their limited use of BM.

Conversely, advocates of minority languages see BM as just another compulsory subject with minimal impact on fostering national unity. Beyond the criticism directed at the vernacular school system, the status of the national language has been widely discussed in Malaysia’s mainstream media, often questioning the loyalty of Malaysian Chinese citizens (Elias, 2008). The debate gained traction when Toh (2010) argued that lacking fluency in BM does not make one any less patriotic. Some supported this sentiment, such as Chan (2010), who claimed to be more comfortable speaking in English and saw no reason to take pride in one’s culture or language.

However, Arbee (2010) asserted that BM should be given the recognition it deserves by anyone who claims to be a citizen of this country. His views were echoed by then Prime Minister Najib Tun Abdul Razak, who reminded Malaysians about the importance of speaking BM fluently, describing it as our national identity during the first 1Malaysia National Teachers’ Assembly.

Adding to these challenges is the 1Malaysia concept proposed by Prime Minister Najib, which promoted the idea as the essence of unity in diversity. He stated that the key to achieving unity lies in embracing our diversity, and that his formula for this was unity, diversity, and inclusiveness (Kee, 2010).

Voices Supporting and Opposing Chinese-Medium Schools

The debate over the existence of Chinese-medium schools in Malaysia has persisted for decades, with strong voices both in support of and against these institutions. On one hand, supporters argue that Chinese schools provide a space for Malaysian Chinese to learn their mother tongue and culture, thereby preserving their identity and promoting social cohesion. On the other hand, opponents claim that Chinese schools promote linguistic segregation and ethnic division, hindering national unity.

Proponents of Chinese schools emphasize their role in preserving Chinese cultural identity. As noted by Chin (2014), Chinese schools offer a unique opportunity for Malaysian Chinese to learn their native language and understand Chinese culture, which is crucial to maintaining their identity. Chinese schools have a long history in Malaysia, dating back to the colonial era, and have since become a significant part of the Malaysian Chinese community.

The education provided in Chinese schools is often considered to be of high quality, and is frequently preferred by Malaysian Chinese parents, as it is perceived to be more rigorous and structured than the national curriculum. Additionally, supporters argue that Chinese schools contribute to social cohesion and diversity in Malaysia. Wong (2013) points out that Chinese schools offer a unique educational experience that fosters cultural diversity and understanding. Many Chinese schools have students from different ethnic backgrounds, and exposure to various cultures and languages can help promote tolerance and appreciation for diversity.

Moreover, Chinese schools have been shown to positively impact academic performance, with students often achieving better results in examinations compared to those in national schools (Tan, 2015).

Despite these arguments, critics of Chinese schools in Malaysia contend that such institutions foster linguistic segregation and ethnic fragmentation. Kaur (2018) argues that Chinese schools use Chinese as the medium of instruction, which creates a language barrier between students in these schools and those in national schools, where Bahasa Malaysia is the medium of instruction. This linguistic divide can lead to cultural and linguistic isolation, hindering national integration.

Furthermore, opponents claim that Chinese schools are an obstacle to national unity and contribute to ethnic divisions. Yap and Yoon (2016) argue that mother-tongue education, including Chinese schools, promotes ethnic segmentation and undermines national identity. According to them, national unity is best achieved through a common language, which can only be realized through the use of the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. Therefore, Chinese schools are viewed as a hindrance to promoting a shared Malaysian identity.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding Chinese schools in Malaysia is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. While supporters argue that Chinese schools are vital for preserving cultural identity and fostering social cohesion, critics maintain that they contribute to linguistic segregation and ethnic fragmentation. As Malaysia continues to navigate its multicultural and multiracial society, efforts must be made to seek solutions that uphold both cultural diversity and national unity.

The Loyalty of the Chinese Community in Malaysia to the Chinese Language

The loyalty of the Chinese community in Malaysia to the Chinese language has been a compelling topic in academic literature. Studies have shown that Malaysian Chinese exhibit a strong attachment to the Chinese language, which is closely linked to their cultural and ethnic identity. According to Chew (2016), the Chinese language plays a vital role in shaping the cultural identity of the Chinese community in Malaysia. Chew argues that the language serves as a means for the community to preserve its cultural heritage and identity. The use of Chinese in schools, media, and social activities has enabled the community to maintain its cultural practices and traditions, fostering a strong sense of belonging.

Similarly, Tan (2017) notes that the Chinese community in Malaysia maintains a strong attachment to the Chinese language because it is seen as a symbol of ethnic identity. Tan contends that the Chinese language acts as a marker of Chinese identity and is therefore a fundamental part of how the community defines itself. This attachment is reflected in the high demand for Chinese language classes and Chinese-medium schools in Malaysia.

Other studies have also shown that the community’s loyalty to the Chinese language is connected to its economic and social status. Lee (2014) explains that the Chinese community in Malaysia has traditionally been more economically prosperous than other ethnic groups, allowing them to invest more in education including Chinese-language education. Lee argues that this investment in education is linked to the community’s desire to maintain its socioeconomic status, and this is reflected in their strong commitment to the Chinese language.

Despite the importance of the Chinese language to the Malaysian Chinese community, some scholars have also pointed out the challenges in preserving the language. For instance, Yap and Yoon (2016) argue that the use of Chinese in education contributes to ethnic division and hinders national unity. They suggest that promoting a common language, such as Bahasa Malaysia, could help foster stronger social cohesion.

In conclusion, the literature suggests that the loyalty of the Chinese community in Malaysia to the Chinese language is deeply tied to their cultural, ethnic, and economic identity. The use of the Chinese language in education, media, and social life has allowed the community to uphold its cultural traditions and reinforce its sense of community. However, challenges to the preservation of the language remain, and efforts may be needed to foster greater social integration in Malaysia.

The Establishment of a Single Education System and the Perception of the Chinese Community

The establishment of a single education system in Malaysia has been a subject of ongoing debate in academic literature. Discussions have centered on whether Malaysia should implement a unified education system or maintain its current bilingual model, which allows for multiple mediums of instruction. In particular, scholars have examined how the Chinese community perceives the proposal for a single education system.

According to Tee (2017), Malaysia’s bilingual education system has created educational gaps that reinforce ethnic and social inequalities. The national education system, which uses Bahasa Malaysia as the primary medium of instruction, is attended mostly by Malay students, while Chinese and Indian students tend to enroll in vernacular schools that use their respective mother tongues as the medium of instruction. Tee argues that a single education system that uses a common language would promote greater social cohesion and national unity.

However, the Chinese community in Malaysia has historically opposed the idea of a unified education system. Tan and Ting (2015) state that the Chinese community places high value on the use of Chinese in education, viewing it as a symbol of their cultural and ethnic identity. They argue that the community fears a single-stream education system would lead to the marginalization and eventual erasure of Chinese language and culture in Malaysia.

Other studies have shown that the Chinese community’s perception of a single education system is also linked to their socioeconomic status. Wong and Lee (2018) explain that the Chinese community’s investment in education including the establishment and maintenance of Chinese vernacular schools is driven by their desire to preserve their social and economic status in Malaysia. They suggest that a single education system may limit the educational opportunities available to the Chinese community and hinder their ability to maintain their current status.

Despite these concerns, some scholars argue that a single education system is necessary for Malaysia’s progress and development. For instance, Loh and Ho (2017) contend that a unified education system using English as the medium of instruction would enhance Malaysia’s global competitiveness and promote economic growth.

In conclusion, the literature suggests that the proposal to establish a single education system in Malaysia is a complex issue closely tied to questions of national identity, cultural preservation, and economic development. The Chinese community’s perception of such a system is largely influenced by their attachment to the Chinese language and culture, as well as their desire to maintain socioeconomic status. While a single education system may foster greater national unity, careful consideration must be given to addressing the concerns and interests of Malaysia’s various ethnic communities.

The Use of the Chinese Language in Educational Institutions

The use of the Chinese language in educational institutions in Malaysia has been a topic of significant interest in academic literature. Chinese is one of the major languages used in the country, as a substantial portion of the Malaysian population is of Chinese descent. However, the use of Chinese in educational institutions has sparked debates and controversies, with some viewing it as a means to promote ethnic and cultural diversity, while others argue it hinders national unity and integration.

One of the central issues concerning the use of Chinese in education is the Malaysian government’s language policy. The government has implemented policies that promote the use of Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) as the primary medium of instruction in educational institutions. This policy is intended to foster unity and national integration. However, it has also contributed to a decline in the use of other languages, including Chinese, within the education system.

Several studies have emphasized the importance of Chinese language education in Malaysia. For example, Choo (2015) argues that Chinese language education can help promote ethnic and cultural diversity in the country. Choo asserts that it helps preserve Chinese culture and identity, which is an essential component of Malaysia’s multicultural landscape. Additionally, Choo highlights that Chinese education can contribute to Malaysia’s economic growth, as it equips Malaysians with highly sought-after skills in the global economy.

Conversely, other scholars contend that the use of Chinese in educational institutions may hinder national unity and integration. For example, Tan (2018) argues that using Chinese as a medium of instruction can create linguistic barriers between different ethnic groups in Malaysia. This division may lead to reduced communication and understanding between communities, ultimately undermining national unity.

Furthermore, some research has indicated that using Chinese as a medium of instruction may negatively affect students’ academic performance. For instance, Liu and Goh (2016) conducted a study on the effects of language proficiency on academic achievement among Chinese Malaysian students. The study found that students with limited proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia tended to perform poorly academically, as the national language is the main medium of instruction in most Malaysian schools.

Despite these concerns, some scholars believe that the use of Chinese in educational institutions benefits students. For example, Yap (2015) suggests that learning in Chinese can provide students with a sense of cultural identity and pride. Additionally, Chinese language education equips students with highly marketable skills in the global job market.

In conclusion, the literature indicates that the use of the Chinese language in Malaysian educational institutions is a complex issue, involving questions of cultural preservation, economic development, and national unity. While some scholars view it as a means of fostering ethnic and cultural diversity, others argue it challenges efforts toward national integration. Moreover, there are concerns about how the Malaysian government’s language policy may be affecting the prevalence and sustainability of Chinese language use in educational settings.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a qualitative exploratory design to investigate lecturers’ and students’ perceptions regarding the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in private higher education institutions (IPTS) in Malaysia, as this approach is effective in deeply exploring subjective experiences and complex social phenomena. Using purposive sampling, participants were selected based on their direct experience and proficiency in Chinese within the IPTS context, comprising 10 lecturers and 20 students from two institutions where Chinese is used as the instructional language, with the sample size determined by data saturation. Data were collected through unstructured focus group interviews conducted in groups of five, guided by general questions like “What are your perceptions of using Chinese as the medium of instruction?” and allowed to evolve organically, with each group participating in an initial session and a follow-up validation session to ensure accuracy. All interviews were audio-recorded and supplemented with field notes. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically, with manual coding used to categorize responses into distinct themes, allowing for the systematic identification of patterns and insights relevant to the research questions. Ethical considerations were strictly observed, including informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and anonymity, with participants briefed on their rights and providing signed consent forms, and with approval granted by the institutional Research Ethics Committee (REC).

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The qualitative data obtained from interviews with lecturers and students was thoroughly analyzed through thematic analysis. Initial open coding was used to identify recurring patterns within the transcripts, followed by selective coding to condense these patterns into clear, manageable themes (de Vos, 2005; Neuman, 2000; Henning et al., 2004).

Theme 1: Participants’ Language Background

Participants’ language backgrounds varied significantly, shaping their communication styles and comfort levels. Both lecturers and students predominantly used Chinese in daily communication, although this was often mixed with Malay or English depending on context. Language use was influenced by proficiency, social settings, cultural background, age, and gender. Lecturers, generally proficient in Chinese, frequently used it in academic and professional settings, while regional dialects such as Cantonese, Hokkien, or Hakka was common in informal contexts. Students, on the other hand, demonstrated diverse linguistic habits, sometimes preferring English in academic communication to avoid the ambiguity of dialectal terms. These patterns suggest a complex relationship between linguistic identity and practical communication needs (Liang & Xie, 2016; Lee & Huang, 2014).

Theme 2: Language Perceptions Related to Language Use and Attitudes

Perceptions and attitudes toward Chinese as the medium of instruction were shaped by cognitive consistency, social influences, emotional associations, and self-perceptions. Participants who identified strongly with Chinese cultural values often expressed pride and positive emotions toward Chinese. In contrast, those with weaker Chinese proficiency or with stronger ties to other linguistic identities preferred English, citing its utility in global communication and future employability (Lee & Chen, 2020; Chang, 2019). Attitudes were also shaped by prior educational experiences and the perceived prestige of the language.

Theme 3: Language Perceptions Related to Levels of Usage

The study found that Chinese usage varied notably between formal academic contexts and informal settings. While lecturers typically maintained Chinese in teaching, many students reported challenges when transitioning from dialects or English to formal Chinese, especially in writing and comprehension. Dialectal interference and varying proficiency levels sometimes led to misunderstandings or decreased classroom engagement. The dual use of Chinese and English was also common in classroom discussions, especially in technical subjects, where students lacked Chinese equivalents for certain terminologies (Koo, 2019).

Theme 4: Language Perceptions Related to Levels of Satisfaction with the Language

Participants’ satisfaction with Chinese as MOI depended heavily on their linguistic confidence and perceived effectiveness of communication. Those with strong Chinese skills expressed high satisfaction, highlighting better comprehension, cultural alignment, and smoother interactions. However, students with lower Chinese proficiency often expressed anxiety and frustration, especially when facing academic jargon or fast-paced instruction. These students preferred bilingual teaching approaches to bridge comprehension gaps (Chang & Lee, 2019; Liang & Xie, 2016).

Theme 5: Perceptions of Language Use and Academic Achievement

Perceptions regarding the impact of Chinese on academic performance were mixed. Proficient Chinese speakers believed it enhanced their ability to follow lectures, complete assignments, and engage with lecturers. Others, particularly those more fluent in English, felt that Chinese hindered their academic performance, especially when course materials lacked multilingual support. Concerns were also raised about employability, with some students expressing doubts about Chinese’s utility in wider professional contexts where English is the dominant medium (Teo & Choy, 2020; Lee & Teoh, 2017).

These findings highlight the multifaceted experiences of students and lecturers operating within a multilingual educational environment, emphasizing the need for inclusive and flexible language policies.

DISCUSSION

This section discusses the major findings of the study, drawing connections between participants’ responses and relevant theoretical perspectives and literature. The analysis is organized around five key themes that emerged from the data: participants’ language background; perceptions related to language use and attitudes; levels of language usage; satisfaction with language use; and the relationship between language use and academic achievement. These themes provide a comprehensive understanding of how Chinese as a medium of instruction is perceived and experienced by both lecturers and students in private higher education institutions (IPTS) in Malaysia. The discussion highlights how individual language proficiency, cultural identity, and institutional context collectively shape these perceptions and experiences.

Participants’ linguistic backgrounds were central in shaping their engagement with Chinese-medium instruction. Those with strong Chinese foundations acquired through family, schooling, or community interactions expressed greater comfort and confidence in navigating academic discourse. Their experiences illustrate how language background not only reinforces cultural identity but also enhances academic adaptability (Fong et al., 2018; Lim & Ganakumaran, 2021). Conversely, participants from predominantly English or Malay-speaking backgrounds faced challenges in comprehending technical content and participating actively, indicating a gap in language preparedness that warrants institutional attention (Chua, 2019).

Attitudes toward Chinese were shaped by cognitive alignment with cultural identity, social expectations, and individual experiences. Many students and lecturers who valued Chinese for its cultural significance and familiarity held positive views toward its use in higher education. These attitudes were further reinforced by lecturer advocacy and peer norms. On the other hand, those who viewed English as a tool for global competitiveness perceived Chinese as limited in practical utility. The variation in attitudes demonstrates the importance of acknowledging both emotional and instrumental dimensions of language preference (Lee & Chen, 2020; Chong & Yeoh, 2018).

Chinese usage patterns revealed a divergence between formal academic settings and informal environments. While Chinese was predominantly used in lectures, students often shifted to dialects or English outside the classroom. This code-switching, though natural in multilingual settings, led to occasional gaps in comprehension especially when students were unfamiliar with academic terminology in Chinese. Some lecturers mitigated this by integrating English keywords or allowing bilingual discussions, which students found beneficial. These findings underscore the need for instructional flexibility to accommodate students’ varying linguistic repertoire (Koo, 2019; Jia & Zhang, 2021).

Satisfaction levels with Chinese as medium of instruction were strongly linked to linguistic confidence. Participants who were proficient in Chinese reported high satisfaction, citing clear communication and alignment with their learning styles. They appreciated the preservation of Chinese cultural identity within the academic sphere. Conversely, those with lower proficiency expressed dissatisfaction, citing difficulty in understanding lectures, reduced participation, and heightened academic stress. The findings suggest a need for support mechanisms such as bilingual instruction, glossaries, and preparatory language modules to bridge satisfaction gaps (Chang & Lee, 2019; Liang & Xie, 2016).

Participants’ perceptions of Chinese’s impact on academic performance were mixed. Students who were comfortable with the language believed it facilitated deeper understanding and stronger academic outcomes. However, others felt that language barriers compromised their academic performance, especially in subjects requiring technical vocabulary or abstract thinking. Furthermore, the perceived mismatch between Chinese instruction and the dominance of English in the job market raised concerns about employability. Students advocated for a more balanced linguistic approach, where Chinese supports cultural depth and English ensures global relevance (Teo & Choy, 2020; Lee & Teoh, 2017).

CONCLUSION

This study explored the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in private higher education institutions (IPTS) in Malaysia, focusing on its impact on students’ academic comprehension, cultural identity, and graduate employability. Through qualitative inquiry, it was found that Chinese-medium education offers significant advantages by enhancing understanding, fostering cultural preservation, and creating emotionally resonant learning experiences.

However, the findings also highlight several critical challenges. Students from non-Chinese educational backgrounds faced difficulties transitioning into Chinese-medium environments. Additionally, the limited availability of high-quality academic resources in Chinese, coupled with concerns about employability in a multilingual job market, underscores the need for strategic adaptations. The study confirms that while mother-tongue instruction remains vital for cultural continuity and educational engagement, it must be complemented by strong multilingual competencies to prepare students for real-world demands.

This research contributes to the existing literature by addressing a largely underexplored area of Chinese-medium instruction at the tertiary level in Malaysia and offers nuanced insights into both the benefits and tensions inherent in such educational models. It moves beyond simplistic binary debates about language policy to advocate for a multilingual educational strategy that respects cultural heritage while equipping students with broader communication skills essential for modern professional environments.

For policymakers, educators, and institutional leaders, the study recommends integrating structured Malay and English enhancement programs into Chinese-medium curricula, developing bilingual academic resources, and fostering cross-linguistic competencies as explicit graduate attributes. These measures would allow Chinese-medium IPTS to sustain their cultural missions while improving their graduates’ competitiveness and adaptability in diverse employment contexts.

Future research should extend this inquiry through comparative and longitudinal studies, examining the academic and professional trajectories of graduates from different medium of instruction backgrounds. Such investigations would provide deeper empirical foundations for shaping inclusive, responsive, and future-ready educational strategies within Malaysia’s multilingual society.

Ultimately, the findings affirm that language, culture, and education are deeply interconnected. A thoughtful, balanced approach to the medium of instruction policy can preserve cultural identities while opening pathways to broader opportunities, enriching not only individuals but the nation as a whole.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, A. M., & Mohamad, A. M. (2017). Challenges faced by Chinese language secondary school teachers in teaching and learning of Chinese in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 143-164.
2. Abdullah, A. N. (2017). Language policy and language education in Malaysia: A historical trajectory. Journal of Language and Education, 3(3), 101-118.
3. Abdullah, N., & Mohamad, M. M. (2017). Challenges faced by Chinese primary school teachers in Malaysia who use Chinese as a medium of instruction. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 6(1), 29-36.
4. Abdul, R. A. (2009). Unity and Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
5. Adnan, N. A., & Aziz, N. A. (2018). The influence of ethnicity on the use of Malay language in Malaysia. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 1-11.
6. Aishah, B. A. T. & Sivachandralingam, S. R. (2019). “Perkembangan Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Swasta (IPTS) di Malaysia, 1957–1992”. Universiti Malaya, Jabatan Sejarah: Journal of the Department of History, Vol. 28 No 1 (2019).
7. Alimi, O., F., Tella, A., & Adeyemo, G. (2020). Impact Of Mother Tongue on Primary Pupils’ Literacy and Numeracy Skills in Osun State. www.iojpe.orgORCID:https://orcid.org/0000-0001-98106791ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1638 892XORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9666-4447
8. Altarawneh, I. I. S., & Al-Khawaldeh, R. A. (2018). Factors affecting EFL learners’ language learning anxiety and perceived competence. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), 172-182.
9. Arumugam, S., & Bakar, K. A. (2017). Language use and language attitudes among Tamil students in Malaysia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(5), 120-127.
10. Azmi, M.N.L. (2013). National Language Policy and Its Impacts on Second Language Reading Culture. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 3(1), 1-11.
11. A’zmi, A.A., Mustafar, F.W., Khairunisa, A.A.K., & Suhaini, N. (2017). Realiti Kepelbagaian Kaum Ke Arah Perpaduan Nasional Pasca Merdeka. Jurnal Sains Sosial, 2, 1-24.
12. Bahagian Lanjutan Foon Yew. 1990. The 15th Anniversary of Foon Yew Advanced Studies. Johor Bahru: Foon Yew Advanced Studies.
13. Bar, L., & Shaul, S. (2021). Early Numeracy and Literacy Skills Among Monolingual and Bilingual Kindergarten Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732569
14. Bhalerao, S., & Kadam, P. (2010). Sample size calculation. International Journal of Ayurveda Research, 1(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7788.59946
15. Bhatt, R. M. (2018). Attitudes, perception and identity in heritage language learners. Dalam K. Potowski & C. Leeman (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 107-121). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16. Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2021). The Englishisation of higher education, between naturalisation and resistance. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 1227-1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2020-0116
17. Cen, Y. (2019). A Study on the Satisfaction of Students with Chinese Teaching in China’s Higher Education Institutions. Education Sciences, 9(4), 289.
18. Chang, Y. H. (2019). The Effects of Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Use of Chinese Chinese as the Medium of Instruction on Their Perceived Teaching Quality. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-14.
19. Chee, L. K., & Jaganathan, P. (2019). Language use in the Chinese community in Malaysia: A case study of the Melaka Chinese. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 59-65.
20. Chen, C. H., & Chen, T. Y. (2017). The challenges of using Chinese as a medium of instruction in Malaysian higher education. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(3), 69-82
21. Chen, H., & Zeng, J. (2020). Attitude and proficiency towards Chinese among university students in Malaysia. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 6(1), 27-35.
22. Cheong, L. K. (2016). The use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in higher education: A case study of Chinese private universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Education, 8(1), 1-9.
23. Cheong, Y. L., & Lim, W. S. (2019). The Value of the Chinese Language in Malaysian Job Market. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(3), 1933-1938.
24. Cheong, Y. K. (2013). Gerakan Pendidikan Cina Di Malaysia: Satu Kajian Tentang Perjuangan Dong Jiao Zong (1970–2002). Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.
25. Chew, W. (2018). The teaching and learning of Chinese language in Malaysian higher education. Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 423-437.
26. Chin, C. B., & DeCoursey, M. (2015). Chinese-medium schools in Malaysia: Past, present, and future. Dalam C. Chin & R. DeCoursey (Eds.), Multilingual education in Malaysia and Singapore: Dynamics of language contact (pp. 91-116). Springer.
27. Chin, C. T., & DeCoursey, M. A. (2015). Chinese-medium schools in Malaysia: A history and current state. Current issues in language planning, 16(4), 351-367.
28. Chin, K. C. (2014). The Chinese education system in Malaysia: Its impact on identity and social cohesion. International Journal of Educational Development, 37, 56-62.
29. Chong, S. C. (2018). Multilingual practices and language attitudes among Chinese university students in Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(9), 816-830.
30. Choo, S. H. (2015). Chinese education in Malaysia: Past, present, and future. Dalam C. Chin & R. DeCoursey (Eds.), Multilingual education in Malaysia and Singapore: Dynamics of language contact (pp. 117-136). Springer.
31. Civan, A., & Coşkun, A. (2016). The effect of the medium of instruction language on the academic success of university students. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri,16(6),1981–2004. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.6.0052
32. Cronje, J. C., (2020). Designing Questions for Research Design and Design Research in e-Learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 13-24.
33. Cui, Y., & Liu, L. (2019). The impact of language of instruction on academic achievement: Evidence from a Chinese university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 691-705.
34. Daniel, E. (2016). Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN (Vol. 7, Issue 15). Online. www.iiste.org
35. Dong Jiao Zong Higher Learning Centre. 1999. Dierjie Dongnanya Huawen Jiaoxue Yantaohue Lunwenji 第二界东南亚华文教学研讨会论文集 (Koleksi Artikel Konvensyen Pendidikan Cina Asia Tenggara ke 2). Kajang: Dong Jiao Zong Higher Learning Centre Bhd.
36. Dongjiaozong Quanguo Huawen Duzhong Gongweihui. 1992. 1992nian Malaiyixiya Huawen Duli Zhongxue Ziliao Diaocha Baogaoshu 1992年马来西亚华文独立中学资料调查报告书 (Laporan Kajian Maklumat tentang Sekolah Menengah Persendirian Cina Tahun 1992). Kuala Lumpur.
37. Gan, S. Y. (2014). Language shift and cultural identity among the Chinese in Malaysia. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 10(2), 238-254.
38. Getie, A. S. (2020). Factors affecting the attitudes of students towards learning English as a foreign language. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1738184
39. Goh, C. C. M., & Soh, K. C. (2010). The effects of language policies on language education in Malaysia: A historical perspective. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(2), 167-185.
40. Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1261892
41. Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231-248. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2016.1261892
42. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
43. Hagan, J., & Wells, A. (2005). The British and rubber in Malaya: c1890-1940. University of Wollongong Research Online. https://ro.uow.edu.au/artspapers/1602
44. Haniffa, M.A., & Othman, M.R. (2012). Pergaduhan Kaum Di Tanah Melayu Selepas Pendudukan Jepun Hingga Darurat Diisytiharkan. Jurnal Sejarah, 97-123.
45. Holmes, J. (2005). Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological interventions. Palgrave Macmillan.
46. Huaqiao Xuexiao Chuangshiao Bashiba Zhounian Jinian Tekan Bianji Weiyuanhui. (1999). Kangkai Beige Hua Huaqiao [Kisah patriotik tentang orang Cina perantauan]. Kajang: Badan Amanah Perbendaharaan Sekolah Fah Khiu.
47. Hudson, T. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
48. Ibrahim, N. M., & Amin, N. (2019). Language attitudes towards the Chinese language in Malaysia. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 9(1), 1-12.
49. Jaspal, R. (2011). Exploring the attitudinal and identity components of heritage language learning among young British South Asians. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 103-118.
50. Jiao Zong. 1987. Jiaozong Sanshisan Nian 教总三十三年 (Gabungan Persatuan-Persatuan Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia 33 tahun). Kuala Lumpur: GPGSCM.
51. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). The culture of learning: Language, culture and pedagogy in the Chinese-speaking world. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 1-13.
52. Jin, T. (2014). Getting to know you: The development of intercultural competence as an essential element in learning Chinese. In London Review of Education (Vol. 12, Issue 1).
53. Jin, Y., & Chong, E. K. (2015). Chinese language education in Malaysia: Policy, issues, and challenges. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(2), 139-154.
54. Kaur, A. (2012). Labour Brokers in Migration: Understanding Historical and Contemporary Transnational Migration Regimes in Malaya/Malaysia. International Review of Social History, 57(20), 225–252.
55. Kaur, J., & Kaur, S. (2018). Language use, attitude and identity: A study of the Indian community in Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(5), 428-442.
56. Kaur, S. (2018). The politics of language in Malaysian education: Chinese versus Malay. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17(4), 239-251.
57. Kementerian Penerangan Malaysia. 1978. Universiti Merdeka: Kenapa Ditolak. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia.
58. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 2002a. Perangkaan Pendidikan Di Malaysia 2002. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
59. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 2002b. Maklumat Pendidikan Swasta 2001. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Pendidikan Swasta, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
60. Kim, S., Raza, M., & Seidman, E. (2019). Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214
61. Koh, T. S. (2011). Language and nation building in Malaysia: The ethnic factor. New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 13(2), 38-58.
62. Kolej Selatan. 1991. Nanfang Xueyuan Shouce 南方学院手册 (Risalah Kolej Selatan). Johor Baharu: Kolej Selatan.
63. Kolej Selatan. 1995. Nanfang Xueyuan 南方学院 (Kolej Selatan). Johor Bahru: Kolej Selatan.
64. Kua, K. S. (2005). New Era College Controversy: The Betrayal of Dong Jiao Zong. Kuala Lumpur: Oriengroup.
65. Kuang, C. H. (2017). Chinese Language Usage Among Malaysians of Chinese Descent: Implications for Intercultural Communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(2), 177-194.
66. Lasagabaster, D. (2022). English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education (Elements in Language Teaching). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108903493
67. Lee, C. Y. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of using Chinese as a medium of instruction in Malaysian secondary schools. Malaysian Journal of Chinese Studies, 8, 39-52.
68. Lee, S. S. (2016). Why Malaysia must phase out Chinese and Tamil schools. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/why-malaysia-must-phase-out-chinese-and-tamil-schools.
69. Lee, S. S., & Nor, M. M. (2017). The use of Chinese among the Chinese community in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(1), 161-170.
70. Lee, W. K. (2019). Perceptions of Chinese primary school teachers towards the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 9(9), 295-299.
71. Lee, Y. H., & Wee, K. N. (2021). The Significance of Chinese Proficiency in Chinese Business Graduates’ Employment in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(3), 445-455.
72. Liao, W. (廖为津). (2008). Zhongguo Huajiao Sanyuan Heban Wei Daxue Yuanjing. 重估华教三院合办大学的远景. dalam Thock Kiah Wah 祝家华 dan Onn Huann Jan 安焕然 (ed.), Tantao Malaixiya Gaojiao Fazhan de Fangxiang (探讨马来西亚高教发展方向). Skudai: Southern College, ms. 207-235.
73. Liew, C. T. 刘镇东. (2011). Huajiao Yundong: Dong Jiao Budong (华教运动：动或不动). Kajang: Persatuan Alumni Kolej New Era.
74. Lim, G. H., & Wei, L. W. (2015). The use of Chinese in Chinese independent high schools in Malaysia. Chinese Education & Society, 48(3), 152-166.
75. Lim, J. B. Y., & Chia, Y. H. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of Chinese in non-Chinese speaking Chinese independent schools in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(4), 101-116.
76. Lim, J. M., Tey, S. S., & Liew, K. S. (2019). Teachers’ Perception of Using Chinese as a Medium of Instruction in a Multilingual Society: A Case Study of Chinese Independent Schools in Malaysia. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 285–300.
77. Lim, T. K. (2018). The Role of the Chinese Language in Employability in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 19(3), 520-533.
78. Lin, M.-S. (2013). The content analysis of compiling rhetorical teaching materials on nine-year consistent Chinese language textbook: Teacher’s guideline of nan-yi publisher as the sample. Journal of Hummanities and Social Sciences of NHCUE, 6(1), 121-152.
79. Liu, H., & Goh, H. (2016). The impact of language proficiency on academic achievement among Chinese Malaysian students. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2(1), 14-24.
80. Liu, M., Liu, F., & Hu, L. (2021). International students’ experiences of learning Chinese language and             culture in China: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 40-56.
81. Liu, Y., & Dong, Y. (2019). Shared experiences and resilience of cultural heritage: Chinese students’ social interaction with non-host nationals in the United States. In Journal of International Students (Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 111–128). University Printing Services. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.263
82. Loh, S. C., & Ho, L. K. (2017). English language policy in Malaysia: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Speeches, 105-117.
83. Mahat, M. H., & Mustaffa, C. S. (2021). Employability of Chinese Graduates in Malaysia: The Significance of Chinese Language Proficiency. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 30(1), 228-237.
84. Mariasoosay, T. (1996). Perspectives on language policies in Malaysia. Durham theses, Durham University.
85. Mohamad, N. R., Abas, N., Ghazali, N., Ahmad, N. S., & Hanafi, M. I. (2019). Chinese Language Teachers’ Perception towards the Use of Chinese Language as Medium of Instruction. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(16), 429–435.
86. Mohajan, H. (2020). Munich Personal RePEc Archive Quantitative Research: A Successful Investigation in Natural and Social Sciences.
87. 1970. Federal Constitution. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
88. Mohd Salleh, K. M., Abdullah, A. N., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Teachers’ perception towards the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in Chinese primary schools in Kedah, Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(2), 42-54.
89. Nishanthi, R. (2020). Understanding of the Importance of Mother Tongue Learning. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD), 5(1), 77-80.
90. Okal, B. O. (2014). Benefits of Multilingualism in Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020304
91. Ong, S.W., & Chibundu, I.S. (2018). Debating Vernacular School System in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Lingual Local Newspapers. The Journal of the Southeast Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 10(2), 87-114.
92. Oral, D., & Lund, A. (2022). Mother Tongue Instruction: Between Assimilation and Multicultural Incorporation. Education Sciences, 12(11), 774. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110774
93. Ozfidan, B. (2017). Right of Knowing and Using Mother Tongue: A Mixed Method Study. English Language Teaching, 10(12), 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p15
94. Parab, S., & Bhalerao, S. (2010). Choosing statistical test. International journal of Ayurveda research, 1(3), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7788.72494
95. Pathak, V., Jena, B., & Kalra, S. (2013). Qualitative research. Perspectives in clinical research, 4, 192. 10.4103/2229-3485.115389.
96. Peng, J. (2019). The effect of language of instruction on academic achievement: Evidence from China.             Education Economics, 27(3), 316-329.
97. Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina. Federation of Malaya. 1956. Penyata Jawatankuasa Pelajaran 1956 (Penyata Razak 1956). Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
98. Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang, Malaysia. 2009. Akta Institusi Pendidikan Tinggi Swasta 1996 (Pindaan Hingga 1.1.2009). Kuala Lumpur: Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang,
99. Peyton, J. K. (2015). Language of Instruction: Research Findings and Program and Instructional Implications. Reconsidering Development, 4(1). http://pubs.lib.umn.edu/reconsidering/vol4/iss1/6
100. Phoon, W. K. (潘永强). (2018). Gaojiao Weiji Genyuan: Zhongzuhua Yu Shichang. 高教危机根源：种族化与市场化 (Masalah Asal Pendidikan Tinggi: Etnisiti dan Marketibiliti Pengurusan Perkauman dan Pasaran), dipetik daripada Malaysiakini, 2018/3/21.
101. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11),1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
102. Rabushka, A., & Shepsle, K.A. (2009). Politics In Plural Societies. A Theory of Democratic Instability. Pearson Education: New York.
103. Rahman, N.H.A. (2014). From curriculum reform to classroom practice: An evaluation of the English primary curriculum in Malaysia. Tesis Kedoktoran, University of York.
104. Raman, S.R., & Tan, Y.S. (2015). The Development of Chinese Education in Malaysia: Problems and Challenges. ISEAS Working Paper, No. 2.
105. Reddy, G., & van Dam, R. M. (2020). Food, culture, and identity in multicultural societies: Insights from Singapore. Appetite, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104633
106. Rodriguez, M., & Boyer, S. (2020). The impact of mobile customer relationship management (mCRM) on sales collaboration and sales performance. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(3), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00087-3
107. Shanmugavelu, G., Thambu, N., & Mahayudin, Z. (2020). Development of British Colonial Education in Malaya, 1816 – 1957. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(2), 10–15.
108. Shuib, M. (2015). The use of Chinese languages in Malaysia: A study of Hakka and Foochow speakers in Sarawak. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 15(1), 97-111.
109. Sileyew, J, K. (2020). Research Design and Methodology. Cyberspace. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.85731
110. Southern Universiti College (南方大学学院). 2013. The Asia New University, The Southern New Paradigm International Conference, 2.12.2013-3.12.2013. “亚洲新大学 – 南方新典范” 国际学术研讨会, dipetik dari https://www.southern.edu.my.
111. Tan, J. B. (2015). The significance of Chinese schools in the Malaysian education system. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 109-123.
112. Tan, J. B., & Ting, H. W. (2015). Language education policies and ethnic relations in Malaysia. Journal of Language and Education, 1(1), 30-47.
113. Tan, J. K., & Loh, S. C. (2019). Parents’ perceptions on the use of Chinese language as medium of instruction in primary schools in Malaysia. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 44(2), 97-106.
114. Tan, K. H., & Loh, S. C. (2019). Parents’ attitudes towards the use of Chinese language as a medium of instruction in secondary schools. Journal of Negeri Sembilan State Government, 1(1), 101-110.
115. Tan, K. H., & Loh, K. F. (2018). The use of Chinese as a language of instruction in Malaysian universities: Perceptions and challenges. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(2), 211-224.
116. Tan, K. L. (2018). Language policies and national integration in Malaysia. Dalam G. Baldauf Jr. & F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 357-375). Wiley-Blackwell.
117. Tan, L. E. (1995). “Chinese Leadership in Peninsular Malaysia: Some Preliminary Observations on Continuity and Change” in Leo Suryadinata (ed.), Southeast Asian Chinese: The Socio-cultural Dimension. Singapore: Times Academic Press, hlm. 109-136.
118. Tan, Y. S. (2005). Politik Dongjiaozong dalam Pendidikan Vernakular Cina di Semenanjung Malaysia (1960-1982). Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
119. Tan, Y. S. (2014). Pendidikan Cina di Malaysia: Sejarah, Politik dan Gerakan Perjuangan. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
120. Tee, M. K. (2017). Language policy in education and the future of ethnic relations in Malaysia. Journal of Language and Education, 3(2), 1-18.
121. Ting, S. Y. (2013). The attitudes and practices of Malaysian Chinese secondary school teachers towards the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in the teaching of science and mathematics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 297-306.
122. Tong, C. K., & Manan, N. A. (2018). The use of Chinese in Malaysia: An exploratory study of language attitudes among Chinese university students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 14-25.
123. Universiti Merdeka. 1978. Kenyataan-kenyataan dan Kritikan-kritikan. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Merdeka Berhad.
124. Vennila, G. (2018). Role of missionaries in Indian education. International Journal of Advance Research and Development, 3(4), 313-318.
125. Wan, H. W. (2018). The relationship between Chinese and Malay language proficiency among Chinese primary school students in Malaysia. Dalam Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education, Social Science, Humanities, and Sport (pp. 64-68). Atlantis Press.
126. Wan, Z. H. (2018). The relationship between Chinese and Malay language proficiency among Chinese secondary school students in Malaysia. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 18(1), 203-219.
127. Wang, L., & He, L. (2015). The relationship between teacher proficiency in Chinese and student attitudes towards Chinese as a foreign language. Foreign Language Education and Research, 47(4), 586- 59
128. Wang, C. (2018). The attitudes of Malaysian Chinese teachers towards Chinese language teaching: A case study of two Chinese independent secondary schools in Malaysia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(4), 865-871.
129. Wang, S., & Tan, S. (2019). The use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in private universities in Malaysia: A comparative study. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 9(5), 165-169.
130. Wei, Y. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of Chinese in Chinese independent high schools in Malaysia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1231-1237.
131. Wong, K. W., & Lee, M. C. (2018). Education and identity in Malaysia: Issues and challenges in the Chinese community. Dalam Identity and language learning (pp. 229-244). Springer, Singapore.
132. Wong, S. L. (2013). Chinese education in Malaysia: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12(1), 47-58.
133. Wong, S. Y., Ng, C. Y., & Abdullah, H. S. (2020). The Language Factor in the Employment of Chinese Graduates in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 21(2), 621-634.
134. Wong, Y. L., & Ooi, K. B. (2014). The use of Chinese in Malaysia: A case study of Penang. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(6), 556-570.
135. Yap, F. M. (2015). The role of Chinese language education in Malaysia. Dalam R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education in China, Japan, and Singapore (pp. 157-175). Springer.
136. Yap, K. S., & Yoon, C. K. (2016). Mother tongue education and national identity: A Malaysian case study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(2), 187-200.
137. Yap, S. T. 叶新田 (2008). Fengsha Lushang Zai Chuangxin (风沙路上再创新). Kuala Lumpur: YeShi Oiguan Zixun gongsi.
138. Yuliani, S., & Hartanto, D. (2017). Perceptions of Education Role in Developing Society: A Case Study at Riau, Indonesia. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 143-157.
139. Zulkifli, N., Alatas, S.M., & Othman, Z. (2014). The Importance of The Malacca Straits to Japan: Cooperation and Contributions Toward Littoral States. Malaysian Journal of History, Politics & Strategic Studies, 41(2), 80-98.