The ongoing debate on Chinese primary education: A framing analysis of Malaysian newspapers

Sheau Wen Ong*, Samuel Chibundu Ihediwa, Poh Chua Siah

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In Malaysia, Chinese vernacular education has been a highly contested and much debated political issue in the mass media. This study examines how Malaysian newspapers framed Chinese primary education for a 3-year period (2015–2017) which is before the 2018 election. Findings showed that, the proximity of election has led to a surge in news reporting about Chinese primary education. Political considerations remain central in mainstream newspapers’ reporting in which official sources are dominant in shaping public understanding of the issue. Alternative newspapers serve as a counter-establishment platform through active participation of readers in public debate. A responsibility frame dominates the news coverage of Chinese primary education in both types of newspapers. Nevertheless, the alternative newspapers tend to focus on the conflict aspect of the issue by foregrounding discord between ruling and opposition politicians as well as intra-Barisan Nasional (BN) disputes. Through human interest frame, the mainstream newspapers emotionalize the issue to obtain readers’ attention. This study concludes that varying reporting strategies adopted by Malaysian newspapers can impact readers’ evaluation of education policy issues. The implications of the findings and the limitations of the study are also discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)9-27
JournalAsia Pacific Media Educator
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • ethnic identity
  • framing
  • Malaysian media
  • national integration
  • vernacular education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The ongoing debate on Chinese primary education: A framing analysis of Malaysian newspapers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this