International Journal of Indonesian Studies Volume 1, Issue 3 | Page 181

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDONESIAN STUDIES
SPRING 2016
(2) In the MPK group, institutionally, could be Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Inggris, Ilmu
Budaya Dasar, Ilmu Sosial Dasar, Ilmu Alamiah Dasar, Filsafat Ilmu, Olah Raga dan
sebagainya.
(Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional No 232/U/2000 tentang Pedoman
Penyusunan
Kurikulum Pendidikan Tinggi dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa, Chapter IV,
Verse 10).
Contrary to the Sukarno era, the result of Suharto’s pro-western policy and
favourable political situation to a free market economy made the English language program
more important in the national educational policy. The Post-Suharto era witnessed the
apparent support from the government toward English language teaching. Even outside of
the government policy, formal education schema, informal language courses grew rapidly
from the 1980s onward. Informal English language courses are innumerable in Indonesia
nowadays. During the Suharto era, English language teaching whether in formal or informal
education was gaining its stronghold.
Brief sketch of the development of National English Syllabus
As early as 1950, when a foreign language was to be chosen for the school curriculum
nationwide (either Dutch or English), policy makers in Indonesia were well aware that
English could serve a very important role as a tool in the development of the country, both
for international relations and scientific-technological advancement. English was chosen
over Dutch despite the fact that the Dutch had colonized Indonesia for three and a half
centuries. As is very well recorded in the Indonesian history, the official status of English in
the country has been “the first foreign language” and the political stance of Indonesia’s
government is quite firm: “English is not and will never be a social language nor the second
official language in Indonesia” (Sadtono, 1997:7).
With English being given this status, the objective of English language teaching (ELT)
in Indonesia is to equip students with a working knowledge of the language. While this
instructional objective may appear self-explanatory, in the context of formal schooling, the
notion of “working knowledge in English” has been approached in different ways
throughout the history of ELT in Indonesia. For instance, in the 1975 English syllabus, while
the final goal of teaching was said to be the development of communicative competence in
English, the actual English teaching focused almost exclusively on the mastery of linguistic
patterns without giving proper attention to their use in communicative situations.
Quite predictably, the mismatch between the goal of ELT and the means being used
to achieve it led to disappointment in both ELT theorists and practitioners. In the 1984
syllabus, which served to correct the 1975 syllabus, the notion of “working knowledge in
English” was then approached by restoring the true goal of English teaching, that is,
“meaningfulness and communicative functions” (Ministry of Education and Culture 1986
181 | P a g e