Foreign Language Education Policies in Southeast Asia: English Dominance and the Roles of Southeast Asian Languages

Foreign Language Education Policies in Southeast Asia: English Dominance and the Roles of Southeast Asian Languages | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Foreign Language Education Policies in Southeast Asia: English Dominance and the Roles of Southeast Asian Languages Emi Emilia, Nita Novianti, Hasanatul Hamidah, Rina Dwiyana, Tri Indri Hardini, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper presents a portion of the findings from a larger research project conducted through collaboration between Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia and Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel (QITEP) in Language (SEAQIL) from 2021 to 2023. The project aimed to investigate foreign language education policies in ASEAN countries. This paper focuses specifically on foreign language education policies and the role of Southeast Asian languages within these policies. The study involved 4,342 upper secondary and tertiary students in 11 Southeast Asian countries completing surveys designed to gather their perspectives and experiences with foreign language education. It also involved 11 experts in foreign language education policy, providing deeper insights into policy implementation and challenges through focus group discussions, complemented with an analysis of the relevant policy documents. The study found that English dominates as the primary foreign language taught across the countries, reflecting its role as the regional lingua franca. Southeast Asian languages, though culturally significant and of interest to students, remain largely absent from foreign language curricula and lack strong policy and legal support. Challenges to incorporating these languages include insufficient institutional backing, limited teaching resources, and the absence of cohesive national frameworks. The findings suggest that for Southeast Asian languages to play a more significant role in the education system, there must be stronger support through national policies and legal backing, and Southeast Asian languages should be integrated into foreign language education policies to promote linguistic diversity and regional identity in the Southeast Asian context. Humanities/Cultural and media studies Social science/Cultural and media studies Social science/Education Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Language and linguistics Social science/Politics and international relations ASEAN foreign language education policy language policy multilingualism and multiculturalism Southeast Asian languages Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Foreign language education policy has long been a key area of research, especially over the past two decades, with significant studies examining the role of foreign languages in shaping national identity, economic priorities, and sociopolitical dynamics. Recent research in countries such as Algeria (Maraf & Vanci Osam, 2023 ), Costa Rica (Solano-Campos & Burns, 2022 ), and Italy (Lopriore, 2021 ) demonstrates that language policies are influenced by complex interactions between sociopolitical movements, economic imperatives, and evolving notions of national identity. These studies often highlight the promotion of English as a tool for modernization and global competitiveness, while also revealing persistent tensions between policy intentions and classroom realities. Similarly, research in Asia (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019 ; Yang, 2023 ) shows that foreign language education policies are shaped by both national ambitions and global pressures. These policies typically prioritize English and national languages to foster economic growth and internationalization, yet they frequently grapple with the marginalization of minority languages and the gap between policy and classroom practice. Within Southeast Asia, most research on foreign language policy (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2017 ; Lee et al., 2022 ; Lee et al., 2024 ; Lee, 2025 ; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019 ; Zein & Stroupe, 2017 ) has overwhelmingly, though understandably, resonated with the global research in their focus on the role of English. Kirkpatrick ( 2009 ) observed that the decision of ASEAN, the organization that unites Southeast Asean countries to promote regional cooperation and stability, to designate English as its sole working language was a deliberate and nearly unanimous policy choice, intended to streamline regional communication and integration through a single lingua franca. This approach was not designed to foster the mutual teaching or learning of Southeast Asian languages among member countries, but rather to facilitate administrative efficiency and cohesion at the regional level. Kirkpatrick ( 2009 ) critiqued this policy for signaling “unity in diversity” while, in practice, prioritizing unity at the expense of genuine linguistic diversity and the promotion of other regional languages. Remarkably, Kirkpatrick’s ( 2009 ) evaluation remains highly relevant nearly two decades later. English continues to be the sole working language of ASEAN, as explicitly stated in the most recent versions of the ASEAN Charter and reaffirmed in contemporary policy documents and academic studies (Emilia, et al., 2025 ; Zhang et al., 2025 ). Recent educational initiatives and regional cooperation projects are consistently conducted in English, underscoring its ongoing centrality in ASEAN’s institutional and communicative practices (Zhang et al., 2025 ). Despite rhetorical commitments to respecting the region’s diverse cultures and languages, there remains little institutional movement toward promoting the teaching or learning of other Southeast Asian languages within member states’ education systems. This is a persistent gap that continues to shape the region’s approach to multilingualism. The dynamics of multilingualism and multiculturalism are central to shaping foreign language education in Southeast Asia. Multilingualism is not merely encouraged but is the norm, reflecting the region’s diversity. However, the lack of policy support for the teaching of Southeast Asian languages beyond national lingua francas, such as Indonesian and Malay, and English illustrates the complex interplay between the promotion of English and the preservation of regional languages (Kirkpatrick, 2009 ). Language policy, as an interdisciplinary field, encompasses not only official regulations but also the ideologies, practices, and choices that shape language use in education (Zein, 2020 ). In the Southeast Asian context, multilingualism is a vital resource, and the inclusion of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education has the potential to enhance regional cohesion. Scholars such as Chiatoh & Akumbu ( 2013 ) emphasize that multilingualism is essential for building strong, integrated societies—a perspective that is particularly relevant for Southeast Asia. Encouraging both English and indigenous Southeast Asian languages in education could strengthen cultural ties and foster greater unity across the region. Against this backdrop, this study, conducted in collaboration with SEAMEO QITEL (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel) in Language, investigates foreign language policies in Southeast Asian countries, with a specific focus on the role of Southeast Asian languages. It examines how the integration of these languages into policy frameworks influences multilingualism and regional cohesion. Drawing on the idea that language policies reflect broader social and political decisions about which languages are taught and why (Spolsky, 2009 , 2013 , 2021 ), the study is guided by the following research questions: ● What foreign language education policies are in place across Southeast Asian countries? ● How are Southeast Asian languages represented or incorporated into these policies? ● What are the trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region? The article will begin by outlining the foreign language education policies of Southeast Asian countries, including relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents. It will provide a comprehensive overview of the foreign languages taught in each country, with particular attention to the dominance of English and the limited presence of other Southeast Asian languages. The focus will then shift to the role of Southeast Asian languages, analyzing their integration within national policies and discussing their impact on multilingualism and regional cohesion. Ultimately, the findings aim to contribute to the growing body of research on language education policy (Zein, 2020 ; Chiatoh & Akumbu, 2013 ), with particular attention to the underrepresentation of Southeast Asian languages in the region’s foreign language curricula and the implications for regional integration and linguistic diversity. Methods This study was qualitative in nature, aimed at exploring foreign language education policies across Southeast Asian countries and the position of Southeast Asian languages within those policies. Although the broader research initially focused on general language education policies, this article narrows the focus to examine foreign language education policies and how Southeast Asian languages are integrated (or not) into these policies. The study relies on qualitative data collected through focus group discussions with experts of foreign language education policies and a questionnaire distributed to secondary and tertiary students in Southeast Asian countries. Participants This study involved two distinct groups of participants. The first group comprised 11 experts, each representing one of the SEAMEO member countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. These participants were either language policy experts or educators with a particular focus on English language teaching in their respective countries. All experts were invited by SEAQIL to participate voluntarily. Their primary role was to contribute to a Focus Group Discussion (FGD), where they shared in-depth insights into foreign language education policies within their countries, and the role of Southeast Asian languages in those policies. The second group consisted of participants who responded to a questionnaire distributed across all SEAMEO member countries. With the help of a volunteer in a SEAMEO Centres, the Indonesian Embassy, and educators from schools and universities in the Southeast Asian region, the students in each country were invited to voluntarily fill up the questionnaire. This group was much larger and more diverse, totaling 4,342 participants. The distribution of the questionnaire participants by country can be seen in Table 1 . Table 1 Frequency distribution of respondents No Country Frequency Percentage 1 Brunei Darussalam 860 20% 2 Cambodia 257 6% 3 Indonesia 1,554 36% 4 Laos 175 4% 5 Malaysia 123 3% 6 Myanmar 100 2% 7 Philippines 128 3% 8 Singapore 84 2% 9 Thailand 73 2% 10 Timor-Leste 123 3% 11 Vietnam 865 20% Total 4,342 100% Note Perguruan Tinggi : Higher Education; Sekolah Menengah Atas : Senior High School; Lain-Lain : Junior High School. The researchers acknowledge that the distribution of respondents across the eleven ASEAN countries in this study is clearly uneven, with Indonesia (36%), Brunei Darussalam (20%), and Vietnam (20%) contributing the largest shares of the total sample of 4,342 participants. This disproportionate representation means that the overall patterns observed in the data are likely to reflect, to a considerable extent, the views and experiences of respondents from these three countries, and cross‑country comparisons should therefore be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the sample still provides a useful basis for describing broad patterns and tendencies in the data, even if country‑level differences cannot be taken as fully representative of the region. Several contextual and methodological factors may help explain this uneven distribution. In addition to differences in national population size, the voluntary nature of participation may have favored individuals and institutions that were more motivated or better connected to the networks through which the survey was disseminated (e.g., particular universities, professional groups, or social media communities). Variations in internet access, language proficiency, perceived relevance of the survey topic, and the intensity of recruitment efforts across countries may also have influenced who saw the survey and chose to respond. Data Collection Techniques Data were collected through three methods: a questionnaire, FGD, and document analysis. The questionnaire gathered demographic data and examined students’ language learning preferences, asking them to identify international, other foreign, and two Southeast Asian languages they were interested in, along with their motivations and whether they preferred these languages to be offered as compulsory or elective subjects. The questionnaire also inquired about participants’ past and current language studies and the languages used for communication and instruction in their schools. For this article, the analysis centers specifically on responses related to Southeast Asian language preferences, highlighting students’ choices, reasons for interest, and preferred modes of study, to better understand the current place of Southeast Asian languages in educational policy and student attitudes across the region. Some data on this aspect have also been reported by Hardini et al. (2023) and released in the form of a policy brief by SEAMEO QITEP in Language (2023). FGDs were conducted following the completion of the questionnaire. They were organized on 6 June, 8 June, and 24 August 2022, attended by eleven experts from all member countries of SEAMEO in Southeast Asia. These discussions allowed the participants to elaborate on their responses, share additional insights, and engage in collaborative discussions about foreign language policies in the Southeast Asian region. The discussions were structured to explore how Southeast Asian languages are represented in foreign language education policies and to understand the broader challenges and opportunities in promoting regional multilingualism. Data Analysis The data from the questionnaire and FGD were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022 ). The data from the questionnaire were analyzed and categorized into several themes, including learner preferences and motivations regarding Southeast Asian languages and challenges in Southeast Asian language and learning. Moreover, the data from the focus group discussions were analyzed and categorized into several key themes, including: legal and policy frameworks for language education; selection and status of foreign languages in education systems; representation and integration of Southeast Asian languages in curricula; bilingualism and multilingualism policies and practices; challenges in Southeast Asian language learning and teaching. The findings were further categorized into three central themes in line with the research questions, to do with foreign language education policies in place across Southeast Asian countries, Southeast Asian languages represented or incorporated into the policies, and trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region. The findings were then interpreted in relation to foreign language education theory and previous research, as well as the broader socio-political context of language policy in Southeast Asian countries. The results contribute to understanding of the underrepresentation of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policy and the implications for fostering regional multilingualism and cohesion. The results of the data analysis will be presented in the subsequent section in line with the research questions as mentioned above. Results and Discussion Foreign language education policies in place across Southeast Asian countries This section outlines the foreign language education policies, laws, and regulations that are in place across Southeast Asian countries, as can be observed in Table 2 , organized not in any particular order. These policies, laws, and regulations were reported by all the expert participants of the focus group discussions. Table 2 Existence of Official Regulation(s) or Laws on Language and/or Language Education in Southeast Asian Countries Country Official Regulations or Law on Language or Language Education Policy Indonesia - Law No. 24 Year 2009 on Language, National Anthem and Flag - The Government Regulation No. 57 Year 2014. b Malaysia - Article 152 of The Federal Constitution of Malaysia - The National Language Act 1963/67 Singapore - Language policy in Singapore: (see Wee, 2010; Dixon, 2005 ; Curdt-Christiansen and Silver, 2011; Kirkpatrick, 2009 ; Yeng-Seng, 2009) Thailand - National Education Policy (2017–2036) about English as the ASEAN language Brunei Darussalam - Constitution of Brunei 1959 ‘Law of Brunei 2003 (CAP.210) on Education’ - Dwibahasa (Bilingual) Education System 1985 - Sistem Pendidikan Negara Abad ke-21 (National Education System for the 21st Century) The Philippines - DepEd Order No. 46, series of 2012 or the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Special Curricular Programs at the Secondary Level Vietnam - No 1400 /Agree-TTg Article 1: Approving the project "Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National Education System for the Period 2008–2020" - Decision No. 16/2006/QD-BGDDT dated May 5, 2006 - In the current General Education Curriculum and the 2018 Developing Education Curriculum: German, Korean, Japanese, French, Russian, and Chinese Cambodia - Law: Chapter VI: Education, Culture, Social Affairs, Article 67 - The Law on Education (2007): Article 24: Languages of Teaching and Learning Lao PDR - Law on Education, Article 21: Language used in education - Based on the 2008–2009 Curriculum, English is taught from Year 3, 5, and year 5 of primary schools in Lao PDR. Timor-Leste There is not any law yet to regulate international languages or any other languages used in the country. Myanmar - National Education Law Chap. 5, Article 19: English shall be taught starting from primary school. Chapter 7, Article 43, Paragraph (a): Instruction can be in Myanmar or English or in a combination of Myanmar and English. Table 2 shows that, with the exception of Timor-Leste, all Southeast Asian countries have laws or official regulations regarding language or language education policy. This strongly indicates that each country places significant emphasis on language education policy. The table further suggests that these policies are grounded in a legal framework. In other words, the formulation and implementation of language policy, including foreign language policy, are shaped by underlying legal considerations. This goes with the point that for language policy to command national respect and adherence, it must be legally binding and supported by appropriate legislation (see Chiatoh and Akumbu, 2013 ). Moreover, since language policies are typically announced at the central government level and enacted through national legislation, Southeast Asian countries' language policies also reflect an ideological framework. This is also in line with what Chiatoh and Akumbu ( 2013 ) point out that ideologically, language planning is viewed as an expression of a strong and genuine national vision. Chiatoh and Akumbu ( 2013 ) further argue that this approach should extend to both minor and foreign languages. According to Chiatoh and Akumbu, linguistic rights are fundamental human rights that should be respected regardless of a language's status, and a critical aspect of the legal framework is ensuring that policy has constitutional backing, making its application mandatory (Chiatoh & Akumbu, 2013 ). Turning to foreign language education policy across school levels, the data obtained in the study can be seen in Table 3 , not organized in any particular orders. Table 3 Foreign Language(s) Taught from Primary through to Higher Education in Southeast Asian Countries Country Foreign language(s) (excluding Southeast Asian languages) taught and their status Primary Secondary Higher education Indonesia 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Arabic 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Japanese 3. French 4. German 5. Korean 6. Arabic English (Compulsory) Malaysia English (Compulsory) 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Arabic 1. English 2. Arabic 3. Japanese 4. German 5. French 6. Spanish 7. Korean Singapore English English English Thailand 1. English 2. Chinese 3. Arabic 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Japanese 3. French 4. German 5. Korean 6. Chinese 7. Spanish English (Compulsory) Brunei Darussalam 1. English 2. Arabic 3. Mandarin 1. English 2. Arabic 3. Mandarin 1. English 2. Arabic 3. Mandarin 4. French 5. German 6. Japanese 7. Korean The Philippines No 1. Spanish 2. Japanese (Nihongo) 3. French 4. German 5. Chinese (Mandarin) 6. Korean No specific language is mentioned Vietnam English (Compulsory) English (Compulsory) 1. German 2. Japanese 3. Korean 4. French 5. Chinese 6. Russian Cambodia English (taught from grade 4) 1. English (compulsory) 2. French (compulsory) These are called living languages. 1. English (Compulsory) 2. French (Compulsory) Lao PDR 1. English (Compulsory) 2. French 3. Chinese 4. Japanese 1. English (Compulsory) 2. French 3. Chinese 4. Japanese 5. Korean 1. English (offered for all programs of higher education institutes) 2. French 3. German 4. Chinese 5. Japanese 6. Korean 7. Russian 8. Spanish Timor-Leste English English No Myanmar 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Mandarin 3. Indian 1. English (Compulsory) 2. Japanese 3. French 4. Mandarin 5. German English (Compulsory) Table 3 shows that Southeast Asian countries differ in the foreign languages (excluding Southeast Asian languages) taught at primary, secondary, and higher education levels. This diversity of language offerings reflects each country’s unique policy choices, and this coincides with Spolsky’s ( 2009 ) point that the teaching of what is labelled as a foreign language varies considerably from country to country (see also McLelland, 2017 ; Tochon, 2015 ). McLelland ( 2017 ) highlights that one of the first and most crucial decisions made by learners, schools, and policy bodies is which language(s) to learn or teach. The choices made by Southeast Asian countries are not random; rather, they are informed by various underlying frames, including historical, theoretical, ideological, political, linguistic, educational, legal, and communicative considerations (Chiatoh & Akumbu, 2013 ). The historical principle is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asian context, where many countries experienced colonization. Regarding this, Pham ( 2014 ) explains that French is taught in Vietnam due to its colonial history, while the Philippines uses English as a second language as a result of colonization by the United States. Further investigation is warranted to explore how other underlying frames influence the selection of foreign languages taught at each educational level in Southeast Asian countries (see also Gargesh, 2006 , for a similar discussion in South Asia). Another notable theme is that the foreign languages chosen—such as Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, French, and German—are among the seven foreign languages identified by BIG Language Solution (2022) as being relevant to multiple industries and as top trending languages to learn. These languages are often associated with economic and industrial connections. The rationale for selecting these languages likely aligns with factors reported by BIG Language Solutions ( 2022 ), such as the number of speakers, the GDP of the language’s country of origin, the global status of the language, and the size of the country. Additionally, languages like Japanese, Korean, and Russian, which are taught in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Brunei Darussalam, correspond to the twelve most important languages to learn according to University of the People ( 2023 ) and Arcila et al. ( 2022 ). The importance of these languages is based on factors such as the number of speakers, geographic reach, usability, versatility, and career opportunities (University of the People, 2023 ), while languages like French, Italian, Portuguese, German, and English are linked to intercultural communication, work, and business (Arcila et al., 2022 ). The choices of foreign languages taught at school and university levels in each Southeast Asian country, which largely correspond to those listed by BIG Language Solution (2022), suggest that for a foreign language to be widely learned, it should offer tangible benefits to learners, such as a large user base, career opportunities, and economic advantages. Therefore, for Southeast Asian languages to become attractive options that offer career opportunities to learners in other countries, stronger cooperation among Southeast Asian countries is needed to promote the learning of Southeast Asian languages both within the region and globally. This is consistent with İnceçay’s ( 2012 ) argument that a foreign language is considered valuable by a country if it is spoken by countries with which there are active relations. This also suggests that each Southeast Asian country should strive to increase the number of speakers of its national language, at least within the Southeast Asian region, as this is also a key criterion in the selection of foreign languages (see BIG Language Solutions, 2022 ). Moreover, the fact that all countries offer foreign or second languages from primary through tertiary education highlights the perceived importance of foreign language learning. This finding is consistent with research from South Korea and Thailand (Hayes, 2020 ), Vietnam (Pham, 2014 ), and Indonesia (Saud & Abduh, 2017 ), and suggests that the belief in “the earlier, the better” for foreign language learning remains strong. This is further supported by research in Singapore (Dixon, 2005 ) and Brunei Darussalam (Haji-Othman et al., 2019 ), as well as by the statement of Lee Kuan Yew, cited in Dixon ( 2005 ), that beginning a second language early leads to higher proficiency and more time devoted to learning a language results in greater proficiency. However, it is important to note that research has shown that the assumption “the earlier, the better” is not always supported by evidence (Dixon, 2005 ; Hayes, 2020 ; Chiatoh & Akumbu, 2013 ). Regarding this, Hayes ( 2020 ) points out that other factors influence whether early foreign language learning in primary school yields the expected benefits. This is supported by the point from Watzke ( 2003 ) that although the idea of a “golden age” for language learning is influential, comprehensive data supporting this concept have not been collected in a consistent and summative way. Finally, it is important to note that English occupies a unique and dominant position as a foreign language across all Southeast Asian countries. The data from this study, consistent with previous research (Coleman, 2009 ; Dixon, 2005 ; Hamied & Musthafa, 2019 ; Hayes, 2020 ; Salomone & Salomone, 2022 ; Spolsky, 2009 ; Zein, 2020 ), show that English is either compulsory or widely offered at all educational levels, reflecting its status as the primary foreign language of instruction and communication in the region. This widespread adoption is linked to English’s perceived role in providing access to global economic opportunities, mobility, and participation in international discourse, as stated by Brooker ( 2018 ) and Spolsky ( 2013 ). The prominence of English in Southeast Asian education policy also aligns with broader global trends and the language’s association with socio-economic development and this is relevant to the role of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries as will be taken up below. Southeast Asian languages represented or incorporated into foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries The data obtained indicate that the integration of Southeast Asian languages into national education policies across Southeast Asian countries is limited and uneven. Most countries prioritize global foreign languages over regional ones, with only few explicitly incorporating Southeast Asian languages into their curricula. This tendency reflects Southeast Asian’s historical focus on political and economic cooperation, rather than linguistic integration, as noted by Kirkpatrick ( 2009 ). The representation of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries can be seen in Table 4 below (not in any particular orders), which is also in line with Table 3 . Table 4 Southeast Asian Languages in Education Policy, Number of Foreign Languages Offered, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism Status Country Southeast Asian language(s) taught Number of foreign languages offered from primary through to tertiary levels of education Bilingualism (Multilingualism) In any level of education (if any) Indonesia No 6 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) In the 2010s, bilingualism was applied in international standard schools in teaching English, Mathematics, and Science. Today, it is no longer implemented. Malaysia No 7 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) It was once applied at schools, but it is no longer implemented now. Singapore Malay English, Chinese, Hindi - Bilingualism exists and still prevails. - English language in primary and secondary school levels is taught as mother tongue. Thailand No specific language is mentioned 8 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) Southeast Asian languages are taught in some curriculums or programs in higher education. Brunei Darussalam Vietnamese (an elective subject in the Language Centre of University of Brunei Darussalam). 8 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) - The country’s education system, Dwibahasa , was introduced in 1984. The Philippines No 6 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) Some programmes/ colleges/ universities include foreign languages in the elective courses. Vietnam No 7 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) Decision No. 16/2006/QD-BGDDT dated May 5, 2006 encourages the pilot implementation of English bilingual teaching for math and natural science subjects in specialized high schools and other qualified lower-secondary and upper-secondary schools. Vietnam actively implements the construction of typical schools for foreign language teaching and learning under the guidance of the Ministry of Education and Training. Cambodia Thai 3 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) Thai is the only one language of Southeast Asian countries available at the Institute of Foreign Languages (IFL) which is an institute under the Royal University of Phnom Penh. Lao PDR Vietnamese is taught in public and private schools. 9 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) - Lao PDR adopted bilingual approach as stated in its Education Strategic Vision in 2000. - Based on Bachelor Degree approved by Ministry of Education and Sports, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos offers nine foreign language programmes such as, English, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish - Based on the 2010 Curriculum, English is the first compulsory foreign language for all schools. For special bilingual schools, such as offering French and Lao or Vietnamese and Lao, English is the second foreign language. - Based on the report on the Implementation of school year 2020–2021 and the plan for school year 2021–2022, to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages, the Japanese and Korean textbooks have been developed and taught at pilot lower secondary schools in Vientiane Capital. Timor-Leste No Southeast Asian languages are formally taught at schools, except international schools. 1: English In higher education, national and official languages are still compulsory to be the language of instructions. Myanmar Thai 7 (see the languages listed in Table 3 ) Thai language is taught at the Yangon University of Foreign Language (YUFL) which is under the Ministry of Education. Table 4 reveals some themes that will be discussed as follows. Firstly, it suggests limited and uneven incorporation of Southeast Asian languages. Few countries systematically offer Southeast Asian languages as part of mainstream curricula. Notable exceptions include Singapore (Malay), Brunei Darussalam (Vietnamese as an elective), Cambodia (Thai at tertiary level), Lao PDR (Vietnamese), and Myanmar (Thai at tertiary level). This limited presence is consistent with the lack of explicit linguistic commitments in foundational ASEAN documents and the region’s historical focus on political and economic priorities rather than language policy (Kirkpatrick, 2009 ). A noteworthy development is Indonesia’s initiative since 2015 to send teachers of Bahasa Indonesia to various Southeast Asian countries for both formal and non-formal instruction. However, awareness of such programs is low, possibly due to the absence of central policy backing and the lack of legal frameworks to support regional language promotion (Chiatoh & Akumbu, 2013 ). As reported by the FGD participant from Indonesia: The internationalization of Indonesian as a foreign language or Indonesian as Asean language [is] also taught to [sic] especially to teachers who are assigned to teach in different countries in ASEAN countries … This policy has been [sic] has been carried out since 2014, especially through the establishment of a center in the language agency which is concerned with the language translate [sic] strategy and diplomacy, although it was closed (it was said that it was closed in 2020) but then it was reestablished in 2021 and their function is still to do with the development of Indonesian as a foreign language. This underlines the need for enhanced cooperation at the central government level to support the development and visibility of Southeast Asian languages across the region. As Tochon ( 2015 ) emphasizes, effective language education policy must address who studies which languages, at what levels, for how long, and who develops and supports the curricula. Secondly, the data is concerned with the prevalence and policy regarding bilingualism and multilingualism. Bilingualism and multilingualism are prevalent across Southeast Asian, reflecting the region’s linguistic diversity. Singapore maintains a robust bilingual policy, with English and mother tongue languages taught at all levels. Lao PDR and Brunei Darussalam have also implemented bilingual programs at various stages. In contrast, Indonesia and Malaysia previously adopted bilingual education but later discontinued these policies due to challenges in implementation and outcomes. The FGD participant from Malaysia reported, “ In 2003 English was registered as the medium of instruction for the subject science and mathematics, but reverted to Bahasa Melayu only in 2016 so this is another example that I mentioned, when the new ministry come into office, then try to change the policy. ” This report highlights how Malaysia’s bilingual education policy has been subject to political changes and was ultimately discontinued in favor of Bahasa Melayu. Thirdly, Table 4 shows that multilingualism is considered the norm in the Philippines, supported by the study by Young and Igcalinos ( 2019 ), and similar expectations exist in Timor-Leste (Taylor-Leech, 2019 ) and Brunei Darussalam (Haji-Othman et al., 2019 ). In all countries, the language of instruction remains a critical component of language education policy, often managed through varying proportions of instructional time in different languages within multi-medium programs. As Spolsky ( 2021 ) notes, bilingual education has been developed in many forms to balance the maintenance of home languages with the demands of school standards. Bilingual/multilingual education is not without its challenges. For example, the Philippines FGD participant explained the rationale for their mother tongue-based policy: With our mother tongue based education policy again because of the number of languages that we have in the country as I mentioned earlier, there are 183 in the Philippines and to address difficulties that are being encountered by young children for entering the primary level-in Filipino, which may not be their mother tongue or perhaps English, which is also not their mother are used to these challenges. The MPPL curriculum was implemented based on the results of MPPMME implemented in many countries around the world. The educational value of initial instruction in students’ home languages remains a central, and sometimes controversial, issue in language education policy (Spolsky, 2013 . While some believe young children can easily acquire new languages, research suggests that, on average, most students may face educational disadvantages without adequate support. For example, in Indonesia, bilingual education was discontinued after it was found to be largely unsuccessful (Coleman, 2009 ). Similar challenges have been reported in Korea (Shin, 2007 ) and Saudi Arabia (Alnasser, 2022 ), where English-only policies increased learning pressure and exacerbated inequities for EFL/ESL students. In Indonesia, most students expressed a preference for using both English and Indonesian in the classroom (Emilia, 2011 ). These findings highlight the need for further research on the strengths and drawbacks of bilingual and multilingual education in Southeast Asian contexts. They also underscore the importance of developing language education policies that are sensitive to local realities and supported by appropriate legal and institutional frameworks. The place of Southeast Asian languages in Southeast Asian countries from the survey data from the students participating in the study. The survey data suggest clear preferences among participants regarding Southeast Asian languages and how they should be offered in educational settings, as stated by the participants. The data can be seen in Table 5 . Table 5 Southeast Asian Languages Preferred by Respondents No. Preferred Southeast Asian Language (s) Frequency Percentage 1 Thai 2067 26% 2 Indonesian 1632 20% 3 Malay 1479 18% 4 Vietnamese 1090 14% 5 Tagalog 1021 13% 6 Khmer 382 5% 7 Lao 157 2% 8 Burmese 146 2% 9 Tetum 65 1% Total 8039 100% The survey data on participants’ preferences for Southeast Asian language(s) reveals clear yet nuanced patterns of interest across the region. Thai stands out as the most preferred Southeast Asian language, selected by 26% of participants. This strong preference is likely influenced by Thailand’s prominent cultural exports, its status as a major tourist destination, and its economic integration within Southeast Asia. Indonesian and Malay follow closely, with 20% and 18% of participants choosing these languages, respectively. Their popularity reflects not only the large populations of Indonesia and Malaysia but also the shared linguistic heritage and the importance of these countries in Southeast Asia's political and economic landscape. Vietnamese (14%) and Tagalog (13%) also gain significant interest, which may be attributed to Vietnam’s dynamic economic growth and the Philippines’ extensive diaspora and regional engagement. In contrast, languages such as Khmer, Lao, Burmese, and Tetum collectively account for less than 10% of preferences. The more limited demand for these languages may be linked to the smaller populations of their respective countries and their comparatively localized influence within Southeast Asia. A closer examination of the data from individual countries provides additional insight into these regional trends. For example, in Malaysia, Thai and Indonesian are among the most frequently chosen languages, reflecting strong cross-border ties and cultural proximity. In Brunei, Indonesian, Malay, and Thai are all popular choices, likely due to Brunei’s multilingual environment and the presence of significant Indonesian and Malaysian communities. Vietnamese respondents overwhelmingly select Vietnamese as their first choice but also show notable interest in Thai and Indonesian as second choices, indicating recognition of these languages’ regional relevance. However, the high frequency of Indonesian as a preferred language is not solely a result of Indonesia’s large participant base. Indonesian is also commonly selected by participants in Malaysia and Brunei, where linguistic similarities and regular cross-border interactions foster interest in learning Indonesian. This underscores the role of shared cultural and linguistic heritage in shaping language preferences beyond national boundaries. Despite these valuable insights, it is crucial to interpret the findings with caution due to the uneven distribution of survey participants across Southeast Asian countries. Indonesia contributed the largest share of participants, representing 36% of the total sample. This disproportionate representation may amplify the prominence of Indonesian and related languages in the overall results. Conversely, countries with fewer participants, such as Thailand, Singapore, and Myanmar, may have their unique perspectives and language interests underrepresented in the aggregate data. Regarding the preferences for learning Southeast Asian languages, the data can be seen in Table 6 below. Table 6 Preferences for Learning Southeast Asian Languages No Preferred Learning Option Frequency Percentage 1 Compulsory Subject 995 23% 2 Complementary Subject 3317 76% 3 N/A 30 0.69% Total 4342 100% When considering how Southeast Asian languages should be integrated into educational curricula, the majority of participants (76%) express a preference for these languages to be offered as complementary, or elective, subjects rather than as compulsory requirements. This strong inclination toward elective status suggests that while there is genuine interest in learning Southeast Asian languages, learners value flexibility and the ability to select languages that align with their personal or professional interests. Nevertheless, a significant minority (23%) supports the idea of making Southeast Asian languages compulsory, reflecting recognition of their potential value for fostering regional integration, communication, and shared identity. Only a small fraction of respondents (0.69%) indicated no preference, highlighting that most participants have a clear stance on this issue. Trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region Regarding the trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages, the data reveal a range of motivating factors influencing learners' choices. Table 7 presents the main themes identified in respondents’ reasons for selecting Southeast Asian languages, along with the number of responses for each theme and illustrative sample comments drawn directly from the data set. Table 7 Frequency of Themes in Reasons for Choosing Southeast Asian Languages (with Sample Comments) Theme Number of Responses Sample Comments Communication and Social Interaction 392 "To communicate with friends and relatives"; "I want to talk to my friends in their language." Cultural Interest and Appreciation 314 "Interested in their culture"; "I want to understand the culture of neighboring countries." Educational and Career Benefits 186 "For international research collaboration"; "Better job opportunities in ASEAN." Travel and Mobility 142 "To make travel easier"; "I often travel to Bangkok and Malaysia, hence I want to know how to speak the language." Linguistic Curiosity and Challenge 119 "Language and linguistics fascinate me"; "I want to try learning a challenging language." Media and Entertainment 98 "I watch Thai dramas and want to understand them without subtitles."; "I love watching and hearing Thai movies and songs." Regional Integration and Identity 51 "To strengthen ASEAN unity"; "Because we're in ASEAN together, it's a good choice to learn the languages of the countries in ASEAN." Practicality and Accessibility 67 "Malay is similar to my language"; "Indonesian is widely used in the region." Family and Heritage 43 "I have relatives that speak those languages"; "My parents are from Indonesia so I’d be learning to speak a language that’s useful in my personal life." Other/Unspecified 27 "Just for fun"; "No specific reason, just interested." Total valid responses 1,439 The motivations for learning Southeast Asian languages, as evidenced by Table 7 , reveal a strong preference for languages as tools for practical communication, social connection, and cultural understanding. The predominance of reasons related to interacting with friends and relatives demonstrates that daily, interpersonal needs are central, learners want to use Southeast Asian languages in authentic social environments. This is closely followed by motivations emphasizing cultural interest and appreciation, indicating that individuals seek to engage deeply with the cultures of neighboring Southeast Asian countries and develop cross-cultural competence. These findings resonate directly with critical assessments of ASEAN language policy by scholars such as Kirkpatrick ( 2009 , 2012 , 2017 ) and Lee et al. ( 2022 ), who have shown that while the ASEAN Charter officially promotes “unity in diversity” and respect for local languages, in practice, policy consistently elevates English as the working language and focuses on regional functionality and economic integration. Learners’ interest in Southeast Asian languages outside English, especially for social and cultural purposes, reveals a possible mismatch between top-down policy emphasis on English and grassroots desires to maintain and develop regional languages for real-life and cultural use. Such a divergence supports calls by Kirkpatrick ( 2017 ) for a more multilingual, culturally responsive policy, one that considers English as a regional lingua franca while also protecting and promoting the use of Southeast Asian languages for authentic social and cultural interaction. One issue about English which is worth a brief mention here, that is to do with English Medium Instruction (EMI) programs in ASEAN has been reported in a publication edited by Barnard & Hasim ( 2018 ). The publication reported the EMI program in different countries including Indonesia (Hamied & Lengkanawati, 2018 ); Saeed et al. ( 2018 ) in Malaysia; Haji-Othman & Mcclellan (2018) in Brunei Darussalam; Anh ( 2022 ) in Vietnam. Regarding this, Barnard ( 2018 , p. ix), to follow Kirkpatrick, contrasts the complex cultural diversity and heteroglossia of most East and Southeast Asian nations with the more homogenous linguistic situation that prevails in many European countries. Barnard ( 2018 ) further says that the typological differences between the region’s languages and English make the adoption and the use of EMI considerably more problematic than in European settings where the local languages are typically closer to English. The survey’s identification of educational and career motivations parallels the Southeast Asian policy’s instrumental orientation, where language is linked to mobility, opportunity, and collaboration. However, the wide diversity of motives, including media, pop culture, personal challenge, identity, and heritage. demonstrates the limitations of policies that focus too narrowly on economic or official needs at the expense of cultural, familial, and identity-based considerations. This broad set of motivations further aligns with critiques that current Southeast Asian language policy, shaped by the “ASEAN Way” (consensus and non-interference), underappreciates the lived realities of multilingualism and multifaceted learner goals found across the region. Although the questionnaire for Southeast Asian language learning did not directly include a question about learning challenges, a review of open-ended responses reveals that several participants across the region voluntarily mentioned various obstacles. These challenges generally fall into four main categories, namely: language-related difficulties, lack of exposure or familiarity, motivation issues, and resource limitations. Respondents often cited the intrinsic complexity of certain Southeast Asian languages, referencing challenges related to pronunciation, intonation, script, vocabulary, and confusion between similar languages. Sample responses include: “Thailand difficult to pronounce and understand”; “Thai language has a unique intonation of speaking”; and “The languages mostly are related to my surroundings, but both Thai and Tagalog languages have difficult pronunciation.” These responses are backed by the reports made by the FGD participants. For example, the Brunei representative explained how certain local languages struggle against dominant languages: Apart from Brunei Malay, the other local languages that I’ve mentioned… are experiencing a language shift to Brunei Malay or, and English. .. Some of the local languages of Brunei, such as Elia, Dusun and Tutong… are taught as elective modules at our language center... However, these languages are not taught at primary or secondary levels. A FGD participant from Timor Leste echoed: “ For the local languages is not yet implemented in any curriculum for teaching from kindergarten to higher education, university level. We do hope… if not, we can lose some of our local languages, the origin. ” This concern is shared by those supporting the promotion of Southeast Asian languages, particularly in the face of the dominance of English. Some respondents explicitly noted that their lack of daily exposure or background in a language was a significant hurdle. Sample responses include: “I have no idea what their language is and I want to learn about them” and “I never got the chance to learn both of the languages anywhere.” These responses simultaneously suggest a strong interest in learning about the languages of the neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. Conversely, several responses pointed to motivation issues stemming from compulsory study or a lack of personal interest as challenges to learn Southeast Asian languages. Statements like “ I don’t want to learn these languages but if it’s compulsory then I will choose these languages because they are the most similar to each other ,” “ I’m not exactly interested in learning the above but they are the ones I have already started learning ,” and “ Not really interested, but these are the ones available ” reveal a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Southeast Asian language learning in some cases. Although these responses represent a minority, they are nonetheless important considerations for shaping effective and responsive Southeast Asian language policy. Finally, some respondents mentioned barriers involving access to language resources and media, including challenges finding learning materials or contextual input. They stated, “It is hard to find their movie/drama with subtitles, and I have always dreamed to visit the country — with that it will be easier for me to communicate with local people”; “I never got the chance to learn both of the languages anywhere.” These authentic learner voices offer important context for educators and policymakers aiming to design more supportive and accessible Southeast Asian language learning environments. These findings support those of Pugong et al. ( 2024 ), who identified similar challenges in Southeast Asian language education, including limitations in policy implementation, insufficient learning resources, and the overwhelming dominance of English in both classroom practice and formal curricula. Likewise, Kirkpatrick ( 2012 , 2017 ) and Lee et al. ( 2022 ) have documented that while ASEAN rhetoric promotes multilingualism, there remains a persistent policy-practice gap, with regional languages often marginalized and learners facing obstacles related to motivation, exposure, and accessibility. Studies such as those by Pg Redzuan ( 2020 ) and Coleman ( 2009 ) also reinforce the observation that technical hurdles, a lack of daily exposure, and low personal relevance can significantly hinder effective language acquisition. Collectively, these studies echo the need for more context-sensitive, well-resourced, and learner-centric Southeast Asian language education policies. Conclusion The results of this study highlight a persistent gap between Southeast Asian’s aspirations for linguistic diversity and actual practice within countries’ education systems. Survey findings demonstrate that Southeast Asian languages are rarely integrated systematically into mainstream curricula, with policy environments overwhelmingly prioritizing English and other global languages over regional and minority ones. Although learners express strong motivations for acquiring Southeast Asian languages, ranging from communication and cultural appreciation to regional identity and practical opportunity, they overwhelmingly prefer these languages to be available as electives rather than compulsory subjects. Significant challenges remain, including the linguistic complexity of Southeast Asian languages, lack of daily exposure, low motivation when study is mandated, and limited learning resources. The marginalization of Southeast Asian and minority languages is especially apparent in border regions and among disadvantaged communities, where they compete not just with English, but also with powerful regional lingua francas. Despite the ASEAN Charter’s professed respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, there is little evidence that member states systematically promote the teaching of each other’s languages. The Charter omits any explicit call for intra-ASEAN language learning. Except for certain contexts, such as the growing popularity of Putonghua, Asian languages other than national languages or English are rarely part of the core curriculum, even in areas of considerable cross-border linguistic interaction (Kirkpatrick, 2009 ). This situation places many of the region’s minority and regional languages under threat (Kirkpatrick, 2009 , 2012 ). As Kirkpatrick ( 2009 ) observes, multilingualism in Southeast Asia tends to be limited to national and global lingua francas, with regional languages holding only marginal status. Unlike the European Union, where language policy actively fosters multilingualism, most ASEAN citizens with access to higher education speak their national language and English, but rarely the languages of neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Given the limited integration of Southeast Asian languages and the mixed outcomes of bilingual and multilingual education in the region, this study underscores a clear need for enhanced regional cooperation and more explicit policy frameworks. Regional organizations such as SEAQIL are well positioned to foster the necessary collaboration and support for broader inclusion of Southeast Asian languages in educational systems, as noted in the proceedings of SEAQIL Governing Board Meeting 2019 (SEAQIL, 2019 ). Improved language management should address not only curriculum development and appropriate levels of instruction, but also provide strong institutional support, as emphasized by Tochon ( 2015 ). This study, however, is not without limitations. The survey sample is disproportionately composed of respondents from certain Southeast Asian countries, notably Indonesia, which may have influenced the generalizability of some findings, particularly with respect to language preferences and perceived barriers. Relying primarily on self-reported student data also introduces the potential for bias and may not fully capture the perspectives of teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders who influence language education policy and practice. Furthermore, the study provides only a cross-sectional snapshot and is unable to track changes in language attitudes or policy impacts over time. While open-ended responses offered valuable insight into learning challenges, the absence of direct questions on this topic may have resulted in a less comprehensive understanding of barriers and needs. To address these gaps, future research should seek more balanced representation across Southeast Asian countries and include greater involvement from educators, parents, and policymakers. Longitudinal and comparative research would be valuable for monitoring the evolution of language policies and learning outcomes both within Southeast Asia and in relation to other regional blocks. In-depth qualitative investigations that incorporate classroom observations and case studies would further illuminate how Southeast Asian languages are taught on the ground and what factors support or hinder effective implementation. Studies focused on innovative teaching strategies, technology-enhanced learning, and the relationship between language learning and identity could also help inform more effective and context-sensitive policies. Evaluating pilot programs or interventions designed to promote Southeast Asian languages would provide much-needed evidence for scaling successful approaches. Overall, the findings reaffirm the urgency of developing comprehensive, learner-centered policies and collaborative initiatives to realize Southeast Asian’s multilingual ideals and better serve the region’s diverse linguistic landscape. Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study involved human participants and was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant institutional and national guidelines for research involving human participants. In the authors’ institutional and national context, anonymous, non‑interventional survey research of this type is considered minimal risk and does not require review by a formal institutional ethics committee or institutional review board; therefore, no such approval was sought, in line with applicable guidelines. All potential participants received an information sheet explaining the purpose and procedures of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, data protection and confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Survey participants indicated their informed consent by clicking an “I agree to participate” button before accessing the online questionnaire, and only those who consented were able to proceed. Focus group discussion (FGD) respondents indicated their informed consent by signing a written consent form prior to their participation in the FGD sessions. Norm or standard observed The study was designed and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the authors’ institutional and national guidelines for social science research involving human participants. Ethics/IRB approval declaration This study was conducted in 2022 at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI). During the research period, the institution was in the process of formalizing its centralized ethical oversight; the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Komisi Etik Penelitian UPI) was subsequently established on 19 September 2023 under Rector’s Decree No. 2167/UN40/HK/2023. In the absence of a localized committee at the time of data collection, the research was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical mandates of Law No. 11 of 2019 [1] on the National System of Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. Specifically, the study upheld the principles of scientific integrity and professional codes of ethics as required by Article 39 of the Law. The research complied with universal ethical standards, including voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, and the strict confidentiality of participant data. The study was designed to involve minimal risk to participants and did not include any medical, clinical, or experimental interventions. All participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty. Consent to participate All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Prospective student and expert participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the aims of the research, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality and data protection measures, and their rights as participants, including the right to withdraw at any time without negative consequences. For FGDs, participants signed a written consent form; for online surveys, participants indicated consent by clicking an “I agree to participate” button before accessing any survey questions, and only those who agreed could proceed. Funding declaration Funding: This research was supported by Seameo Seaqil Indonesia Number: 04/MOU/QIL/2022 [1] https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/117023/uu-no-11-tahun-2019 References Alnasser SM, Almoaily M (2022) The elephant in the room: Is a nationwide English language policy needed in EFL contexts? A study on English departments in Saudi Arabian universities. World J Engl Lang 12(5):66–76. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n5p66 Anh TNQ (2022) Examining English as a medium of instruction in Vietnam: Policies and challenges in higher education. Crossings: J Engl Stud 13(2):114–130. https://doi.org/10.59817/cjes.v13i2.453 Arcila C, Solano-Cohen F, Rincón V, Junior ACL, Briceño-González A, M (2022) Second language learning and socioeconomic development: Interrogating Anglonormativity from the perspective of pre-service modern language professionals. Curr Issues Lang Plann 23(5):466–487 Barnard R, Hasim Z (eds) (2018) English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge Barnard R (2018) Setting the scene: EMI in ASEAN universities. In R. Barnard & Z. Hasim (2018). Eds. English medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian Universities. Routledge BIG Language Solutions (2022) The seven best languages to learn. https://biglanguage.com/industries/ Braun V, Clarke V (2022) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3470-2 Brooker D (2018) Cambridge Assessment English Perspectives-English for Development: A review of research into the role of English as a driver for socio-economic development. Camb Engl Assess. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/539681-perspectives-english-for-development.pdf Chiatoh BA, Akumbu PW (2013) Towards a national language policy for Cameroon. In: Chiatoh BA, Akumbu PW (eds) Language policy in Africa: Perspectives for Cameroon. Miraclaire Academic Publication, pp 194–215 Coleman H (2009) Why the British do not learn languages: Myths and motivation in the United Kingdom. Lang Learn J 37(1):111–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730902749003 Dixon LQ (2005) Bilingual education policy in Singapore: An analysis of its sociohistorical roots and current academic outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism . Taylor & Francis Emilia E (2011) The English only policy in EFL context: Is it desirable? New Engl Teacher 5(1):1–20 Emilia E, Siagian ENM, Novianti N, Dwiyana R, Muniroh RD, Fikrianto M (2025) Unveiling English language education policies across primary and secondary levels in ASEAN. Indonesian J Appl Linguistics 14(3):484–495. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/75898 Gargesh R (2006) Applied linguistics in South Asia. In K. Brown, A. H. Anderson, L. Bauer, M. Berns, & others (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp.375–385) 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00607-6 Haji-Othman NA, McLellan J (2018) Case study: EMI in University Brunei Darussalam. In: Barnard R, Hasim Z (eds) English medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian Universities. Routledge Haji-Othman NA, McLellan J, Jones GM (2019) Language policy and practice in Brunei Darussalam. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (eds), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 314–325). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-22 Hamied FA, Lengkanawati NS (2018) Case study: EMI in Indonesia. In R. Barnard & Z. Hasim (2018). Eds. English medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge Hamied FA, Musthafa B (2019) Policies on language education in Indonesia. Indonesian J Appl Linguistics 9(2):308–315. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20279 Hardini TI, Yulianeta Y, Fikrianto M, Hasanatul H, Emilia E, Kharismawati L.R.S. ASEAN students' interest in learning the Indonesian Language: A descriptive study from the perspective of SEAMEO ASEAN. Int J Lang Educ, 7 (4), 746–762. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i4.59491 Hayes D (2020) Language education policy and practice in state education systems: Promoting effective practice in foreign language education for young learners. Lang Teach Young Learners 2(2):240–261. http://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19017.hay İnceçay G (2012) Turkey’s foreign language policy at primary level: Challenges in practice. ELT Res J 1(1):53–62. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics http://www.udead.org.tr/journal Kirkpatrick A (2009) English as the working language of ASEAN: pedagogical principles and implications. In: Ward C (ed) Language teaching in a multilingual world. SEAMEO RELC Anthology Series, vol 50. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, pp 211–224 Kirkpatrick A (2012) English in ASEAN: implications for regional multilingualism. J Multiling Multicultural Dev 33(4):331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661433 Kirkpatrick A (2017) Language education policy among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Eur J Lang Policy 9(1):7–25. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.2 Kirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (2019) Language-in-education policy in Asia: An overview. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 3–13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-1 Lee HY, Hamid MO, Hardy I (2022) Problematising ASEAN language policy: Is the ASEAN way the only way? Lang Probl Lang Plann 46(1):55–77. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.21044.lee Lee HY, Hamid MO, Hardy I (2024) Language policy at the supranational level: English and the ASEAN. Springer Nat 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73400-7 Lee HY (2025) The handbook of plurilingual and intercultural language learning. Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394165957.ch12 Lopriore L (2021) More than meets the eye: Research and practice in Italian foreign language policies and education. Eur J Appl Linguistics 9(1):69–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2020-0025 Maraf B, Vanci Osam U (2023) The smile revolution (hirak) as a driving force for an English 'tidal wave' and foreign language policy-making in Algeria. Curr Issues Lang Plann 24(2):179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2039510 McLelland N (2017) Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain. Routledge Nguyen MXNC, Nguyen VH (2019) Language education policy in Vietnam. In: Kirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia. Routledge, pp 185–201 Pg Redzuan FA (2020) A comparative study on motivation in foreign language learning in Brunei and Malaysian universities. Southeast Asia: Multidisciplinary J 20(1):16–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEAMJ-01-2020-B1003 Pham TN (2014) Foreign language policy. In L. T. X. Tran, S. Marginson, H.-D. Meyer, & T. Vu (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam (pp. 169–183). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137436481_8 Pugong L, Pelila JRO, Desalit JB, Soliba BL (2024) A scoping review of language programs and policies in ASEAN countries. Indonesian J Res Educational Rev 3(2). Article 1181. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v3i2.1181 Saeed M, Varghese M, Holst M, Ghazali K (2018) Student perspectives of medium of instruction in Malaysia. In: Barnard R, Hasim Z (eds) English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge Salomone R, Salomone RC (2022) The rise of English: Global politics and the power of language. Oxford University Press Saud S, Abduh A (2017) Foreign language roles in Indonesian education. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Asian Association of Indigenous and Cultural Psychology (pp. 168–170). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icaaip-17.2018.39 SEAMEO QITEP in Language & Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (2023) Policy brief: Language policy in ASEAN countries (Final Rev. 2). SEAMEO QITEP in Language. https://www.qiteplanguage.org/assets/files/dokumen/Policy%20Brief%20Inggris-Final-Rev2.pdf SEAQIL (2019) Proceedings: The 10th Governing Board Meeting of SEAMEO QITEP in Language. SEAMEO QITEP in Language Shin H (2007) English Language Teaching in Korea: Toward Globalization or Glocalization. In: Cummins, J. and Davison, C., Eds., International Handbook of English Language Teaching , (pp. 75–86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_7 Solano-Campos A, Burns M (2022) English as a foreign language policy in Latin America: The neoliberal multilingual nationalism of Costa Rica. Comp Educ Rev 66(4):643–663. https://doi.org/10.1086/721793 Spolsky B (2009) Language management. Cambridge University Press Spolsky B (2013) Language management. Cambridge University Press Spolsky B (2021) Rethinking language policy. Edinburg University Taylor-Leech K (2019) Postcolonial language-in-education policy in globalised times: The case of Timor-Leste. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 298–311). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-21 Tochon FV (ed) (2015) Language education policy unlimited: Global perspectives and local practices. Deep University University of the People (2023) The 12 most important languages to learn. Univ People https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/most-important-languages-to-learn/ Watzke JL (2003) Lasting change in foreign language education: a historical case for change in national policy. Praeger Yang X (2023) The development and enlightenment of foreign language education policy of early 16 years after the founding of the People's Republic of China. J Educ Humanit Social Sci 13:140–145. http://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v13i.7884 Young C, Igcalinos T (2019) Language-in-education policy development in the Philippines. In: Kirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (eds) The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia. Routledge Zein S, Stroupe R (2017) English and language-in-education policy in the ASEAN Plus Three Forum. Asian Englishes 19(3):193–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1389061 Zein S (2020) Language policy in superdiverse Indonesia. Routledge Zhang C, Zhao R, Huang Y (2025) The evolution of ASEAN’s language policies: A diachronic analysis of official documents and website. PLoS ONE 20(1):e0315076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315076 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 08 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 31 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 31 Mar, 2026 Editor invited by journal 27 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8859025","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":615220771,"identity":"938c2889-6274-43e5-a7fb-5a43be490026","order_by":0,"name":"Emi Emilia","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emi","middleName":"","lastName":"Emilia","suffix":""},{"id":615220772,"identity":"98b8d711-233c-42a6-9200-3a84fc9b1653","order_by":1,"name":"Nita Novianti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nita","middleName":"","lastName":"Novianti","suffix":""},{"id":615220773,"identity":"66a5a19d-dbe2-41fc-9dc8-8585853799b3","order_by":2,"name":"Hasanatul Hamidah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SEAMEO QITEP in Language","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hasanatul","middleName":"","lastName":"Hamidah","suffix":""},{"id":615220774,"identity":"f904f331-42a3-46e5-8051-2e50419239e4","order_by":3,"name":"Rina Dwiyana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SEAMEO QITEP in Language","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rina","middleName":"","lastName":"Dwiyana","suffix":""},{"id":615220775,"identity":"ad0587a1-e957-487a-9757-d9ca92d3b808","order_by":4,"name":"Tri Indri Hardini","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tri","middleName":"Indri","lastName":"Hardini","suffix":""},{"id":615220776,"identity":"4fb48814-b431-4264-a6e5-6ad7648e2992","order_by":5,"name":"Limala Kharismawati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SEAMEO QITEP in Language","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Limala","middleName":"","lastName":"Kharismawati","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-12 07:40:37","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106127493,"identity":"c7092f5a-61fa-44a2-b5ff-69ae601b0703","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-03 22:50:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":142845,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Respondents by School Type\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8859025/v1/d4a6d7a19f459ae6b4bf2e8c.png"},{"id":106402246,"identity":"01bb2d59-8147-44ce-9683-43c31412658c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:11:31","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":110692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Respondents by Gender\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8859025/v1/5a8cb9c4ee65e3ea276d784e.png"},{"id":106402300,"identity":"fd50e141-72a4-47f7-86ae-7c7e6ace8962","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:11:42","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":153308,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Respondents by School Level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: \u003cem\u003ePerguruan Tinggi\u003c/em\u003e: Higher Education; \u003cem\u003eSekolah Menengah Atas\u003c/em\u003e: Senior High School; \u003cem\u003eLain-Lain\u003c/em\u003e: Junior High School.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8859025/v1/589d3ca5a2de73e21d7571b3.png"},{"id":106405554,"identity":"e744b4f4-6d74-4c5d-9f57-2def2744fb96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:27:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1719758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8859025/v1/ad52642c-9762-4be7-97ed-1c4a8a91fccb.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Foreign Language Education Policies in Southeast Asia: English Dominance and the Roles of Southeast Asian Languages","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eForeign language education policy has long been a key area of research, especially over the past two decades, with significant studies examining the role of foreign languages in shaping national identity, economic priorities, and sociopolitical dynamics. Recent research in countries such as Algeria (Maraf \u0026amp; Vanci Osam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Costa Rica (Solano-Campos \u0026amp; Burns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and Italy (Lopriore, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrates that language policies are influenced by complex interactions between sociopolitical movements, economic imperatives, and evolving notions of national identity. These studies often highlight the promotion of English as a tool for modernization and global competitiveness, while also revealing persistent tensions between policy intentions and classroom realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, research in Asia (e.g., Kirkpatrick \u0026amp; Liddicoat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) shows that foreign language education policies are shaped by both national ambitions and global pressures. These policies typically prioritize English and national languages to foster economic growth and internationalization, yet they frequently grapple with the marginalization of minority languages and the gap between policy and classroom practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin Southeast Asia, most research on foreign language policy (e.g., Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Nguyen \u0026amp; Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Zein \u0026amp; Stroupe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) has overwhelmingly, though understandably, resonated with the global research in their focus on the role of English. Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) observed that the decision of ASEAN, the organization that unites Southeast Asean countries to promote regional cooperation and stability, to designate English as its sole working language was a deliberate and nearly unanimous policy choice, intended to streamline regional communication and integration through a single lingua franca. This approach was not designed to foster the mutual teaching or learning of Southeast Asian languages among member countries, but rather to facilitate administrative efficiency and cohesion at the regional level. Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) critiqued this policy for signaling \u0026ldquo;unity in diversity\u0026rdquo; while, in practice, prioritizing unity at the expense of genuine linguistic diversity and the promotion of other regional languages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemarkably, Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) evaluation remains highly relevant nearly two decades later. English continues to be the sole working language of ASEAN, as explicitly stated in the most recent versions of the ASEAN Charter and reaffirmed in contemporary policy documents and academic studies (Emilia, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Recent educational initiatives and regional cooperation projects are consistently conducted in English, underscoring its ongoing centrality in ASEAN\u0026rsquo;s institutional and communicative practices (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Despite rhetorical commitments to respecting the region\u0026rsquo;s diverse cultures and languages, there remains little institutional movement toward promoting the teaching or learning of other Southeast Asian languages within member states\u0026rsquo; education systems. This is a persistent gap that continues to shape the region\u0026rsquo;s approach to multilingualism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamics of multilingualism and multiculturalism are central to shaping foreign language education in Southeast Asia. Multilingualism is not merely encouraged but is the norm, reflecting the region\u0026rsquo;s diversity. However, the lack of policy support for the teaching of Southeast Asian languages beyond national lingua francas, such as Indonesian and Malay, and English illustrates the complex interplay between the promotion of English and the preservation of regional languages (Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage policy, as an interdisciplinary field, encompasses not only official regulations but also the ideologies, practices, and choices that shape language use in education (Zein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the Southeast Asian context, multilingualism is a vital resource, and the inclusion of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education has the potential to enhance regional cohesion. Scholars such as Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that multilingualism is essential for building strong, integrated societies\u0026mdash;a perspective that is particularly relevant for Southeast Asia. Encouraging both English and indigenous Southeast Asian languages in education could strengthen cultural ties and foster greater unity across the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this backdrop, this study, conducted in collaboration with SEAMEO QITEL (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel) in Language, investigates foreign language policies in Southeast Asian countries, with a specific focus on the role of Southeast Asian languages. It examines how the integration of these languages into policy frameworks influences multilingualism and regional cohesion. Drawing on the idea that language policies reflect broader social and political decisions about which languages are taught and why (Spolsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the study is guided by the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e● What foreign language education policies are in place across Southeast Asian countries?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e● How are Southeast Asian languages represented or incorporated into these policies?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e● What are the trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe article will begin by outlining the foreign language education policies of Southeast Asian countries, including relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents. It will provide a comprehensive overview of the foreign languages taught in each country, with particular attention to the dominance of English and the limited presence of other Southeast Asian languages. The focus will then shift to the role of Southeast Asian languages, analyzing their integration within national policies and discussing their impact on multilingualism and regional cohesion. Ultimately, the findings aim to contribute to the growing body of research on language education policy (Zein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), with particular attention to the underrepresentation of Southeast Asian languages in the region\u0026rsquo;s foreign language curricula and the implications for regional integration and linguistic diversity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was qualitative in nature, aimed at exploring foreign language education policies across Southeast Asian countries and the position of Southeast Asian languages within those policies. Although the broader research initially focused on general language education policies, this article narrows the focus to examine foreign language education policies and how Southeast Asian languages are integrated (or not) into these policies. The study relies on qualitative data collected through focus group discussions with experts of foreign language education policies and a questionnaire distributed to secondary and tertiary students in Southeast Asian countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study involved two distinct groups of participants. The first group comprised 11 experts, each representing one of the SEAMEO member countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. These participants were either language policy experts or educators with a particular focus on English language teaching in their respective countries. All experts were invited by SEAQIL to participate voluntarily. Their primary role was to contribute to a Focus Group Discussion (FGD), where they shared in-depth insights into foreign language education policies within their countries, and the role of Southeast Asian languages in those policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second group consisted of participants who responded to a questionnaire distributed across all SEAMEO member countries. With the help of a volunteer in a SEAMEO Centres, the Indonesian Embassy, and educators from schools and universities in the Southeast Asian region, the students in each country were invited to voluntarily fill up the questionnaire. This group was much larger and more diverse, totaling 4,342 participants. The distribution of the questionnaire participants by country can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency distribution of respondents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrunei Darussalam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e860\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCambodia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e257\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,554\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaos\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e175\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMyanmar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhilippines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThailand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimor-Leste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e865\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,342\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePerguruan Tinggi\u003c/em\u003e: Higher Education; \u003cem\u003eSekolah Menengah Atas\u003c/em\u003e: Senior High School; \u003cem\u003eLain-Lain\u003c/em\u003e: Junior High School.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researchers acknowledge that the distribution of respondents across the eleven ASEAN countries in this study is clearly uneven, with Indonesia (36%), Brunei Darussalam (20%), and Vietnam (20%) contributing the largest shares of the total sample of 4,342 participants. This disproportionate representation means that the overall patterns observed in the data are likely to reflect, to a considerable extent, the views and experiences of respondents from these three countries, and cross‑country comparisons should therefore be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the sample still provides a useful basis for describing broad patterns and tendencies in the data, even if country‑level differences cannot be taken as fully representative of the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral contextual and methodological factors may help explain this uneven distribution. In addition to differences in national population size, the voluntary nature of participation may have favored individuals and institutions that were more motivated or better connected to the networks through which the survey was disseminated (e.g., particular universities, professional groups, or social media communities). Variations in internet access, language proficiency, perceived relevance of the survey topic, and the intensity of recruitment efforts across countries may also have influenced who saw the survey and chose to respond.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection Techniques\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected through three methods: a questionnaire, FGD, and document analysis. The questionnaire gathered demographic data and examined students\u0026rsquo; language learning preferences, asking them to identify international, other foreign, and two Southeast Asian languages they were interested in, along with their motivations and whether they preferred these languages to be offered as compulsory or elective subjects. The questionnaire also inquired about participants\u0026rsquo; past and current language studies and the languages used for communication and instruction in their schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor this article, the analysis centers specifically on responses related to Southeast Asian language preferences, highlighting students\u0026rsquo; choices, reasons for interest, and preferred modes of study, to better understand the current place of Southeast Asian languages in educational policy and student attitudes across the region. Some data on this aspect have also been reported by Hardini et al. (2023) and released in the form of a policy brief by SEAMEO QITEP in Language (2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFGDs were conducted following the completion of the questionnaire. They were organized on 6 June, 8 June, and 24 August 2022, attended by eleven experts from all member countries of SEAMEO in Southeast Asia. These discussions allowed the participants to elaborate on their responses, share additional insights, and engage in collaborative discussions about foreign language policies in the Southeast Asian region. The discussions were structured to explore how Southeast Asian languages are represented in foreign language education policies and to understand the broader challenges and opportunities in promoting regional multilingualism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data from the questionnaire and FGD were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The data from the questionnaire were analyzed and categorized into several themes, including learner preferences and motivations regarding Southeast Asian languages and challenges in Southeast Asian language and learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the data from the focus group discussions were analyzed and categorized into several key themes, including:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003elegal and policy frameworks for language education;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eselection and status of foreign languages in education systems;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003erepresentation and integration of Southeast Asian languages in curricula;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ebilingualism and multilingualism policies and practices;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003echallenges in Southeast Asian language learning and teaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings were further categorized into three central themes in line with the research questions, to do with foreign language education policies in place across Southeast Asian countries, Southeast Asian languages represented or incorporated into the policies, and trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region. The findings were then interpreted in relation to foreign language education theory and previous research, as well as the broader socio-political context of language policy in Southeast Asian countries. The results contribute to understanding of the underrepresentation of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policy and the implications for fostering regional multilingualism and cohesion. The results of the data analysis will be presented in the subsequent section in line with the research questions as mentioned above.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eForeign language education policies in place across Southeast Asian countries\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section outlines the foreign language education policies, laws, and regulations that are in place across Southeast Asian countries, as can be observed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, organized not in any particular order. These policies, laws, and regulations were reported by all the expert participants of the focus group discussions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExistence of Official Regulation(s) or Laws on Language and/or Language Education in Southeast Asian Countries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOfficial Regulations or Law on Language or Language Education Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Law No. 24 Year 2009 on Language, National Anthem and Flag\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The Government Regulation No. 57 Year 2014. b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Article 152 of The Federal Constitution of Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The National Language Act 1963/67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Language policy in Singapore: (see Wee, 2010; Dixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Curdt-Christiansen and Silver, 2011; Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Yeng-Seng, 2009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThailand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- National Education Policy (2017\u0026ndash;2036) about English as the ASEAN language\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrunei Darussalam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Constitution of Brunei 1959 \u0026lsquo;Law of Brunei 2003 (CAP.210) on Education\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- \u003cem\u003eDwibahasa\u003c/em\u003e (Bilingual) Education System 1985\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- \u003cem\u003eSistem Pendidikan Negara\u003c/em\u003e Abad ke-21 (National Education System for the 21st Century)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Philippines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- DepEd Order No. 46, series of 2012 or the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Special Curricular Programs at the Secondary Level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- No 1400 /Agree-TTg Article 1: Approving the project \"Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National Education System for the Period 2008\u0026ndash;2020\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Decision No. 16/2006/QD-BGDDT dated May 5, 2006\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- In the current General Education Curriculum and the 2018 Developing Education Curriculum: German, Korean, Japanese, French, Russian, and Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCambodia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Law: Chapter VI: Education, Culture, Social Affairs, Article 67\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The Law on Education (2007): Article 24: Languages of Teaching and Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLao PDR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Law on Education, Article 21: Language used in education\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Based on the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 Curriculum, English is taught from Year 3, 5, and year 5 of primary schools in Lao PDR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimor-Leste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is not any law yet to regulate international languages or any other languages used in the country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMyanmar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- National Education Law Chap.\u0026nbsp;5, Article 19: English shall be taught starting from primary school. Chapter\u0026nbsp;7, Article 43, Paragraph (a): Instruction can be in Myanmar or English or in a combination of Myanmar and English.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that, with the exception of Timor-Leste, all Southeast Asian countries have laws or official regulations regarding language or language education policy. This strongly indicates that each country places significant emphasis on language education policy. The table further suggests that these policies are grounded in a legal framework. In other words, the formulation and implementation of language policy, including foreign language policy, are shaped by underlying legal considerations. This goes with the point that for language policy to command national respect and adherence, it must be legally binding and supported by appropriate legislation (see Chiatoh and Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, since language policies are typically announced at the central government level and enacted through national legislation, Southeast Asian countries' language policies also reflect an ideological framework. This is also in line with what Chiatoh and Akumbu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) point out that ideologically, language planning is viewed as an expression of a strong and genuine national vision. Chiatoh and Akumbu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) further argue that this approach should extend to both minor and foreign languages. According to Chiatoh and Akumbu, linguistic rights are fundamental human rights that should be respected regardless of a language's status, and a critical aspect of the legal framework is ensuring that policy has constitutional backing, making its application mandatory (Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurning to foreign language education policy across school levels, the data obtained in the study can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, not organized in any particular orders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForeign Language(s) Taught from Primary through to Higher Education in Southeast Asian Countries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForeign language(s) (excluding Southeast Asian languages) taught and their status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Spanish\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThailand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Spanish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrunei Darussalam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Mandarin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Mandarin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Arabic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Mandarin\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Philippines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Spanish\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Japanese (Nihongo)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Chinese (Mandarin)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo specific language is mentioned\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Russian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCambodia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (taught from grade 4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. French (compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese are called living languages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. French (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLao PDR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (offered for all programs of higher education institutes)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Chinese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Korean\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Russian\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Spanish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimor-Leste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMyanmar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Mandarin\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Indian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. English (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Japanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. French\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Mandarin\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. German\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish (Compulsory)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows that Southeast Asian countries differ in the foreign languages (excluding Southeast Asian languages) taught at primary, secondary, and higher education levels. This diversity of language offerings reflects each country\u0026rsquo;s unique policy choices, and this coincides with Spolsky\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) point that the teaching of what is labelled as a foreign language varies considerably from country to country (see also McLelland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tochon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). McLelland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) highlights that one of the first and most crucial decisions made by learners, schools, and policy bodies is which language(s) to learn or teach. The choices made by Southeast Asian countries are not random; rather, they are informed by various underlying frames, including historical, theoretical, ideological, political, linguistic, educational, legal, and communicative considerations (Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The historical principle is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asian context, where many countries experienced colonization. Regarding this, Pham (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) explains that French is taught in Vietnam due to its colonial history, while the Philippines uses English as a second language as a result of colonization by the United States. Further investigation is warranted to explore how other underlying frames influence the selection of foreign languages taught at each educational level in Southeast Asian countries (see also Gargesh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, for a similar discussion in South Asia).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother notable theme is that the foreign languages chosen\u0026mdash;such as Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, French, and German\u0026mdash;are among the seven foreign languages identified by BIG Language Solution (2022) as being relevant to multiple industries and as top trending languages to learn. These languages are often associated with economic and industrial connections. The rationale for selecting these languages likely aligns with factors reported by BIG Language Solutions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), such as the number of speakers, the GDP of the language\u0026rsquo;s country of origin, the global status of the language, and the size of the country. Additionally, languages like Japanese, Korean, and Russian, which are taught in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Brunei Darussalam, correspond to the twelve most important languages to learn according to University of the People (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Arcila et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The importance of these languages is based on factors such as the number of speakers, geographic reach, usability, versatility, and career opportunities (University of the People, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while languages like French, Italian, Portuguese, German, and English are linked to intercultural communication, work, and business (Arcila et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe choices of foreign languages taught at school and university levels in each Southeast Asian country, which largely correspond to those listed by BIG Language Solution (2022), suggest that for a foreign language to be widely learned, it should offer tangible benefits to learners, such as a large user base, career opportunities, and economic advantages. Therefore, for Southeast Asian languages to become attractive options that offer career opportunities to learners in other countries, stronger cooperation among Southeast Asian countries is needed to promote the learning of Southeast Asian languages both within the region and globally. This is consistent with İnce\u0026ccedil;ay\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) argument that a foreign language is considered valuable by a country if it is spoken by countries with which there are active relations. This also suggests that each Southeast Asian country should strive to increase the number of speakers of its national language, at least within the Southeast Asian region, as this is also a key criterion in the selection of foreign languages (see BIG Language Solutions, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the fact that all countries offer foreign or second languages from primary through tertiary education highlights the perceived importance of foreign language learning. This finding is consistent with research from South Korea and Thailand (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Vietnam (Pham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and Indonesia (Saud \u0026amp; Abduh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and suggests that the belief in \u0026ldquo;the earlier, the better\u0026rdquo; for foreign language learning remains strong. This is further supported by research in Singapore (Dixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and Brunei Darussalam (Haji-Othman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), as well as by the statement of Lee Kuan Yew, cited in Dixon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), that beginning a second language early leads to higher proficiency and more time devoted to learning a language results in greater proficiency. However, it is important to note that research has shown that the assumption \u0026ldquo;the earlier, the better\u0026rdquo; is not always supported by evidence (Dixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding this, Hayes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) points out that other factors influence whether early foreign language learning in primary school yields the expected benefits. This is supported by the point from Watzke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) that although the idea of a \u0026ldquo;golden age\u0026rdquo; for language learning is influential, comprehensive data supporting this concept have not been collected in a consistent and summative way.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, it is important to note that English occupies a unique and dominant position as a foreign language across all Southeast Asian countries. The data from this study, consistent with previous research (Coleman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Dixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hamied \u0026amp; Musthafa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Salomone \u0026amp; Salomone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Spolsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Zein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), show that English is either compulsory or widely offered at all educational levels, reflecting its status as the primary foreign language of instruction and communication in the region. This widespread adoption is linked to English\u0026rsquo;s perceived role in providing access to global economic opportunities, mobility, and participation in international discourse, as stated by Brooker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Spolsky (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The prominence of English in Southeast Asian education policy also aligns with broader global trends and the language\u0026rsquo;s association with socio-economic development and this is relevant to the role of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries as will be taken up below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSoutheast Asian languages represented or incorporated into foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data obtained indicate that the integration of Southeast Asian languages into national education policies across Southeast Asian countries is limited and uneven. Most countries prioritize global foreign languages over regional ones, with only few explicitly incorporating Southeast Asian languages into their curricula. This tendency reflects Southeast Asian\u0026rsquo;s historical focus on political and economic cooperation, rather than linguistic integration, as noted by Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The representation of Southeast Asian languages in foreign language education policies in Southeast Asian countries can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below (not in any particular orders), which is also in line with Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoutheast Asian Languages in Education Policy, Number of Foreign Languages Offered, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism Status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoutheast Asian language(s) taught\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of foreign languages offered from primary through to tertiary levels of education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBilingualism\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Multilingualism)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn any level of education (if any)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the 2010s, bilingualism was applied in international standard schools in teaching English, Mathematics, and Science. Today, it is no longer implemented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was once applied at schools, but it is no longer implemented now.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish, Chinese, Hindi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Bilingualism exists and still prevails.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- English language in primary and secondary school levels is taught as mother tongue.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThailand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo specific language is mentioned\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoutheast Asian languages are taught in some curriculums or programs in higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrunei Darussalam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese (an elective subject in the Language Centre of University of Brunei Darussalam).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The country\u0026rsquo;s education system, \u003cem\u003eDwibahasa\u003c/em\u003e, was introduced in 1984.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Philippines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome programmes/ colleges/ universities include foreign languages in the elective courses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecision No. 16/2006/QD-BGDDT dated May 5, 2006 encourages the pilot implementation of English bilingual teaching for math and natural science subjects in specialized high schools and other qualified lower-secondary and upper-secondary schools. Vietnam actively implements the construction of typical schools for foreign language teaching and learning under the guidance of the Ministry of Education and Training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCambodia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThai\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (see the languages listed in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThai is the only one language of Southeast Asian countries available at the Institute of Foreign Languages (IFL) which is an institute under the Royal University of Phnom Penh.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLao PDR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese is taught in public and private schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Lao PDR adopted bilingual approach as stated in its Education Strategic Vision in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Based on Bachelor Degree approved by Ministry of Education and Sports, Faculty of Letters, National University of Laos offers nine foreign language programmes such as, English, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Based on the 2010 Curriculum, English is the first compulsory foreign language for all schools. For special bilingual schools, such as offering French and Lao or Vietnamese and Lao, English is the second foreign language.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Based on the report on the Implementation of school year 2020\u0026ndash;2021 and the plan for school year 2021\u0026ndash;2022, to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages, the Japanese and Korean textbooks have been developed and taught at pilot lower secondary schools in Vientiane Capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimor-Leste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Southeast Asian languages are formally taught at schools, except international schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1: English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn higher education, national and official languages are still compulsory to be the language of instructions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMyanmar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThai\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (see the languages listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThai language is taught at the Yangon University of Foreign Language (YUFL) which is under the Ministry of Education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e reveals some themes that will be discussed as follows. Firstly, it suggests limited and uneven incorporation of Southeast Asian languages. Few countries systematically offer Southeast Asian languages as part of mainstream curricula. Notable exceptions include Singapore (Malay), Brunei Darussalam (Vietnamese as an elective), Cambodia (Thai at tertiary level), Lao PDR (Vietnamese), and Myanmar (Thai at tertiary level). This limited presence is consistent with the lack of explicit linguistic commitments in foundational ASEAN documents and the region\u0026rsquo;s historical focus on political and economic priorities rather than language policy (Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA noteworthy development is Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s initiative since 2015 to send teachers of Bahasa Indonesia to various Southeast Asian countries for both formal and non-formal instruction. However, awareness of such programs is low, possibly due to the absence of central policy backing and the lack of legal frameworks to support regional language promotion (Chiatoh \u0026amp; Akumbu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). As reported by the FGD participant from Indonesia:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe internationalization of Indonesian as a foreign language or Indonesian as Asean language [is] also taught to [sic] especially to teachers who are assigned to teach in different countries in ASEAN countries \u0026hellip; This policy has been [sic] has been carried out since 2014, especially through the establishment of a center in the language agency which is concerned with the language translate [sic] strategy and diplomacy, although it was closed (it was said that it was closed in 2020) but then it was reestablished in 2021 and their function is still to do with the development of Indonesian as a foreign language.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis underlines the need for enhanced cooperation at the central government level to support the development and visibility of Southeast Asian languages across the region. As Tochon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes, effective language education policy must address who studies which languages, at what levels, for how long, and who develops and supports the curricula.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the data is concerned with the prevalence and policy regarding bilingualism and multilingualism. Bilingualism and multilingualism are prevalent across Southeast Asian, reflecting the region\u0026rsquo;s linguistic diversity. Singapore maintains a robust bilingual policy, with English and mother tongue languages taught at all levels. Lao PDR and Brunei Darussalam have also implemented bilingual programs at various stages. In contrast, Indonesia and Malaysia previously adopted bilingual education but later discontinued these policies due to challenges in implementation and outcomes. The FGD participant from Malaysia reported, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eIn 2003 English was registered as the medium of instruction for the subject science and mathematics, but reverted to Bahasa Melayu only in 2016 so this is another example that I mentioned, when the new ministry come into office, then try to change the policy.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; This report highlights how Malaysia\u0026rsquo;s bilingual education policy has been subject to political changes and was ultimately discontinued in favor of Bahasa Melayu.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirdly, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows that multilingualism is considered the norm in the Philippines, supported by the study by Young and Igcalinos (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and similar expectations exist in Timor-Leste (Taylor-Leech, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Brunei Darussalam (Haji-Othman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In all countries, the language of instruction remains a critical component of language education policy, often managed through varying proportions of instructional time in different languages within multi-medium programs. As Spolsky (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) notes, bilingual education has been developed in many forms to balance the maintenance of home languages with the demands of school standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBilingual/multilingual education is not without its challenges. For example, the Philippines FGD participant explained the rationale for their mother tongue-based policy:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith our mother tongue based education policy again because of the number of languages that we have in the country as I mentioned earlier, there are 183 in the Philippines and to address difficulties that are being encountered by young children for entering the primary level-in Filipino, which may not be their mother tongue or perhaps English, which is also not their mother are used to these challenges. The MPPL curriculum was implemented based on the results of MPPMME implemented in many countries around the world.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational value of initial instruction in students\u0026rsquo; home languages remains a central, and sometimes controversial, issue in language education policy (Spolsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e. While some believe young children can easily acquire new languages, research suggests that, on average, most students may face educational disadvantages without adequate support. For example, in Indonesia, bilingual education was discontinued after it was found to be largely unsuccessful (Coleman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Similar challenges have been reported in Korea (Shin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) and Saudi Arabia (Alnasser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), where English-only policies increased learning pressure and exacerbated inequities for EFL/ESL students. In Indonesia, most students expressed a preference for using both English and Indonesian in the classroom (Emilia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the need for further research on the strengths and drawbacks of bilingual and multilingual education in Southeast Asian contexts. They also underscore the importance of developing language education policies that are sensitive to local realities and supported by appropriate legal and institutional frameworks. The place of Southeast Asian languages in Southeast Asian countries from the survey data from the students participating in the study. The survey data suggest clear preferences among participants regarding Southeast Asian languages and how they should be offered in educational settings, as stated by the participants. The data can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoutheast Asian Languages Preferred by Respondents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreferred Southeast Asian Language (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThai\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1632\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTagalog\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKhmer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e382\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLao\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBurmese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e146\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTetum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8039\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The survey data on participants\u0026rsquo; preferences for Southeast Asian language(s) reveals clear yet nuanced patterns of interest across the region. Thai stands out as the most preferred Southeast Asian language, selected by 26% of participants. This strong preference is likely influenced by Thailand\u0026rsquo;s prominent cultural exports, its status as a major tourist destination, and its economic integration within Southeast Asia. Indonesian and Malay follow closely, with 20% and 18% of participants choosing these languages, respectively. Their popularity reflects not only the large populations of Indonesia and Malaysia but also the shared linguistic heritage and the importance of these countries in Southeast Asia's political and economic landscape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese (14%) and Tagalog (13%) also gain significant interest, which may be attributed to Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s dynamic economic growth and the Philippines\u0026rsquo; extensive diaspora and regional engagement. In contrast, languages such as Khmer, Lao, Burmese, and Tetum collectively account for less than 10% of preferences. The more limited demand for these languages may be linked to the smaller populations of their respective countries and their comparatively localized influence within Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA closer examination of the data from individual countries provides additional insight into these regional trends. For example, in Malaysia, Thai and Indonesian are among the most frequently chosen languages, reflecting strong cross-border ties and cultural proximity. In Brunei, Indonesian, Malay, and Thai are all popular choices, likely due to Brunei\u0026rsquo;s multilingual environment and the presence of significant Indonesian and Malaysian communities. Vietnamese respondents overwhelmingly select Vietnamese as their first choice but also show notable interest in Thai and Indonesian as second choices, indicating recognition of these languages\u0026rsquo; regional relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the high frequency of Indonesian as a preferred language is not solely a result of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s large participant base. Indonesian is also commonly selected by participants in Malaysia and Brunei, where linguistic similarities and regular cross-border interactions foster interest in learning Indonesian. This underscores the role of shared cultural and linguistic heritage in shaping language preferences beyond national boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these valuable insights, it is crucial to interpret the findings with caution due to the uneven distribution of survey participants across Southeast Asian countries. Indonesia contributed the largest share of participants, representing 36% of the total sample. This disproportionate representation may amplify the prominence of Indonesian and related languages in the overall results. Conversely, countries with fewer participants, such as Thailand, Singapore, and Myanmar, may have their unique perspectives and language interests underrepresented in the aggregate data. Regarding the preferences for learning Southeast Asian languages, the data can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreferences for Learning Southeast Asian Languages\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreferred Learning Option\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompulsory Subject\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e995\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplementary Subject\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3317\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4342\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen considering how Southeast Asian languages should be integrated into educational curricula, the majority of participants (76%) express a preference for these languages to be offered as complementary, or elective, subjects rather than as compulsory requirements. This strong inclination toward elective status suggests that while there is genuine interest in learning Southeast Asian languages, learners value flexibility and the ability to select languages that align with their personal or professional interests. Nevertheless, a significant minority (23%) supports the idea of making Southeast Asian languages compulsory, reflecting recognition of their potential value for fostering regional integration, communication, and shared identity. Only a small fraction of respondents (0.69%) indicated no preference, highlighting that most participants have a clear stance on this issue.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTrends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages in the region\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the trends and challenges in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages, the data reveal a range of motivating factors influencing learners' choices. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents the main themes identified in respondents\u0026rsquo; reasons for selecting Southeast Asian languages, along with the number of responses for each theme and illustrative sample comments drawn directly from the data set.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency of Themes in Reasons for Choosing Southeast Asian Languages (with Sample Comments)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Responses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample Comments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication and Social Interaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e392\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"To communicate with friends and relatives\"; \"I want to talk to my friends in their language.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural Interest and Appreciation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Interested in their culture\"; \"I want to understand the culture of neighboring countries.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational and Career Benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e186\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"For international research collaboration\"; \"Better job opportunities in ASEAN.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTravel and Mobility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e142\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"To make travel easier\"; \"I often travel to Bangkok and Malaysia, hence I want to know how to speak the language.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinguistic Curiosity and Challenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Language and linguistics fascinate me\"; \"I want to try learning a challenging language.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedia and Entertainment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"I watch Thai dramas and want to understand them without subtitles.\"; \"I love watching and hearing Thai movies and songs.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional Integration and Identity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"To strengthen ASEAN unity\"; \"Because we're in ASEAN together, it's a good choice to learn the languages of the countries in ASEAN.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePracticality and Accessibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Malay is similar to my language\"; \"Indonesian is widely used in the region.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamily and Heritage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"I have relatives that speak those languages\"; \"My parents are from Indonesia so I\u0026rsquo;d be learning to speak a language that\u0026rsquo;s useful in my personal life.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther/Unspecified\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Just for fun\"; \"No specific reason, just interested.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal valid responses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,439\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe motivations for learning Southeast Asian languages, as evidenced by Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, reveal a strong preference for languages as tools for practical communication, social connection, and cultural understanding. The predominance of reasons related to interacting with friends and relatives demonstrates that daily, interpersonal needs are central, learners want to use Southeast Asian languages in authentic social environments. This is closely followed by motivations emphasizing cultural interest and appreciation, indicating that individuals seek to engage deeply with the cultures of neighboring Southeast Asian countries and develop cross-cultural competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings resonate directly with critical assessments of ASEAN language policy by scholars such as Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Lee et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), who have shown that while the ASEAN Charter officially promotes \u0026ldquo;unity in diversity\u0026rdquo; and respect for local languages, in practice, policy consistently elevates English as the working language and focuses on regional functionality and economic integration. Learners\u0026rsquo; interest in Southeast Asian languages outside English, especially for social and cultural purposes, reveals a possible mismatch between top-down policy emphasis on English and grassroots desires to maintain and develop regional languages for real-life and cultural use. Such a divergence supports calls by Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) for a more multilingual, culturally responsive policy, one that considers English as a regional lingua franca while also protecting and promoting the use of Southeast Asian languages for authentic social and cultural interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne issue about English which is worth a brief mention here, that is to do with English Medium Instruction (EMI) programs in ASEAN has been reported in a publication edited by Barnard \u0026amp; Hasim (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The publication reported the EMI program in different countries including Indonesia (Hamied \u0026amp; Lengkanawati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e); Saeed et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) in Malaysia; Haji-Othman \u0026amp; Mcclellan (2018) in Brunei Darussalam; Anh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) in Vietnam. Regarding this, Barnard (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, p. ix), to follow Kirkpatrick, contrasts the complex cultural diversity and heteroglossia of most East and Southeast Asian nations with the more homogenous linguistic situation that prevails in many European countries. Barnard (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) further says that the typological differences between the region\u0026rsquo;s languages and English make the adoption and the use of EMI considerably more problematic than in European settings where the local languages are typically closer to English.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey\u0026rsquo;s identification of educational and career motivations parallels the Southeast Asian policy\u0026rsquo;s instrumental orientation, where language is linked to mobility, opportunity, and collaboration. However, the wide diversity of motives, including media, pop culture, personal challenge, identity, and heritage. demonstrates the limitations of policies that focus too narrowly on economic or official needs at the expense of cultural, familial, and identity-based considerations. This broad set of motivations further aligns with critiques that current Southeast Asian language policy, shaped by the \u0026ldquo;ASEAN Way\u0026rdquo; (consensus and non-interference), underappreciates the lived realities of multilingualism and multifaceted learner goals found across the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Although the questionnaire for Southeast Asian language learning did not directly include a question about learning challenges, a review of open-ended responses reveals that several participants across the region voluntarily mentioned various obstacles. These challenges generally fall into four main categories, namely: language-related difficulties, lack of exposure or familiarity, motivation issues, and resource limitations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondents often cited the intrinsic complexity of certain Southeast Asian languages, referencing challenges related to pronunciation, intonation, script, vocabulary, and confusion between similar languages. Sample responses include: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Thailand difficult to pronounce and understand\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Thai language has a unique intonation of speaking\u0026rdquo;; and \u0026ldquo;The languages mostly are related to my surroundings, but both Thai and Tagalog languages have difficult pronunciation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These responses are backed by the reports made by the FGD participants. For example, the Brunei representative explained how certain local languages struggle against dominant languages:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApart from Brunei Malay, the other local languages that I\u0026rsquo;ve mentioned\u0026hellip; are experiencing a language shift to Brunei Malay or, and English. .. Some of the local languages of Brunei, such as Elia, Dusun and Tutong\u0026hellip; are taught as elective modules at our language center... However, these languages are not taught at primary or secondary levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA FGD participant from Timor Leste echoed: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFor the local languages is not yet implemented in any curriculum for teaching from kindergarten to higher education, university level. We do hope\u0026hellip; if not, we can lose some of our local languages, the origin.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; This concern is shared by those supporting the promotion of Southeast Asian languages, particularly in the face of the dominance of English.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome respondents explicitly noted that their lack of daily exposure or background in a language was a significant hurdle. Sample responses include: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have no idea what their language is and I want to learn about them\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I never got the chance to learn both of the languages anywhere.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These responses simultaneously suggest a strong interest in learning about the languages of the neighboring countries in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, several responses pointed to motivation issues stemming from compulsory study or a lack of personal interest as challenges to learn Southeast Asian languages. Statements like \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t want to learn these languages but if it\u0026rsquo;s compulsory then I will choose these languages because they are the most similar to each other\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;m not exactly interested in learning the above but they are the ones I have already started learning\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eNot really interested, but these are the ones available\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; reveal a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Southeast Asian language learning in some cases. Although these responses represent a minority, they are nonetheless important considerations for shaping effective and responsive Southeast Asian language policy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, some respondents mentioned barriers involving access to language resources and media, including challenges finding learning materials or contextual input. They stated, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It is hard to find their movie/drama with subtitles, and I have always dreamed to visit the country \u0026mdash; with that it will be easier for me to communicate with local people\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;I never got the chance to learn both of the languages anywhere.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These authentic learner voices offer important context for educators and policymakers aiming to design more supportive and accessible Southeast Asian language learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings support those of Pugong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), who identified similar challenges in Southeast Asian language education, including limitations in policy implementation, insufficient learning resources, and the overwhelming dominance of English in both classroom practice and formal curricula. Likewise, Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Lee et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) have documented that while ASEAN rhetoric promotes multilingualism, there remains a persistent policy-practice gap, with regional languages often marginalized and learners facing obstacles related to motivation, exposure, and accessibility. Studies such as those by Pg Redzuan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Coleman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) also reinforce the observation that technical hurdles, a lack of daily exposure, and low personal relevance can significantly hinder effective language acquisition. Collectively, these studies echo the need for more context-sensitive, well-resourced, and learner-centric Southeast Asian language education policies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study highlight a persistent gap between Southeast Asian\u0026rsquo;s aspirations for linguistic diversity and actual practice within countries\u0026rsquo; education systems. Survey findings demonstrate that Southeast Asian languages are rarely integrated systematically into mainstream curricula, with policy environments overwhelmingly prioritizing English and other global languages over regional and minority ones. Although learners express strong motivations for acquiring Southeast Asian languages, ranging from communication and cultural appreciation to regional identity and practical opportunity, they overwhelmingly prefer these languages to be available as electives rather than compulsory subjects. Significant challenges remain, including the linguistic complexity of Southeast Asian languages, lack of daily exposure, low motivation when study is mandated, and limited learning resources. The marginalization of Southeast Asian and minority languages is especially apparent in border regions and among disadvantaged communities, where they compete not just with English, but also with powerful regional lingua francas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the ASEAN Charter\u0026rsquo;s professed respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, there is little evidence that member states systematically promote the teaching of each other\u0026rsquo;s languages. The Charter omits any explicit call for intra-ASEAN language learning. Except for certain contexts, such as the growing popularity of Putonghua, Asian languages other than national languages or English are rarely part of the core curriculum, even in areas of considerable cross-border linguistic interaction (Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This situation places many of the region\u0026rsquo;s minority and regional languages under threat (Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). As Kirkpatrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) observes, multilingualism in Southeast Asia tends to be limited to national and global lingua francas, with regional languages holding only marginal status. Unlike the European Union, where language policy actively fosters multilingualism, most ASEAN citizens with access to higher education speak their national language and English, but rarely the languages of neighboring Southeast Asian countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the limited integration of Southeast Asian languages and the mixed outcomes of bilingual and multilingual education in the region, this study underscores a clear need for enhanced regional cooperation and more explicit policy frameworks. Regional organizations such as SEAQIL are well positioned to foster the necessary collaboration and support for broader inclusion of Southeast Asian languages in educational systems, as noted in the proceedings of SEAQIL Governing Board Meeting 2019 (SEAQIL, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Improved language management should address not only curriculum development and appropriate levels of instruction, but also provide strong institutional support, as emphasized by Tochon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study, however, is not without limitations. The survey sample is disproportionately composed of respondents from certain Southeast Asian countries, notably Indonesia, which may have influenced the generalizability of some findings, particularly with respect to language preferences and perceived barriers. Relying primarily on self-reported student data also introduces the potential for bias and may not fully capture the perspectives of teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders who influence language education policy and practice. Furthermore, the study provides only a cross-sectional snapshot and is unable to track changes in language attitudes or policy impacts over time. While open-ended responses offered valuable insight into learning challenges, the absence of direct questions on this topic may have resulted in a less comprehensive understanding of barriers and needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, future research should seek more balanced representation across Southeast Asian countries and include greater involvement from educators, parents, and policymakers. Longitudinal and comparative research would be valuable for monitoring the evolution of language policies and learning outcomes both within Southeast Asia and in relation to other regional blocks. In-depth qualitative investigations that incorporate classroom observations and case studies would further illuminate how Southeast Asian languages are taught on the ground and what factors support or hinder effective implementation. Studies focused on innovative teaching strategies, technology-enhanced learning, and the relationship between language learning and identity could also help inform more effective and context-sensitive policies. Evaluating pilot programs or interventions designed to promote Southeast Asian languages would provide much-needed evidence for scaling successful approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings reaffirm the urgency of developing comprehensive, learner-centered policies and collaborative initiatives to realize Southeast Asian\u0026rsquo;s multilingual ideals and better serve the region\u0026rsquo;s diverse linguistic landscape.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved human participants and was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant institutional and national guidelines for research involving human participants. In the authors\u0026rsquo; institutional and national context, anonymous, non‑interventional survey research of this type is considered minimal risk and does not require review by a formal institutional ethics committee or institutional review board; therefore, no such approval was sought, in line with applicable guidelines. All potential participants received an information sheet explaining the purpose and procedures of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, data protection and confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Survey participants indicated their informed consent by clicking an \u0026ldquo;I agree to participate\u0026rdquo; button before accessing the online questionnaire, and only those who consented were able to proceed. Focus group discussion (FGD) respondents indicated their informed consent by signing a written consent form prior to their participation in the FGD sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNorm or standard observed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was designed and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the authors\u0026rsquo; institutional and national guidelines for social science research involving human participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics/IRB approval declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in 2022 at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI). During the research period, the institution was in the process of formalizing its centralized ethical oversight; the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Komisi Etik Penelitian UPI) was subsequently established on 19 September 2023 under Rector\u0026rsquo;s Decree No. 2167/UN40/HK/2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the absence of a localized committee at the time of data collection, the research was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical mandates of Law No. 11 of 2019\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e on the National System of Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. Specifically, the study upheld the principles of scientific integrity and professional codes of ethics as required by Article 39 of the Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research complied with universal ethical standards, including voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, and the strict confidentiality of participant data. The study was designed to involve minimal risk to participants and did not include any medical, clinical, or experimental interventions. All participants were fully informed of the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Prospective student and expert participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the aims of the research, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality and data protection measures, and their rights as participants, including the right to withdraw at any time without negative consequences. For FGDs, participants signed a written consent form; for online surveys, participants indicated consent by clicking an \u0026ldquo;I agree to participate\u0026rdquo; button before accessing any survey questions, and only those who agreed could proceed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: This research was supported by Seameo Seaqil Indonesia Number: 04/MOU/QIL/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/117023/uu-no-11-tahun-2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlnasser SM, Almoaily M (2022) The elephant in the room: Is a nationwide English language policy needed in EFL contexts? A study on English departments in Saudi Arabian universities. World J Engl Lang 12(5):66\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n5p66\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/wjel.v12n5p66\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnh TNQ (2022) Examining English as a medium of instruction in Vietnam: Policies and challenges in higher education. Crossings: J Engl Stud 13(2):114\u0026ndash;130. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59817/cjes.v13i2.453\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59817/cjes.v13i2.453\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArcila C, Solano-Cohen F, Rinc\u0026oacute;n V, Junior ACL, Brice\u0026ntilde;o-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez A, M (2022) Second language learning and socioeconomic development: Interrogating Anglonormativity from the perspective of pre-service modern language professionals. Curr Issues Lang Plann 23(5):466\u0026ndash;487\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnard R, Hasim Z (eds) (2018) English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnard R (2018) Setting the scene: EMI in ASEAN universities. In R. Barnard \u0026amp; Z. Hasim (2018). Eds. \u003cem\u003eEnglish medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian Universities.\u003c/em\u003e Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBIG Language Solutions (2022) \u003cem\u003eThe seven best languages to learn.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://biglanguage.com/industries/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://biglanguage.com/industries/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2022) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3470-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3470-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrooker D (2018) Cambridge Assessment English Perspectives-English for Development: A review of research into the role of English as a driver for socio-economic development. Camb Engl Assess. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/539681-perspectives-english-for-development.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/539681-perspectives-english-for-development.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiatoh BA, Akumbu PW (2013) Towards a national language policy for Cameroon. In: Chiatoh BA, Akumbu PW (eds) Language policy in Africa: Perspectives for Cameroon. Miraclaire Academic Publication, pp 194\u0026ndash;215\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColeman H (2009) Why the British do not learn languages: Myths and motivation in the United Kingdom. Lang Learn J 37(1):111\u0026ndash;127. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09571730902749003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09571730902749003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDixon LQ (2005) Bilingual education policy in Singapore: An analysis of its sociohistorical roots and current academic outcomes. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism\u003c/em\u003e. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmilia E (2011) The English only policy in EFL context: Is it desirable? New Engl Teacher 5(1):1\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmilia E, Siagian ENM, Novianti N, Dwiyana R, Muniroh RD, Fikrianto M (2025) Unveiling English language education policies across primary and secondary levels in ASEAN. Indonesian J Appl Linguistics 14(3):484\u0026ndash;495. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/75898\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/75898\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGargesh R (2006) Applied linguistics in South Asia. In K. Brown, A. H. Anderson, L. Bauer, M. Berns, \u0026amp; others (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of language \u0026amp; linguistics\u003c/em\u003e (pp.375\u0026ndash;385) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00607-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00607-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaji-Othman NA, McLellan J (2018) Case study: EMI in University Brunei Darussalam. In: Barnard R, Hasim Z (eds) English medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian Universities. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaji-Othman NA, McLellan J, Jones GM (2019) Language policy and practice in Brunei Darussalam. In A. Kirkpatrick \u0026amp; A. J. Liddicoat (eds), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 314\u0026ndash;325). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-22\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315666235-22\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamied FA, Lengkanawati NS (2018) Case study: EMI in Indonesia. In R. Barnard \u0026amp; Z. Hasim (2018). Eds. \u003cem\u003eEnglish medium instruction programmes. Perspectives from South East Asian universities.\u003c/em\u003e Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamied FA, Musthafa B (2019) Policies on language education in Indonesia. Indonesian J Appl Linguistics 9(2):308\u0026ndash;315. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20279\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20279\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHardini TI, Yulianeta Y, Fikrianto M, Hasanatul H, Emilia E, Kharismawati L.R.S. ASEAN students' interest in learning the Indonesian Language: A descriptive study from the perspective of SEAMEO ASEAN. Int J Lang Educ, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 746\u0026ndash;762. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i4.59491\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26858/ijole.v7i4.59491\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayes D (2020) Language education policy and practice in state education systems: Promoting effective practice in foreign language education for young learners. Lang Teach Young Learners 2(2):240\u0026ndash;261. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19017.hay\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1075/ltyl.19017.hay\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eİnce\u0026ccedil;ay G (2012) Turkey\u0026rsquo;s foreign language policy at primary level: Challenges in practice. ELT Res J 1(1):53\u0026ndash;62. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.udead.org.tr/journal\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.udead.org.tr/journal\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirkpatrick A (2009) English as the working language of ASEAN: pedagogical principles and implications. In: Ward C (ed) Language teaching in a multilingual world. SEAMEO RELC Anthology Series, vol 50. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, pp 211\u0026ndash;224\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirkpatrick A (2012) English in ASEAN: implications for regional multilingualism. J Multiling Multicultural Dev 33(4):331\u0026ndash;344. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01434632.2012.661433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirkpatrick A (2017) Language education policy among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Eur J Lang Policy 9(1):7\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3828/ejlp.2017.2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (2019) Language-in-education policy in Asia: An overview. In A. Kirkpatrick \u0026amp; A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eRoutledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;13). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315666235-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee HY, Hamid MO, Hardy I (2022) Problematising ASEAN language policy: Is the ASEAN way the only way? Lang Probl Lang Plann 46(1):55\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.21044.lee\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1075/lplp.21044.lee\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee HY, Hamid MO, Hardy I (2024) Language policy at the supranational level: English and the ASEAN. Springer Nat 37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73400-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-73400-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee HY (2025) The handbook of plurilingual and intercultural language learning. Wiley Blackwell. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/9781394165957.ch12\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9781394165957.ch12\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLopriore L (2021) More than meets the eye: Research and practice in Italian foreign language policies and education. Eur J Appl Linguistics 9(1):69\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2020-0025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/eujal-2020-0025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaraf B, Vanci Osam U (2023) The smile revolution (hirak) as a driving force for an English 'tidal wave' and foreign language policy-making in Algeria. Curr Issues Lang Plann 24(2):179\u0026ndash;200. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2039510\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14664208.2022.2039510\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcLelland N (2017) Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen MXNC, Nguyen VH (2019) Language education policy in Vietnam. In: Kirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia. Routledge, pp 185\u0026ndash;201\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePg Redzuan FA (2020) A comparative study on motivation in foreign language learning in Brunei and Malaysian universities. Southeast Asia: Multidisciplinary J 20(1):16\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SEAMJ-01-2020-B1003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SEAMJ-01-2020-B1003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePham TN (2014) Foreign language policy. In L. T. X. Tran, S. Marginson, H.-D. Meyer, \u0026amp; T. Vu (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHigher education in Vietnam\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 169\u0026ndash;183). Palgrave Macmillan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/9781137436481_8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/9781137436481_8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePugong L, Pelila JRO, Desalit JB, Soliba BL (2024) A scoping review of language programs and policies in ASEAN countries. Indonesian J Res Educational Rev 3(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 1181. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v3i2.1181\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 1181. 10.51574/ijrer.v3i2.1181\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaeed M, Varghese M, Holst M, Ghazali K (2018) Student perspectives of medium of instruction in Malaysia. In: Barnard R, Hasim Z (eds) English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalomone R, Salomone RC (2022) The rise of English: Global politics and the power of language. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaud S, Abduh A (2017) Foreign language roles in Indonesian education. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 8th International Conference of Asian Association of Indigenous and Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 168\u0026ndash;170). Atlantis Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2991/icaaip-17.2018.39\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2991/icaaip-17.2018.39\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSEAMEO QITEP in Language \u0026amp; Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (2023) \u003cem\u003ePolicy brief: Language policy in ASEAN countries\u003c/em\u003e (Final Rev. 2). SEAMEO QITEP in Language. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.qiteplanguage.org/assets/files/dokumen/Policy%20Brief%20Inggris-Final-Rev2.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.qiteplanguage.org/assets/files/dokumen/Policy%20Brief%20Inggris-Final-Rev2.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSEAQIL (2019) \u003cem\u003eProceedings: The 10th Governing Board Meeting of SEAMEO QITEP in Language.\u003c/em\u003e SEAMEO QITEP in Language\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin H (2007) English Language Teaching in Korea: Toward Globalization or Glocalization. In: Cummins, J. and Davison, C., Eds., \u003cem\u003eInternational Handbook of English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, (pp. 75\u0026ndash;86). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolano-Campos A, Burns M (2022) English as a foreign language policy in Latin America: The neoliberal multilingual nationalism of Costa Rica. Comp Educ Rev 66(4):643\u0026ndash;663. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/721793\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/721793\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpolsky B (2009) Language management. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpolsky B (2013) Language management. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpolsky B (2021) Rethinking language policy. Edinburg University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor-Leech K (2019) Postcolonial language-in-education policy in globalised times: The case of Timor-Leste. In A. Kirkpatrick \u0026amp; A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 298\u0026ndash;311). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235-21\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315666235-21\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTochon FV (ed) (2015) Language education policy unlimited: Global perspectives and local practices. Deep University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversity of the People (2023) The 12 most important languages to learn. Univ People \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.uopeople.edu/blog/most-important-languages-to-learn/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/most-important-languages-to-learn/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatzke JL (2003) Lasting change in foreign language education: a historical case for change in national policy. Praeger\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang X (2023) The development and enlightenment of foreign language education policy of early 16 years after the founding of the People's Republic of China. J Educ Humanit Social Sci 13:140\u0026ndash;145. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v13i.7884\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.54097/ehss.v13i.7884\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung C, Igcalinos T (2019) Language-in-education policy development in the Philippines. In: Kirkpatrick A, Liddicoat AJ (eds) The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZein S, Stroupe R (2017) English and language-in-education policy in the ASEAN Plus Three Forum. Asian Englishes 19(3):193\u0026ndash;196. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1389061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13488678.2017.1389061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZein S (2020) Language policy in superdiverse Indonesia. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C, Zhao R, Huang Y (2025) The evolution of ASEAN\u0026rsquo;s language policies: A diachronic analysis of official documents and website. PLoS ONE 20(1):e0315076. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315076\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0315076\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"ASEAN, foreign language education policy, language policy, multilingualism and multiculturalism, Southeast Asian languages","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper presents a portion of the findings from a larger research project conducted through collaboration between Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia and Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel (QITEP) in Language (SEAQIL) from 2021 to 2023. The project aimed to investigate foreign language education policies in ASEAN countries. This paper focuses specifically on foreign language education policies and the role of Southeast Asian languages within these policies. The study involved 4,342 upper secondary and tertiary students in 11 Southeast Asian countries completing surveys designed to gather their perspectives and experiences with foreign language education. It also involved 11 experts in foreign language education policy, providing deeper insights into policy implementation and challenges through focus group discussions, complemented with an analysis of the relevant policy documents. The study found that English dominates as the primary foreign language taught across the countries, reflecting its role as the regional lingua franca. Southeast Asian languages, though culturally significant and of interest to students, remain largely absent from foreign language curricula and lack strong policy and legal support. Challenges to incorporating these languages include insufficient institutional backing, limited teaching resources, and the absence of cohesive national frameworks. The findings suggest that for Southeast Asian languages to play a more significant role in the education system, there must be stronger support through national policies and legal backing, and Southeast Asian languages should be integrated into foreign language education policies to promote linguistic diversity and regional identity in the Southeast Asian context.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Foreign Language Education Policies in Southeast Asia: English Dominance and the Roles of Southeast Asian Languages","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-03 22:50:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8859025/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T06:43:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T10:06:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"152616926183228412206646467413924309887","date":"2026-03-31T11:00:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"280334448032384350286588343014251342645","date":"2026-03-31T10:53:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-31T10:29:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-31T09:49:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T10:50:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-25T11:07:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-03-25T10:24:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2d6dd399-3ad9-483f-943d-7380e0c7d120","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 3rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":65462967,"name":"Humanities/Cultural and media studies"},{"id":65462968,"name":"Social science/Cultural and media studies"},{"id":65462969,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":65462970,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":65462971,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"},{"id":65462972,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-03T22:50:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-03 22:50:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8859025","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8859025","identity":"rs-8859025","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}