The article “In the age of AI, some in China wonder if learning English is worth the trouble” (The Star, Sept 20, 2026) raises a timely question: if artificial intelligence (AI) can translate almost instantaneously, is it still necessary to devote so much classroom time to English?
The debate has surfaced in China against a backdrop of youth unemployment and industries being reshaped by AI, prompting parents and educators to ask which skills will still matter when today’s students graduate.
Malaysia might do well to ask a slightly different question: not whether English remains relevant, but whether we are teaching it for the world our children are entering.
For decades, English has been valued as a gateway to knowledge and the wider world. But if a machine can translate a sentence within seconds, we must reconsider what it truly means to know English. The question should shift from “How many English lessons should a child have?” to “What should a child be able to do with English in an AI-enabled world?”
Much of China’s frustration stems from curricula that emphasise grammar and examinations without necessarily producing genuine confidence or proficiency in the language. This is not an argument against English — it is an argument against teaching English in ways that no longer serve the learner.
Can AI replace understanding?
AI can translate, generate text and correct grammar, but language carries meaning, culture, intention and identity — dimensions that technology cannot simply replace. A learner who knows English can question an idea, understand different perspectives and participate meaningfully beyond the classroom.
This matters for equity too. If English becomes less central in schools, affluent families may still secure it through private means, while government schools remain the main window to English for many others. Education is not only about efficiency; it is about opportunity and access.
Rather than replacing the English teacher, AI can become another tool in the teacher’s repertoire. Students can use it to compare responses, identify inaccuracies, question assumptions and refine their own writing — developing judgement, critical thinking and communication in the process.
The English teacher of the future may become less a grammar instructor and more a facilitator of critical thinking, cultural understanding, communication and responsible AI use.
So, how can we make English education meaningful enough that AI does not render it irrelevant? The answer is to teach it better and for a different world.
AI makes genuine English proficiency more important, not less. Can a student recognise bias in a machine-generated response? Judge whether it suits its audience? Improve upon it? These are not just language questions — they are education questions.
The future belongs to those who know how to question, communicate and think — using technology without surrendering their own judgement. Perhaps, then, the real question is not whether English is still worth the trouble, but whether we are courageous enough to rethink what learning English should mean in the age of AI.
SAMIHA MOHD SALLEH
Kota Tinggi, Johor
