Given below is a number of articles (some in extract form) expressing what may be called non-mainstream views.
The first article speaks about religious conversions and integration during Abbasid’s rule. But is anyone expecting integration via religious conversions in Malaysia? Not that we know of. Isn’t expecting that an extremism of a kind?
The second and third articles, written by a Malaysian student overseas, talks about complaints when filling forms requiring stating one’s race, and states that there is no such thing as a Malaysian race or Bangsa Malaysia. How do we identify ourselves then? And the writer is not proud to be a Malaysian. Not yet, he says. For reasons that are yet to be fully justified.
So many Malaysians ask the rakyat to respect the Constitution of the country when talking about integration and national unity but the writer of the fourth article below asks BN, the alliance of political parties in power, to respect the Constitution. He talks about “constitutional guarantees .. lack of press freedom .. high achievers of all races living overseas” not wanting to come back and “Every day cases are being filed in the courts by people of different races challenging laws and decisions on Constitutional grounds”, says he. Pretty strong words but see if he provides the proofs or justifies his statements in the article.
The article after that talks about the institution of rulers. It sounds seditious as the institution is protected under the Sedition Act. It also subverts Article 153 guaranteeing the position and the role of the rulers and the Special Position of the Malays which, the British Colonial Secretary told the British Parliament in the 50s, has been there “since day one”, recognised and accepted by them since they first had contacts with this country. It shows the extent people go to further their objective. This kind of acts makes integration and national unity difficult. It is hoped that the authorities would take action on such seditious and subversive writings.
The last article dwells on what a lawyer wrote in Nanyang Siang Pao asking what else do the Chinese want. Another writer in China Press says the Chinese is unable to compete in a situation of no power (“tiada kuasa”). Having got economic power and control, they still talk about political power. Is that being reasonable? Shouldn’t there be give and take? Shouldn’t it be on the basis of the population ratio in the country? And, isn’t it that the Malays are being asked to compete, and on an uneven playing field? On vernacular schools, the Dong Zong, having been allowed to continue using Mandarin as the medium of instruction in Chinese schools, despite Article 152 on Bahasa Malaysia, wants more.
The fact that the Chinese have the means to run quite a few newspapers and other forms of mass media makes it appear as if there is a lot of dissent in the country. It is not true; the dissent is limited. The same groups of people talking and getting published here and there. There is a silent majority out there which has not been vocal due to their accomodating and pleasant nature, their sense of responsibility and respect for the Constitution, and having limited financial resources to acquire the means to speak up, either newspapers, computers, private TV, radio stations, etc. It is expected that affirmative action will continue and it will enable more of the silent majority to acquire wealth and education so that an increasing number of them would speak up to balance the demands for action in terms of integration and national unity.
Let’s discuss these.
This may be a long posting but, having been given the synopsis above, you may choose the articles you wish to read in detail. However, reading the articles alone without reading the comments made by the readers may not be doing justice to yourselves because the other side of the coin is usually in the comments.
Everyone is welcomed to comment, either in Bahasa Malaysia or in the English language for maximum audience coverage.
Integration with integrity — Art Harun
May 21, 2010
One of my favourite examples of pure racial and religious integration is the one which existed during the Abbasid rule.
In an atmosphere as culturally and intellectually vibrant as Baghdad was during the Abbasid’s rule, inter-faith and inter-religion relations were at their best. In Baghdad, Christians lived near a Jacobite monastery on the bank of the Tigris. Muslims would take part in Christian celebrations such as the Palm Sunday and likewise the Christians would honour the Eid-ul-Fitr together with the Muslims.
The people were free to practise their respective religions, without fear and without any kind of compulsion. A medieval Egyptian historian noted that the mixing and matching of festivals “was a sign of mutual respect and brotherhood between the religions…moreover, some of the converts to Islam, as Muslims, continued their old practices even after accepting Islam.”
Now that account shows not only a pure, unadulterated integration between various races of different faiths, but also assimilation of them into one single society.
Harun al Rasyid’s relationship with the Byzantine’s Empress Irene in Constantinople meant a peaceful co-existence between the two religious powerhouses. But when Irene’s finance minister, Nicephorus, overthrew her, the situation changed immediately.
After a letter from Nicephorus saying that Harun should be giving the Byzantine his wealth and blaming the peaceful co-existence between Harun and Irene to “weakness of women and their foolishness,” Harun marched into central Anatolia and captured Heraclea.
It was at this time that Christians were treated shabbily in Iraq as Abbasid nationalism ruled the day.
At about the same time, the peaceful co-existence also existed in Muslim Andalus, especially in its capital, Cordoba, which was ruled by the remnant of the Umayyad Caliphate who fled from the Abassid after the infamous “dinner of reconciliation” in Damascus.
Muslims, Christians and the Jews were living in harmony. The Court doctor was a Jew. The trading network was monopolised by the Jews. Jewish translators were used to translate the works of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. Christians were running the Caliphate. In fact, in the last bastion of Muslim Andalus, Granada, Samuel ibn Nagrela, better known as Nagid (a Hebrew term for “Governor”) was the Muslim army chief, who fought for his country, alongside Muslim soldiers whom he commanded. He was also oversaw public works, building of a library, mosque, gardens. He even wrote extensively on Hebrew dialects.
Samuel was succeeded by Joseph, his son.
Again, just as it was fragile in Baghdad, it was also fragile in Muslim Andalus. It took a Muslim to destroy Samuel’s legacy and Joseph.
His biggest enemy was a Muslim, Abu Ishaq. Abu Ishaq was out of favour with the Berber Princes who ruled Granada. Driven by envy, Abu Ishaq would berate the Granada prince for having “an infidel as his secretary”. He said:
“through him (Joseph), the Jews have become great and proud and arrogant… and how many a worthy Muslim humbly obeys the vilest ape among these miscreants. And this did not happen through their own efforts but through one of our own people who rose as their accomplice. Oh why did he not deal with them….. Put them back where they belong and reduce them to the lowest of the low, roaming among us, with their little bags, with contempt, degradation and scorn as their lot, scrabbling in the dunghills for coloured rags to shroud their dead for burial.”
Joseph was dragged by a mob, beaten and crucified. Hundreds of Jews were subject to terror and death in 1066 Granada.
Bigotry also existed on the Christian side. Before the Granada episode, a Jewish monk, Isaac, had sought to start anti-Islam revolt simply because he was disappointed at the rate of conversion from Christianity to Islam.
He started this by appearing before a leading Muslim judge and said that Muhammad wasn’t a true Prophet and that he would go to hell. After refusing to recant, he was sentenced to death, prompting a Christian revolt that lasted eight years.
About 50 Christians including women, young and old, sought death sentences by denouncing Islam and were promptly sentenced to death by the Muslims. Some of them were canonised by the Church, including one Eulogius. The story of these Christian martyrs was later used to rouse anti-Islam sentiments until the Muslim kingdom fell to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492.
We could learn a thing or two about integration from that part of history.
i. Integration comes with a complete understanding and acceptance of different cultural background and faiths;
ii. Integration exists in periods of peace and security when everyone of different races does not have any kind of racial fear or complexes;
iii. Integration is fragile. It has to be constantly and consistently nurtured and practised. We have to continuously be conscious of our neighbour’s sensitivities, needs and limitations;
iv. Its fragility may see it destroyed in a few moments. Political or personal agenda (Abu Ishaq’s envy); religious agenda (Isaac’s scheme); unnecessary or unbridled nationalism (Harun al Rasyid’s war against the Byzantine); hatred and bigotry (Abu Ishaq’s declaration).
Notice what Abu Ishaq said. Is it not the same with the “pendatang” and “second class” pronouncements here? Notice Abu Ishaq’s rave that the Jews are rich and well off. Is it not the same with statements made by some of our leaders — past and present — and the likes of Perkasa?
At the end of the day, we cannot rely on others, and that includes the government, when it comes to racial integration. This affects our daily lives.
And so we have to take it upon ourselves — the man in the mirror, so to speak — to take steps, no matter how small they may be, towards integration.
And if we have not done so yet, I would say today would be a good day to start.
Ethnic Descent, Nationality and Race: What is a Malaysian?
Written by johnleemk on 11:44:39 am Jul 21, 2008.
If there were a “Stuff Middle- and Upper-class Malaysians Like” listing to complement the several other blogs about such topics out there (Stuff White People Like being the most famous), one entry that would definitely have to be on the list is making an issue out of the need to declare our ethnic origin on government forms. Every once in a while, this issue flares up, and a lot of people take a good point too far, suggesting that we eradicate the notion of race altogether from the public sphere by filling “Malaysian” as our race in on all forms. This is a very misplaced idea, which does not do justice to the real, pragmatic world we live in.
I am probably among the most committed to race-blindness out there. I don’t think we should judge race in itself as a positive or negative qualification; it may be correlated with intelligence or physical ability or what-have-you, but because we already have measures for intelligence and physical ability, there is no need to incorporate a test of racial origin. Heck, I am one of the very few people in Malaysia who would openly say that yes, there is a trade-off between being Malaysian and being Malay/Chinese/Indian/Kadazan/whatever — and that when in doubt, we should err on the side of being Malaysian.
I don’t see the need to pretend race doesn’t exist. For one, ethnic descent has a huge correlation with culture and mindset: the way I think and the way a Malay thinks are very different. Although it is actually very difficult to generalise in this area — I differ a lot from the way many Chinese think — we do not have a better test for determining mindsets and beliefs just yet.
Nobody has ever eradicated racism from their society. The easiest way to tell if racial discrimination is going on is to look at the way the typical person from one race treats the typical person from another race, and yet if we maintain the fiction that race does not exist, there is no way to tell that discrimination is going on. If we do not look at the demographics of individual ethnic communities, we can maintain the fiction that all is well, but if one community is clearly lagging behind the rest, it will be very obvious to the man on the street — and this does not bode well for maintaining race-blindness.
In essence, I am arguing for something between looking at race in everything, and looking at race in nothing. There are clearly times when it is important for an institution to know someone’s ethnic background, and there are times when it is obviously irrelevant. To apply one blanket rule simply for the sake of applying a blanket rule is ridiculous.
Of course, in difficult and complicated issues like this, charting a course of compromise can be practically impossible. In an imperfect world, you cannot perfectly implement perfect ideals; there will be an unnecessary intrusion of race into some areas of policy, and in other areas, we will unnecessarily shrink from race out of the fear of being politically incorrect. But it is important, I think, to make it clear that although race should rarely be a relevant issue when it comes to making determinations about an individual person, there are times when it is necessary.
This goes beyond merely collecting demographic information, after all. Putting aside the impossible issue of how to define “black” or “white”, in the US, blacks take different medication for heart disease than whites. There is evidence that Chinese and whites do not have the same ideal body mass indexes. And, as alluded to earlier, when one community lags dramatically behind another in some measurable manner, this information can be incredibly helpful in policy formulation and implementation.
Yet, there is something a little icky about declaring your “race” on a form. The stark nature of the term and the weight of its historical baggage make it seem almost wrong to declare that your “race” is “Malay” or “Iban” when you think what really ought to matter is that you are Malaysian. It’s easy to see where the “My race is Malaysian” crowd is coming from.
But as many a pedant has troubled to observe, there is no such thing as a Malaysian race. Making a statement about your race is simply making a statement about your ancestors. When we ask for your race, we are not asking about your Malaysian ancestors; we are asking who your ancestors were before there was a Malaysia. To describe them as Malaysian is really a bit of falsehood.
This may seem like quibbling over semantics, but language is particularly powerful when it comes to a loaded issue like ethnicity and nationality. We have to be really clear that we have gone beyond the petty racism of apartheid or the racial lynchings of the American Jim Crow era. The issue in modern society is not race or what it has to do with your nationality; it is simply, for the purposes of record-keeping, who you trace your descent back to.
My ethnic descent is not Malaysian; I am Chinese with some Filipino thrown in. But my nationality is Malaysian. My nationality entitles me to make my home in Malaysia, to have a say in how Malaysia is run. But my ethnic descent is where my roots lie, and is an important aspect of defining what Malaysia and being Malaysian means to me. It is the same for any other Malaysian; we bear the traces of our roots in how we think and act. There are differences between a Malaysian of Malay descent and a Malaysian of Indian descent, and to deny these differences is foolishness. But rather than dwelling on these differences, as the label of “race” might have us do, let’s celebrate how regardless of who our ancestors were, we all have one homeland, one tanah tumpahnya darahku.
3. Proud to be Malaysian?
Written by johnleemk on 4:11:05 am Sep 29, 2007.
One holds that Malaysia is so behind compared to other nations; that it is regressive, either in physical, mental, or cultural infrastructure.
The other holds that Malaysians have much to be proud of, much to cherish, much to make us happy, and that we just don’t appreciate it.
Being an overseas Malaysian myself now (at the moment, for my studies; I have no firm plans for my post-graduate life), I feel I can better appreciate and sympathise with both views.
It is definitely quite easier to criticise the country at home; you are presented a warped view of the outside world. The government paints home as paradise, foreign establishments paint their homes as paradise; the human instinct to perceive the grass as greener on the other side kicks in.
Likewise, it is extremely difficult not to appreciate what Malaysians have that other countries don’t. We complain about racial tension, but racial jokes which barely raise an eyebrow at home are crazily controversial in that supposed bastion of freedom, the United States.
The thing you really miss most about home as a Malaysian, I would suppose, (other than the food of course) is the people. That’s hardly surprising; the people are what make any country what it is, and Malaysia has been blessed with one of the most plural and interesting mixes of people you could expect.
It is thus difficult for me to sympathise with those who insist that Malaysia is vastly inferior, that it ought to simply ape other countries; there is a lot others could learn from us, a lot that we have which other countries don’t. In short, we have a lot to be proud of.
But at the same time, it is impossible for me to declare that I am proud to be a Malaysian. I have no doubt that Malaysia is a country that one can be proud of.
Yet at the moment, it is a country that one cannot be proud of. How can I be proud of my country when I am told it is not my country? How can I be proud of my country when millions of my countrymen are denied access to the opportunities I had?
How can I be proud when a citizen can be tossed in jail for something he did not even write, without even being charged for a crime? How can I be proud when even academics have no freedom to think?
BN must respect the constitution — David D. Mathew
May 19, 2010
MAY 17 — After years of slumber, the guarantees contained in Malaysia’s most important document is slowly rising like a phoenix from the ashes to shine into the hearts and minds of ordinary Malaysians.
Ibrahim Ali claims that the Chinese are ungrateful for not voting Barisan despite the many election goodies thrown at them.
The Prime Minister believes that the Barisan machinery in Sibu moved in old and traditional ways and that the coalition needed to be more creative and energetic.
In a wave that has begun with the Chinese and Christians all over Malaysia, voters are voting with enlightened minds inspired by the drive to see to it that Constitutional guarantees are met.
Thanks to initiatives such as the MyConstitution campaign by Bar Council’s Constitutional Law Committee to simplify the Federal Constitution and to reach out to 6 million households, Malaysians are no longer ignorant about their most precious of rights.
The promise of a new bridge will no longer guarantee you a man’s vote unless you can guarantee that he can assemble his friends and walk freely in a group across that bridge without first having to seek police permission.
The promise of a new school will no longer guarantee you a man’s vote unless you can guarantee that his child is entering an education system that is blind to colour but alive to need.
The offer of millions of ringgit for development will no longer guarantee you a man’s vote unless you can guarantee that his freedom to enjoy that development will never be taken away without due process.
The promise of three million ringgit for missionary schools will no longer guarantee you a man’s vote unless you can guarantee him that he can practice his religion freely without restrictions such as on the words he uses.
The promise of a flood mitigation system will not guarantee you a man’s vote because he realizes that he has, in the first place, a fundamental right to live safely and freely without having to worry about floods.
The fact that two polling centres were forced to open an hour late last Sunday because the Rejang River broke its banks is illustrative of this. Voters who had to wait for the waters to recede must have wondered why they were unable to exercise their right to vote because a necessity like a flood mitigation system was not already in place.
Money for this flood mitigation system should not be a problem given the fact that millions upon millions are poured into significantly less urgent matters like defence spending and not one but two Formula One teams.
Until and unless the BN begins to let itself be guided by the Constitution, it will continue to bleed support.
Eventually, the spread of Constitutional awareness and the demand that its guarantees are implemented will engulf the hearts and minds of every person of every race in Malaysia.
Young people of various races are already walking around in the sweltering heat reading newspapers upside down in protest against the lack of press freedom in the country. High achievers of all races living overseas are demanding for meritocracy and equal opportunity before they return.
Non-governmental organizations comprising of members from all races are calling for reforms with fiercer urgency. Every day cases are being filed in the courts by people of different races challenging laws and decisions on Constitutional grounds.
The spirit of Constitutional guarantees will outlive the laws and policies that seek to stifle them.
It may take awhile but there will come a day when all who stand against the fundamental liberties will be marginalised.
Rakyat dan institusi Diraja — Mohd Rashidi Hassan
May 21, 2010
21 MEI — Sejarah tidak pernah menafikan bagaimana eratnya hubungan antara orang-orang Melayu dengan institusi Diraja. Sejak zaman dahulu kala, orang-orang Melayu begitu sinonim dengan ketaatan dan kesetiaan kepada Raja.
Di atas ketaatan dan kesetiaan itulah yang memungkin wujudnya system beraja di sembilan buah negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia, walaupun penjajah British dan Umno-Barisan Nasional sudah menukarkan fungsi Raja-Raja Melayu daripada pentadbir kepada Raja Berperlembagaan sahaja.
Dalam apa pun keadaan, kedaulatan dan kemuliaan Raja-Raja Melayu tetap dipelihara dan dijunjung rakyat jelata di seluruh pelusuk negara.
Buktinya, Perkara 181, 153, 152 dan lain-lain (dalam Perlembagaan) yang berkaitan dengan kuasa Diraja termasuk Perkara 38 dan 43 di mana Yang di-Pertuan Agong mempunyai kedudukan tertinggi dalam system beraja tetap terjamin dalam negara.
Fungsi Raja sebagai payung kepada orang-orang Melayu khususnya, dan juga sebagai Ketua Agama Islam di negeri masing-masing, sehingga kini begitu ditaati dan dipatuhi setiap rakyat.
Namun, dewasa ini wujud di kalangan rakyat yang dilihat semakin berani mempertikaikan titah Sultan dan Raja.
Mengapakah keadaan ini boleh berlaku sekarang? Apakah Sultan atau Raja begitu maksum sehingga tidak boleh menerima nasihat dan disanggah sama sekali?
Ada dua elemen yang boleh mendorong Raja disanggah. Pertamanya, baginda tidak adil. Keduanya, baginda tidak memelihara kesucian agama.
Ketidakadilan seseorang Raja boleh dikaitkan dengan tindakan penguatkuasaan pemerintahannya yang berat sebelah.
Misalnya, apabila Mursyidul Am PAS, Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat hendak berucap di Masjid, ada titah yang melarang beliau berbuat demikian, atas alasan PAS membawa politik dalam masjid. Seharusnya pihak berkuatkuasa agama menyatakan bukti, pada bahagian mana ucapan Tuan Guru bercanggah dengan Islam atau melanggar titah Raja.
Bandingkan pula dengan tindakan Umno-BN, yang menganjurkan solat hajat dan bacaan yassin untuk memenangkan calon BN yang bukan Islam. Jelas, BN menggunakan masjid untuk kempen politik, malah mendoakan kemenangan untuk memuliakan bukan Islam di masjid.
Bukankah tindakan Umno-BN ini mencemar kemuliaan masjid dan melanggar titah Raja? Mengapa tiada institusi agama yang bangkit? Mengapa tiada titah Raja dikeluarkan dalam hal ini?
Barangkali di sini, bukan salah Raja. Tetapi Umno-BN melalui institusi agama yang dikuasainya, memperalatkan Raja untuk kepentingan politik mereka. Ini tidak adil!
Perkara yang kedua terpenting ialah soal kesucian agama. Raja sebagai tonggak negeri, Raja sebagai Ketua Agama Negeri.
Untuk itu golongan Diraja seharusnya mengelakkan wujudnya beberapa insiden yang mencemarkan institusi Diraja. Raja-raja, anak-anak Raja, bakal-bakal Sultan, dilaporkan pernah terbabit dalam insiden yang memalukan, sebagaimana yang dilaporkan media massa sebelum ini.
Ada yang dilaporkan berpeleseran di kelab malam. Ada yang didakwa mabuk sehingga bergaduh sesama sendiri di kelab malam. Ada yang dikatakan kuat berjudi.
Pokoknya, golongan istana harus memahami bahawa di zaman moden ini, tiada aral komunikasi, rakyat boleh melihat dan mengetahui dengan jelas perilaku mereka, tambahan pula jika ada kalangan golongan ini yang sentiasa bergelumang dengan maksiat.
Persoalannya, bagaimanakan golongan ini layak dihormati dan didoakan pada setiap kali solat Jumaat, jika sifat peribadi serta perilaku baginda tidak secocok sebagai Ketua Agama Negeri?
Justeru, jangan salahkan rakyat, jika rakyat bersuara, walaupun ianya kelihatan “menyanggah titah Raja”.
Raja yang akan dihormati dan didaulatkan, adalah Raja yang adil kepada semua rakyat baginda, tanpa mengira latar belakang bangsa, agama dan pemikiran politik.
“Raja adil Raja disembah, Raja zalim Raja disanggah.” — harakahdaily.net
Apa lagi pengundi Cina mahukan? — Mohd Khuzairi Ismail
May 26, 2010
Seorang peguam, Lee Shu Hua menulis mengenai perkara ini menerusi akhbar Nanyang Siang Pao terbitan 22 Mei lalu.
Penulis ini cuba menjawab persoalan yang sering diajukan selepas pilihan raya itu iaitu apakah sebenarnya yang dimahukan oleh pengundi Cina. Menurut Shu Hua, sejak 52 tahun negara merdeka, orang Cina hidup dalam persekitaran yang tidak sama rata.
Apabila kerajaan memberi sedikit kelebihan, mereka dipaksa untuk berterima kasih. Menjelang pilihan raya pula, mereka dipaksa mengundi kerajaan, jika tidak akan dianggap sebagai kumpulan lupa daratan dan tidak mahu berterima kasih.
Seorang penulis, Lee Zang menerusi akhbar China Press terbitan 23 Mei pula menjelaskan, orang Cina bukan sahaja mahu berubah, tetapi perubahan juga terpaksa dilakukan.
Orang-orang Cina tidak mahu menyokong BN kerana masih di takuk lama dan tidak mahu berubah.
Mereka juga tidak mahu cara lama BN berterusan dalam membawa Model Baru Ekonomi kerana ia hanya untuk kepentingan segelintir dan kroni-kroni yang menjadi kaya.
Kebanyakan rakyat di negara tanpa mengira kaum ini amat risaukan masa depan mereka. Bukan sahaja memikirkan mengenai mereka tapi untuk generasi akan datang terutamanya generasi baru kaum Cina.
Apa yang mereka mahukan ialah keadilan, terbuka, bebas dan menjadi negara maju. Ramai yang berpendapat jika mahu melihat negara ini maju, politik tidak boleh dimonopoli oleh sebuah parti.
Jika politik ini masih ditakuk lama, tidak ada masa harapan pada masa depan untuk mereka. Tulis Lee Zang lagi, dahulunya rakyat di negara ini dimonopoli oleh beberapa orang dalam BN menggunakan satu model dari satu kaum untuk memonopoli semua kaum.
Pemikiran dan model lama ini tidak memberi apa-apa kepada masa depan kaum Cina. BN hanya memberi kepada beberapa orang Cina menjadi menteri.
Jika BN menganggap satu hari nanti kaum Cina mendapat jalan ke arah kehidupan yang indah, ia hanyalah satu impian yang kosong. Pemikiran orang-orang Cina di negara ini lebih jauh dari itu.
“Kenapa saya berkata begitu? Kerana generasi akan datang akan bertanya: Kenapa kita juga rakyat Malaysia tetapi kita disekat daripada melakukan apa yang orang lain boleh buat? Apa yang boleh kita jawab? Kita akan memberitahu nasib kita telah digadai dan diputuskan oleh beberapa pemimpin yang bersejarah. Bukankah begitu?” tulisnya.
Lee Zang menambah, penduduk kaum Cina di negara ini semakin berkurangan. Jika polisi-polisi kaum di takuk lama itu masih tidak berubah, orang Cina tidak dapat bersaing dan kekal dalam keadaan “tiada kuasa”. Maka generasi Cina akan datang juga akan tetap disisihkan.
KPI Kementerian Pelajaran dan SRJKC
Sementara itu, akhbar Sin Chew Jit Poh menyiarkan sebuah artikel sekolah aliran Cina dan kaitannya dengan usaha Kementerian Pelajar mencapai sasaran indeks petunjuk prestasi (KPI).
Artikel bertajuk Masalah SRJKC dan panduan KPI itu ditulis oleh penulis yang menggunakan nama samaran Mai Siang. Menurutnya, imbuhan yang diumumkan oleh kerajaan sempena sambutan Hari Guru lalu menunjukkan Kementerian Pelajaran bersungguh-sungguh mencapai KPI.
Tetapi orang ramai tidak yakin adakah SRJKC juga dimasukkan dalam skop NKRA itu? Ini kerana selama 50 tahun sekolah aliran Cina, banyak masalah dan penyakit timbul kerana tidak dapat disetarafkan dengan pendidikan negara. Contohnya kekurangan guru yang mana timbul masalah apabila guru bahasa Cina diletakkan ke bahagian bahasa Melayu.
Keadaan ini berlaku kerana pendidikan kita terpisah kepada dua kategori iaitu bantuan penuh dan bantuan separuh.
Mengikut konsep 1 Malaysia yang sebenar, NKRA perlu dijalankan di semua jabatan di Kementerian Pelajaran termasuk di bahagian pembangunan SRJKC. Setiap tahun, gariskan keperluan guru-guru, bantuan dan penambahbaikan sekolah serta bilangan sekolah baru.
Masukkan perkara itu ke dalam bajet tahunan kewangan negara. “Dalam proses perlaksanaan itu, perlu diselaraskan semua bentuk perlaksanaan dengan NKRA. Ambil perhatian serius dan sepenuhnya surat-surat yang dikemukakan oleh Dong Jiao Zong dan cuba buat penambahbaikan dalam semua proses,” tulis Mai Siang.