Yes, They Have Now Said It … Be Politically Correct

30 10 2010


Kami adalah sekumpulan rakyat yang prihatin (concerned citizens), mahukan perpaduan negara dan munculnya suatu Bangsa Malaysia yang tulen melalui sistem Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua (SSS).

Dalam pada Kempen SSS menonjolkan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai alat menyatu padukan rakyat, laman citra ini pada masa masanya menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris bagi maksud mendapatkan mereka yang ditujukan memahami sepenuhnya pesanan pesanan, penerangan penerangan dan hujah hujah yang dikeluarkan disini.

Pembaca dipersilakan membuat komen didalam Bahasa Malaysia atau Bahasa Inggeris dan SSS Admin akan menjawab didalam bahasa yang digunakan dikomen tersebut. Pendirian dan pandangan kami banyak terdapat dijawapan jawapan kapada komen tersebut.

Dengan kepercayaan bahawa keengganan menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa pengantar disekolah sekolah dan dikhalayak ramai adalah diakibatkan kurang faham atau kurang menghormati Perlembagaan negara sepenuhnya, maka perbincangan dilaman citra ini telah diluaskan kapada isu-isu tersebut dalam konteks perpaduan pada keseluruhannya. Harap maklum.


He did say about the need to be politically correct. But just look at the article by Tay Tian Yan below. Very clear he does not have an adequate knowledge or want to know more about the history of this country than those erroneous statements he puts out. Imagine, saying the history of this country began with the Malacca Sultanate. How shallow that is. He and the likes of him think the Malays had been here for only 500 years. And that the Hindu civilization of “1,400 years ago” was not Malay. That Malays are only those who converted to Islam en mass beginning with the Sultan of Malacca. Going by that perception, are the Chinese not Chinese before they accepted Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, the three religions in one that some one wrote in this blog in the past, that Professor C.P Fitzgerald said in his book on the History of China?

He has never heard of the Malay kingdom of Langkasuka (believed to be present day Patani), or the Greek records referring to the Golden Chersonese, Arab records or the Indian Pali texts, mentioning travels to the Malay Archipelago some 2,000 years ago, or the archaeological excavations in Batu Pahat and the Bujang Valley in Kedah since the days of Dr Alistair Lamb of the Universiti of Malaya many decades ago. He should definitely be advised to read such books as the “Encyclopedia of Malaysia, Early History”, edited by the Malaysian archaeologist Professor Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi himself, and “Tamadun Alam Melayu” by Mohd Arof Ishak, published by the Historical Society of Malaysia, 2009.

Lacking in knowledge of Malayan / Malaysian history has led him to question even the need for making History compulsory in schools. He talks about the teaching of History like the Americans do, as perceived by him. Such narrow mindedness. Devoid of a true perception of the racial problems that have been existing in this country since Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP started the chauvinist “Malaysian Malaysia” slogan, perpetuated by Lim Kit Siang and the DAP. A concept that subverts the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. One that does not show respect for the Social Contract entered into by the leaders of the major racial groups at Merdeka and the Constitution of the country that embodies that Social Contract. One that has been the latent cause of the 1969 race riots.

There is a need for “Persepsi yang sama tentang masa lalu”, says Dr. Firdaus Abdullah, Pakar Rujuk di Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya, in his article below that. Chauvinistic DAP Tony Pua jumped up with a negative perception, suggesting that the new policy would be an attempt at “indoctrinating school children with a narrow interpretation of the Constitution”. No sooner said than jumped. Like Lim Guan Eng accusing MACC of responsibility over Teoh Beng Hock’s death just as the Police were beginning their investigations, and the cause of death is not known until this very day.

These are the kind who must be taught the history of the country so that they know everybody’s contribution relative to one another and, more importantly, everybody’s place in Malaysian society. Article 8 of the Constitution says everybody is equal but Article 153 says the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak have a Special Position and attempts to make them catch up with – now far from equal to – the Chinese in wealth and education must be respected as well. It must be, for the sake of long-term unity, peace and prosperity.

The rest of the articles published in here serve to amplify the points raised. Let’s discuss them in the usual manner.


The need to be politically correct

Translated by DOMINIC LOH

You need to pass your Bahasa Malaysia paper to get your SPM certificate. This is something everyone can comprehend. This is Malaysia and there is a need for this.

Beginning 2013, an exam candidate must also pass history as well before he can get the same cert. But why?

People will tend to ask: Why not English? Or Maths? Or the student’s mother tongue?

These subjects are all very important. At least they carry some practical values in our quest for a developed and high-income nation.

Indeed, but while English, Maths, or another language are needed by the country, they are not politically needed.

History is politically needed.

For instance, our history started with the Malacca Sultanate, then Umno leading the nation to independence, the all-too-sacred invincibility of social contract, and BN steering the nation towards stability and prosperity… These important lessons need to be instilled in our future generations.

You must pass the History papers before we can get the cert, so students will never want to doze off in history classes and they need to go for history tuition classes after school. They also must make sure they remember all the facts and figures by heart before exams.

From that moment on, all the so-called politically correct facts must be etched deep inside the students’ hearts. They must never forget nor challenge them.

This psychological education meets all the political requirements.

While history is important, and there are indeed good reasons to make history a compulsory subject that students must pass in exams, there is nevertheless a prerequisite: this ruling should only be implemented in specific developed nations.

In these countries, history is not meant to re-engineer the students’ minds, but to inspire them. History is not made to serve the purpose of politics, but to elevate human characters and social progress.

For instance, in America’s history textbooks, the teachers would relate the history of European immigrants in North America, and then want the students to form study groups, search for information in the library and compile a report to debate whether the arrival of Europeans in North America had caused destruction to the Indian civilisation.

Or the teacher would talk about the Civil War, and then separate the students into two groups, one standing alongside the North while the other standing alongside the South, and debate about the benefits and influences of the War.

This is what we call true history education.

I can never imagine some day our teachers would allow their students to debate whether the history of the Malayan Peninsular began with the Hindu civilisation 1,400 years ago, or with the arrival of Parameswara in Melaka 500 years ago.

Similarly, other than Umno, MCA and MIC, the other political organisations, including the roles played by leftist movements in the country’s independence as well as as the British decision to forego this Far Eastern colony long before that, would never be touched on.

As for social contract, something that even the pros are still unclear of, the history textbooks will define based on political needs.

In developed countries, history education allows the students to think about and unveil the meanings of different types of arguments.

Moreover, the decision to make it compulsory to pass history was made in an Umno general assembly, not after in-depth deliberations by educational experts in a non-political situation.

Sin Chew Daily

MySinchew 2010.10.26


Kenapa DAP bimbang subjek Sejarah?

oleh Senator Datuk Dr. Firdaus Abdullah, Pakar Rujuk di Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya

October 29, 2010

Persepsi yang sama tentang masa lalu
Harapan yang sama untuk masa depan
Itulah matlamat yang hendak dituju
Pengajaran sejarah memegang peranan
Hubaya hubayah dakyah DAP
Mengungkit-ungkit isu perkauman
Subjek Sejarah seragamkan persepsi
Sekali-kali dihalang jangan

Kenapakah DAP tiba-tiba seperti melatah dan melenting bila Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Pelajaran Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin mengumumkan bahawa Sejarah akan dijadikan sebagai salah satu subjek wajib lulus untuk memperoleh Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) mulai tahun 2013?

Pengumuman itu sepatutnya disambut baik dan dialu-alukan sebagai satu langkah penting untuk membina rasa kebersamaan di kalangan generasi muda. Rasa kebersamaan (persamaan persepsi tentang sejarah masa lalu dan persamaan harapan untuk masa hadapan) adalah salah satu syarat utama untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa.

Dan ini akan dapat dicapai melalui satu silibus pelajaran Sejarah yang seragam yang sama-sama dipelajari oleh semua murid dan pelajar pada setiap peringkat sistem persekolahan kita. Begitulah seharusnya satu reaksi yang sihat terhadap pengumuman Muhyiddin itu.

Tetapi seorang pemimpin penting DAP, Tony Pua Kiam Wee telah memberi reaksi yang negatif dan tergesa-gesa mengadakan sidang media dan menzahirkan sikap buruk sangka dan rasa bimbang kononnya dasar baharu tentang pelajaran dan pengajaran Sejarah itu nanti akan menjadi satu “percubaan sembrono untuk mengindoktrinasikan para pelajar kita dengan satu tafsiran sempit tentang Perlembagaan.”

Dia bimbang (berprasangka?) kiranya sukatan baru pelajaran Sejarah itu nanti hanya akan tertumpu kepada Fasal 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan perkara-perkara lain berkaitan hak-hak keistimewaan Melayu.

Sekiranya Tony Pua mempunyai sikap yang lebih positif (bebas daripada sebarang prasangka negatif) mungkin akan lebih bertanggungjawab jika komentarnya berbunyi seperti ini: “Semoga dasar baru subjek Sejarah itu akan memberi peluang kepada generasi muda kita untuk melalui satu proses sosialisasi yang lebih sihat dan berkesan ke arah pembinaan satu negara bangsa.”

Tetapi untuk mengharapkan dia berkata begitu, mungkin satu perkara yang sia-sia sahaja, kerana itu bercanggah dengan agenda politiknya.

Dalam sidang media tersebut (yang tersiar dalam sebuah portal berita) Tony Pua juga telah merujuk pandangan satu pihak lain yang mendakwa bahawa keutamaan yang diberi kepada subjek Sejarah sebagai “wajib lulus” untuk dapat Sijil SPM pada masa ini adalah illogical kerana kononnya tidak sesuai dengan hasrat untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara berpendapatan tinggi.

Menurut mereka, seperti yang dikutip oleh Tony Pua, yang lebih patut diberi keutamaan ialah pengajaran Matematik, Sains dan Bahasa Inggeris.

Ertinya, secara tidak langsung dia cuba hendak mengalihkan perhatian kepada perkara lain dan melengah-lengahkan (jika tidak hendak dikatakan ‘memperlekeh’) kepentingan pengajaran dan pembelajaran sejarah dalam proses pembentukan sebuah negara bangsa.

Rasanya didorong oleh “prasangka negatif” itu jugalah maka Tony Pua menggesa Menteri Pelajaran supaya menubuhkan satu “badan penasihat bebas” untuk “merombak semula” (overhaul) subjek Sejarah itu sebelum dijadikan mata pelajaran wajib.

Dia mahu supaya badan penasihat bebas itu turut dianggotai oleh wakil-wakil Majlis Peguam (Bar Council) dan hakim-hakim ternama yang sudah bersara di samping pakar-pakar sejarah.

Saya melihat beberapa perkara tersirat yang menggusarkan dalam reaksi Tony Pua terhadap hasrat kerajaan untuk memberi keutamaan subjek Sejarah dalam sistem persekolahan kita.

Pertama, nada ‘sarkastik’ dan prasangka negatifnya, memaksa kita untuk bertanya apakah yang dia mahu sebenarnya dan kenapa dia begitu “takut” terhadap subjek Sejarah. Masing-masing kita mungkin mempunyai jawapan sendiri terhadap soalan seumpama itu.

Tony Pua cuba hendak “mempolitikkan” satu isu pendidikan. Di satu pihak dia cuba hendak memprojeksikan diri dan partinya sebagai “jaguh” yang senantiasa mengungkit-ungkit hak keistimewaan Melayu (terutama Fasal 152 & 153 Perlembagaan) dan dengan demikian secara halus ingin memenangi hati siapa-siapa sahaja yang “anti Melayu” (termasuk barangkali orang Melayu yang mengaku “liberal’).

Di satu pihak lain dia ingin melakukan “provokasi halus” terhadap MCA dan menyebabkan parti komponen BN yang dianggotai oleh orang-orang Cina itu berada dalam keadaan serba salah. Adakah MCA akan membiarkan dirinya menjadi “proksi” DAP dalam BN? Atau adakah MCA akan mengambil sikap yang lebih matang dan tidak membenarkan dirinya “lebih DAP” daripada Lim Kit Siang.

Apabila Tony Pua mencadangkan penubuhan “badan penasihat bebas” untuk “merombak” subjek Sejarah dalam sistem persekolahan kita itu, pada hemat saya, tujuannnya ialah hendak “memerangkap” pimpinan kerajaan (Kementerian Pelajaran) agar terjerumus ke dalam satu “polemik yang membazir”).

Polemik yang berlarut-larutan mengenai isu ini mungkin akan memberi keuntungan politik kepada DAP. Tetapi satu akibat sampingan yang jangan sampai dilupakan ialah pelaksanaan dasar (keputusan) baru mewajibkan subjek Sejarah untuk lulus SPM itu mungkin akan terjejas dan tertangguh.

Oleh kerana itu langkah yang bijak di pihak kerajaan ialah berdiam diri dan tidak usah melayan cadangan penubuhan “badan penasihat bebas” seperti yang disarankan oleh Tony Pua itu. Motif terselindungnya semakin jelas apabila dia mahu seorang wakil Majlis Peguam (Bar Council) duduk dalam badan penasihat bebas yang dicadangkannya itu. Kenapa Tony Pua tidak menyebut wakil Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia?

Akhurulkalam saya petik kutipan berikut yang pernah ditulis oleh seorang pengarang Amerika, Joseph Anderson (1836-1916): “ There is nothing that solidifies and strengthens a nation like reading the nation’s history, whether that history is recorded books, embodied in customs, instituitions and monuments.”

Muhyiddin telah berada di atas landasan dan jalan yang betul, jangan benarkan petualang-petualang politik menghalang hasrat mulia untuk mewajibkan mata pelajaran Sejarah sebagai salah satu syarat mendapatkan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia. — Utusan Malaysia


Jangan persoal hak Melayu

oleh Prof. Madya Dr. Mohd. Noor Yazid, Sekolah Sains Sosial, Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

October 23, 2010

Hak keistimewaan orang-orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak sepatutnya dipersoalkan oleh sesiapapun.

Tetapi anehnya, selepas Pilihan Raya Umum (PRU) 2008, hak keistimewaan orang Melayu sering disentuh dan dibangkitkan oleh pihak tertentu sama ada golongan bukan Melayu mahupun orang Melayu sendiri.

Kenapa ini harus terjadi? Pada hal, ia telah ‘terpahat kukuh dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang sangat sukar diganggu-gugat sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dalam ucapan dasar Perhimpunan Agung Umno 2010 kelmarin.

“Hak orang Melayu dilindungi sepenuhnya serta ‘terkunci kemas’ dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan tanpa dapat digugat dan kenyataan ini wajar diterima oleh semua kaum di negara ini.”

Najib menambah, “seandainya mempunyai dua pertiga dalam Parlimen pun, ia tidak akan mampu mengubah setitik apa pun jua, tanpa kebenaran Majlis Raja-Raja yang dianggotai oleh sembilan Raja-Raja Melayu.”

Hakikat ini perlu difahami oleh semua warganegara. Asas pemahaman Perlembagaan Negara mahu tidak mahu mesti difahami oleh setiap warganegara agar kita dapat bertindak dengan lebih tepat dan tidak terpesong dari jalan sebenar. Dalam masa yang sama, ia tidak digunakan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu bagi kepentingan mereka.

Dalam memahami hak-hak keistimewaan orang Melayu sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Perkara 153 (yang mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan ‘kontrak sosial’, ia perlu dikaitkan dengan sejarah perjuangan bangsa serta struktur negara. Bagi melihat dan memahami perkara ini, perkara 153 tidak boleh dilihat secara bersendirian. Hanya semata-mata membincangkan perkara 153, ia akan memungkinkan kita menjadi keliru. Di antara perkara yang berkait rapat dalam memahami perkara 153 adalah:

1. Perkara 38 (5)

2. Perkara 10 (4)

3. Perkara 8 (2)

4. dan perkara-perkara lain yang berkaitan.

Perkara 38 (5) adalah sangat penting difahami dalam membincangkan Perkara 153. Dalam Perkara 38 (5) menyatakan “Majlis-Majlis Raja-raja hendaklah dirundingi sebelum dibuat apa-apa perubahan tentang dasar yang menyentuh tindakan pentadbiran di bawah Perkara 153.”

Inilah di antara istimewanya Perkara 153 kerana ia tidak boleh dipinda hanya dengan suara majoriti dua pertiga Parlimen. Walaupun dua pertiga ahli Parlimen bersetuju meminda hak keistimewaan orang Melayu, ia tidak akan dapat dipinda sekiranya tidak ada persetujuan daripada sembilan orang sultan/raja Melayu.

Kadang-kadang timbul salah faham bahawa jika parti politik tertentu dapat menguasai dua pertiga dalam Parlimen, maka perkara yang berkaitan dengan hak keistimewaan ini akan dipinda dan diberikan hak yang sama rata kepada semua rakyat.

Pernah juga dikatakan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu bahawa hak istimewa ini adalah perkara lapuk lebih setengah abad lalu yang kini tidak lagi sesuai.

Memang Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan satu peruntukan tertentu mengenai hak kesamarataan yang terkandung dalam Perkara 8. Tetapi dalam Perkara 8 (2) juga ada dinyatakan dengan jelas ‘kecuali sebagaimana yang dibenarkan dengan nyata oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini…’

Ini bermaksud ada kekecualian ‘kesamarataan’ itu apabila ada dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam Perlembagaan sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Perkara 153 itu.

Perkara 153 ini mendapat kedudukan istimewa kerana ia tidak boleh dipersoalkan sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Perkara 10 (4). “Pada mengenakan sekatan-sekatan demi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya atau ketenteraman awam di bawah Fasal (2) (a), Parlimen boleh meluluskan undang-undang melarang dipersoalkan apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau prerogative yang ditetapkan atau dilindungi oleh peruntukan Bahagian III, Perkara 152, 153, atau 181 melainkan yang berhubung dengan pelaksanaannya sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam undang-undang itu.

Memang tak dapat dinafikan bahawa Perkara 153 adalah perkara yang istimewa dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang tidak boleh diubah. Kedudukannya amat konkrit dan tidak sepatutnya dipersoalkan oleh kaum lain.

Penulis melihat ada maksud tersirat dan falsafah yang tinggi nilainya di sebalik hak keistimewaan orang Melayu sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Perkara 153 ini, iaitu pembentukan satu rupa bangsa yang kuat dan stabil yang didokong oleh kumpulan majoriti yang besar sifat dan bilangannya.

Maksud tersirat adalah akan terbentuknya satu kumpulan bangsa Melayu (bukan bangsa Malaysia) yang dominan dalam jangka panjang. Bagi mengukuhkan hujah ini bahawa orang-orang Melayu itu (mengikut pentafsiran Perlembagaan Persekutuan) adalah bukan dilihat daripada segi biologi, tetapi lebih kepada sosio budaya dan undang-undang.

Bagi menyokong hujah ini, kita mesti merujuk Perkara 160 mengenai definisi ‘orang-orang Melayu’. Melayu mengikut Perkara 160 adalah ‘orang Melayu’ ertinya seseorang yang menganuti agama Islam, lazim bercakap bahasa Melayu, menurut adat Melayu dan – (a) yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka di Persekutuan atau Singapura atau yang lahir sebelum Hari Merdeka dan ibu atau bapanya telah lahir di Persekutuan atau di Singapura, atau yang pada Hari Merdeka berdomisil di Persekutuan atau di Singapura: atau (b) ialah zuriat seseorang yang sedemikian.

Tidak mudah memahami Perkara 153 dan hal-hal yang berkaitan tanpa menghubungkaitkan dengan perkara-perkara lain. Rumusan yang dapat dibuat bahawa Perkara 153 dan hal-hal berkaitan dengan hak istimewa orang Melayu adalah mempunyai niat baik dan tujuan positif bagi pembinaan negara bangsa khususnya dalam jangka panjang.

Tidak sepatutnya ada sesiapa yang menolak dan mempertikaikan perkara ini jika benar-benar faham dengan mendalam. Adalah wajar kenyataan Perdana Menteri dalam ucapan dasar Perhimpunan Agung Umno 2010 bahawa hak keistimewaan Melayu ini wajar diterima oleh semua kaum di Malaysia.

Sebagai parti politik besar seperti Umno, persoalan seperti ini perlu jelas agar orang-orang Melayu faham dan sedar tonggak sebenar perjuangan bangsa Melayu dan Umno, agar bangsa Melayu terus bersatu dan kuat bagi kestabilan negara dan pembangunan Malaysia. — Utusan Malaysia


Najib needs to preserve and promote the line of balance — Tay Tian Yan
October 25, 2010

There are few nationalist political parties left in the world today.

In an era with no intrusion and occupation by colonial powers, nationalism has lost its relevance in the battle for sovereign nationhood.

Today, passers-by would think it a film shooting if they see people in full ancient armour walking in Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. They would wonder whether these people have come to the modern world from ancient times through a time tunnel.

Of course, these armed warriors should not simply pick any passer-by to duel with them. They will scare everyone.

Nationalist political parties in many countries have changed with the times and transformed into modern parties after accomplishing their historical missions.

For example, the Kuomintang of China no longer shouts slogans calling for the rise of the Chinese people; the Indian National Congress (INC) no longer resists Western empires; and the African National Congress (ANC) no longer confronts apartheid.

They have walked out from history, took off their national costumes and replaced them with suits. They have transformed into modern parties that know how to manage their countries and regions well, and they have become competent governments that are respected in the international community.

Similarly, Umno, the most successful nationalist political party of the region, should also change with the times. Umno has ruled for more than half a century and it should now walk out from its own shadow to find a new position.

Undoubtedly, Umno is unable to give up nationalism, but it must at least get rid of communalism.

The speech given by Umno president and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak during last week’s party general assembly must have been well-pondered. The speech should represent his ideologies and the direction he wants Umno to take.

First, Umno must be an inclusive political party.

Most nationalist political parties will resist and exclude others to highlight their struggling roles in the early stage. But when they gradually reach a mature stage, they should reduce resistance and exclusivity, and replace them with open liberal leadership and inclusivity.

Whether Umno can be more inclusive depends on its attitude towards the disadvantaged and minority groups in the society. If it can create national wealth with openness, fairly manage national resources, and treat other racial groups impartially, its inclusiveness will then be demonstrated.

Secondly, Umno must eliminate the sense of insecurity among racial groups to resolve social conflicts.

Najib has stressed that everyone must abide by the social contract. He has also reiterated the spirit of the Federal Constitution.

He said that the special status of Malays is protected by the Federal Constitution and cannot be disputed. The rights of other racial groups are also guaranteed.

On one hand, he has to dissolve the right wing of the Malay community, such as Malay rights group Perkasa which has created a sense of insecurity in the Malay community, and fear among the non-Malays. On the other hand, he also has to tell non-Malays not to cross the original line of balance.

The line of balance has been the moat of the BN from the past to the present. The BN has to hold the line and draw the middle power to stabilise its rule.

However, with the provocation from the right wing and the attack of the liberal left wing, the line of balance is being shifted.

Umno has chosen to return to the original safe zone with an attempt to put an end to the threats from both wings.

While Najib is taking the moderate path and trying to gain support from party members, he must also persuade the Malay and non-Malay racial groups to regain their acceptance so that he can win the next general election and continue being the master of Putrajaya.

And Najib must also take diverse political landscapes and the rise of civic consciousness into account. —

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.




31 responses

30 10 2010

Kenapa sebahagian drp mereka membuat bising, nampak maca hendak menidakkan kepentingan pengetahuan Sejarah negara?

Mungkin kerana mereka:-

(1) mengekalkan serta menyuburkan lagi sekolah-sekolah vernakular

(2) tamak dan ingin menghapuskan hak-hak keistimewaan orang Melayu & Bumiputera melalju Sosial Kontrak. Walhal melalui Sosial Kontrak ini jugalah mereka TELAH MENDAPAT keistimewaan yang tiada tolok banding di dunia ini sehingga mereka dapat lahir di bumi ini.

(3) mahu identiti asing mereka dikekalkan di bumi ini dengan tidak mendaulatkan Bahasa Kebangsaan serta tidak mahu memahami adat resam tempatan yang menjadi teras kepada identiti negara.

Kenapa sebahagian Drp Mereka Melenting Terhadap Sejarah

31 10 2010
SSS Admin


Sebab yang besar ialah mereka enggan menerima hakikat bahawa ini adalah Tanah Melayu, Penjajah British pun menamakannya Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, sudah demikian lama dikenali sebagai Semenanjong Tanah Melayu, yang terletak di Gusugasn Pulau-Pulau Melayu, di mana orang Melayu berasal lebih 5,000 tahun yang lalu. Ini ada lah pendapat berpuluh pakar bahasa (linguists), pakar kaji maanusia (anthropologists), pakar kaji purba (archaeologists) dan sebagainya. Mereka telah membuat kajian saintifik sejak pertengahan abad 19 di masa perlayaran Captain Cook di Lautan Pacific, diteruskan dipertengahan pertama abad 20 dan dihebatkan dipertengahan kedua abad itu. Penerangan lanjut berkenaan perkara ini ada diberi di buku, “Tamadun Alam Melayu” oleh Mohd Arof Ishak, penerbitan Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia, 2009.

Mereka adalah “kiasu”, ia itu, tidak mahu kalah atau ketinggalan, atau sentiasa mahu menang, sehinggakan, selepas meninggalkan negara asal mereka tanah besar China, mahu menganggap mereka bukan pendatang, mahukan hak sama rata, masakan nenek moyang mereka sudah bersetuju bahawa Melayu ada Kedudukan Istimewa dan hal ini dirakamkan diPerlembagaan negara. Mereka yang bisingkan Sejarah dimestikan disekolah sekolah tidak menasabah dan tidak berpatutan – “not reasonable people”. Walhal keputusan bahru sahaja dibuat, silabus belom ditentukan. Maka mereka seperti cauvinis DAP Tony Pua coba “pre-empt” apa dikatakanya kemunkinan “mengindoktrinasi kanak kanak dengan interpretasi sempit Perlembagaan negara”. Mengarut dia.

Mereka di DAP, dan segelintir di parti Cina yang lain, membantah apa sahaja yang melambangkan dominasi kaum Melayu dinegara ini dan sentiasa mencari peluang membidas Kerajaan, Polis, MACC, Tentera dll dimana Melayu banyak menganggotainya. Melayu tidak harus menyokong mereka. Begitu juga bukan Melayu yang mahukan keharmonian dan keamanan jangka masa panjang di negara ini. Mereka berperanan didalam perkembangan politik yang membawa kapada trajedi 13 Mei 1969. Nyata mereka tidak mahu sejarah trajedi itu di ceritakan dengan lanjut dengan menunjukkan penglibatan mereka. Dan mahukan sejarah mengikut tafsiran mereka.

Malahan ada diantara mereka yang coba “meminda sejarah” seperti menulis di Wikipedia mengatakan Melayu menyebabkan Perang Larut diabad 19, pada hal nyata bunuh membunuh di antara kongsi gelap, penjahat dan gengster Ghee Hin dan Hai San yang telah memulakan pepernagan tersebut. Demikian juga mereka mengatakan pengganas kominis Chin Peng dan Partai Kominis Malaya itu “nasionalis”, pada hal mereka mahu menjatuhkan pemerintahan demokratik Malaya selepas British keluar, mahukan Malaya dibawah naungan tanah besar Cina Kominis.

31 10 2010

Yes. I agree with u Tan that history should be written as it was. Tell the whole story. Please include why the Raja2 and Malay leaders agreed to give citizenship to immigrants(now Rakyat) too. I hate 1 sided story too like this article of yours. Can u tell me Tan, why the Raja2 and Malay leaders did not send back all the immigrants like what Americans did to the exploited Chinese laborers almost slave-like, completed significant portion of the American rail-tracks & supporting infrastructures? Was is not bcz the Malays are very hospitable, grateful for the contributions of blood, sweat & soul and most importantly semangat setiakawan?

Mind u, back then the population ratio was almost 50:50 between Malays & non Malays. So it makes no sense for the Malays to just simply dole out free citizenship knowing th full extent of what they could miss out or lose. They could just disagreed with the British request to give citizenship to immigrants in order to gain independence. The Malays know sooner or later the British will give independence like Tay Tian Yan inferred.

The Malays won’t suddenly drop dead and die of starvation if the immigrants were sent back. Tanah Melayu was fertile and bountiful. Not like the harsh environment and war ravage ‘Motherland’. Thats why the immigrants came to Tanah Melayu in the 1st place. Its almost haven-like compared to ‘Motherland’.

So why did the Malay Raja2 and Leaders showed magnanimosity by giving out citizenship when many countries turned back the immigrants after gaining independence or completing the objective that brought them in? I would appreciate if u have a different story or wish 2 add some historical facts that I’m not aware of.

And why the part of Malay leaders going on roadshows,rapat umum & kampung 2 kampung talk to pacify the skeptical Malay majority with the plan to give out citizenship to immigrants not written in school textbooks? Is the Gov scared that the ignorant, backward, crutch-mentality, hate-mongers, racialist, racist, extremist majority of Malays would start to question the wisdom of past leaders in relation to the awarding of citizenship?

Tun Mahathir said that many among the inbred Malays are starting to question it already since the constant barking of anti Malay by anti unity non Malays. How should we teach these inbred Malays that the past leaders made a good call. Perhaps, the Gov should say the proof is in the pudding. Look at the majority of Malays. They are doing fine. Everything is honky dory. The unfortunate r poor & unemployed bcz of g.l.o.b.a.l.i.s.a.t.i.o.n, m.e.r.i.t.o.c.r.a.c.y and probably came from generations of generations of inbred which makes them inferior in many ways. Just live with it. God created Malays inferior.Thats the long & short of it.

“People(read:chauvinist) will tend to ask Why not 1)English Or 2)Maths Or the 3)student’s mother tongue. These subjects are all VERY IMPORTANT. At least they carry some practical values in our quest for a developed and high-income nation.. ”

What student’s ‘mother tongue’ got to do with this issue?
Its not even relevant to national education.
Why should the Gov gives a hoot whether a student can speak the language of immigrant ancestors?
If the parents want their children to speak immigrant language do it themselves la like the Chinese in the west are doing. I dont c any Chinese community demanding Australian,Brist

The chauvinist always refer to the West in many matters be it economy or equality but never about unity nor National Language.
Please point out specifically in the Constitution that it is the Gov duty to preserve,teach & maintain the usage of immigrant language.
Mother tongue of all Malaysians is Bahasa Malaysia.
Not Mandarin,Tamil,French,English or wateva.

When every single Malaysian acknowledge mother tongue is BM and Motherland is Malaysia and ancestors origin,culture,customs is not a priority than that is the time the Gov should stop classifying Malaysians according to race.

If 1 speaks primarily Chinese, educated in Chinese institution, practice Chinese customs, live & breathe like a Chinese from China, how can that person becomes offended if somebody called him a Chinese and not a Malaysian.

p/s: I think MI did not approve my comment. What a bunch of wankers.

1 11 2010
SSS Admin


History is what happened, when, where, who, how and why. Usually people are concerned about the interpretation of the how and the why but the kiasus also want the who interpreted their way. Hence the attempts at re-writing history on their own, for example, writing in Wikipedia that the Malays caused the Larut Wars of 19th Century Perak, when it was blatantly clear that the secret societies, thugs and gangsters brought in by the Ghee Hin and the Hai San rivalling and feuding tin mining clans were killing one another for control of tin mines. Menteri Ngah Ibrahim tried to pacify but the Malay tin miners with him were dragged into the fray and the situation erupted into large scale fighting over a period of years and Malay tin mines, which at one time numbered some 350, eventually disappeared.

That part of the history of Perak was one of Chinese secret societies, thugs and gangsters. They wouldn’t like all school children to know this. The Kapitan Cina and 44 gangsters signed a Petition asking the British in Penang (where they came from) to help regain tin mines lost to rival gangs, the British came and it led to the whacking of the poorly organised Malays and the signing of the Pangkor Treaty in 1874 and British colonial rule. It may be interpreted that the Kapitan Cina was treacherous to this country, petitioning the British to come in, resulting in 80 years of British colonialism. They of course would not like school children to know this, too.

The 1969 racial riots were another part of history that they would not like all school children to know as traceable to the so-called Malaysian Malaysia subversion of the Malay Special Position and the uncontrolled, wanton election victory jubilation, putting out highly racially provocative words and actions in the Malay Kampong Bahru, in the heart of the then Federal capital. They also may be averse to the idea that all pupils will be exposed to knowledge of the role of the Sultans and that, as the British Colonial Secretary said to the British Parliament in 1956, that the Malay Special Position had been there “since day one”. Similarly about how, for over a hundred years under British rule, they were stateless in this country and became citizens only after Merdeka i.e only 53 years ago, perhaps wanting their children to think that they were citizens of or had nationality rights to this country for ages and that they are not pendatang. They therefore jump and say all sorts even before details of the decision to make History compulsory in schools are known.

One wonders how much Malayan history is taught in Chinese schools and the angle that is being projected in the teaching of it. It is quite clear that respect for the Constitution is lacking there for, after all, they are not even bothered with the fact that Article 152 says Bahasa Malaysia is the National Language and should be the medium of instruction in all schools. On this score alone the MOE decision was correct and most welcome; it’s a measure of success for the Kempen SSS in respect of enabling all children to be exposed to various aspects of the Constitution, and making History a compulsory subject was stated in our Memo to the MOE. Of course, the DPM and MOE made the decision in response to the various speeches concerning History as a mandatory subject and about single-stream schooling or SSS made by the UMNO Assembly delegates.

It is a historical record that the British, in trying to win the support of the Chinese in the fight against the mainly Chinese communist terrorists, under the “Hearts and Mind” campaign conducted at the height of the communist insurgency “Emergency” situation, had persuaded the Rulers to grant citizenship to the Chinese. A few were reluctantly given but it ceased despite the fact that the communists continued their activities until Merdeka and well after that.

The British colonialists had used trickery, later force, since the time of Francis Light in the 18th Century. He promised the Sultan of Kedah British protection against the Siamese and a then huge annual sum of money for the Sultan and got the right for a trading post in Penang. That protection did not come when needed and the annual amount later turned out to be much smaller than originally promised. They used force sent from Penang when entering Perak on the pretext of responding to the petition sent by the Kapitan Cina and 44 gangsters in Larut, pursued it until the Pangkor Treaty was signed under the barrel of the gun in 1874 and British colonial rule started in the Malay states.

The British, having asked the Rulers to grant citizenship to the Chinese to win their hearts and minds against the communist terrorists, and not being prepared to spend the money (needing to send maximum revenue collected in Malaya back to Britain) to repatriate the Chinese workers they brought in back to China and India (like the Americans did to the Chinese Trans-America Railway construction workers and California Gold Rush diggers), had “advised” the Malay leaders to accept them as fellow citizens in an independent Malaya. No need to talk about arm twisting. Malay leaders like Tengku A Rahman were excited about governing ourselves during the “trial period” called the stage of “self rule”, with both elected and British-nominated representatives in the Government. They proved to the British an ability to work together when the Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats contested in elections held thereafter. The representatives of the Rulers and of UMNO agreed to citizenship for the non-Malays relatively quickly compared to the negotiations for the independence of India, which also had divisive factors – Hindus vs Muslims, which led to the creation of Pakistan.

As this reply is already lengthy, we’ll cover other aspects of your comment elsewhere in due course.

1 11 2010
SSS Admin


Indeed, that part about “Malay leaders going on roadshows, rapat umum & kampung2 to pacify the skeptical Malay majority with the plan to give out citizenship to immigrants” should be written in school textbooks to show that there were skeptical Malays who later agreed to citizenshipm for the non-Malays, about which the non-Malays should be grateful. Their ingratitude has often been written in newspapers, blogs, spoken at UMNO Assemblies and meetings. Making History compulsory would help the ingrates avoid seditious acts and utterances like on Bumi housing discount and Bumi equity target. Less questioning of the Malay Special Position, less reaction of questioning their citizenship, and better prospect for harmonious relations, peace and unity in this country.

God created mankind equal. But in different environments, climatic conditions, etc. The Jews had existed for over 3,500 years. They accepted religious teachings about exclusivity, didn’t even want others to know or learn about their religion. So much is said by commentators like Abdullah Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Translation and Commentary” and Professor Ameer Ali, “The Spirit of Islam”. They were disliked and left the Middle East wandering all over the places. Disliked and hated wherever they went. William Shakespeare wrote “The Merchant of Venice” about a Jewish merchant demanding in court “a pound of flesh” of the man who couldn’t repay his debt. Adolf Hitler killed 6 million of them during World War II. Until now they are hated for their “atrocious cruelties” and extreme selfishness in the Middle East. Perhaps being chased from place to place throughout history had made them a resilient lot.

In Malaysia, the Chinese have a somewhat similar background. The southerners were not well regarded in China, looked at as inferior by the northerners. They were given the “tongkat” by way of the Manchu Emperors allocating them a quota of 25% of the civil service posts in the country. They shun one another among the clans and sub-clans. Indeed, clan fights were frequent in the early history of Penang. The Hakkas are still despised by the others until today. Overall, they developed a sense of insecurity and kiasuness, lately manifested in blatantly seditious acts and utterances against Malay rights and interests.

The Malays originated in the Malay Archipelago where you throw a bulb or a tuber and they grow into food items, even floating coconuts spruce up by themselves when touching land, and the “umbut” as well as the fruits are edible. Perhaps this is the reason for the Malays of ancient times not finding a need to acquire wealth or to take risks and engage in profit-taking activities, and the Malays not having a culture of doing business. Risks they took, by sailing across oceans reaching Madagascar, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Indochina and Taiwan, even across the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii. Ingenuity they had, in terms of ship-building, navigational skills and related activities. And, with the NEP, they have started taking risks by doing business, and Malay businesses have reached Vietnam, the Middle East, etc.

Those asking “why not 1) English Or 2) Maths Or the 3) student’s mother tongue (be made compulsory)” simply are not bothered about the state of race relations in this country today and are extremely selfish, looking only after their own interest, much more than the national interest. The young must be imbibed with the spirit of nationalism, which can be achieved through a full understanding of the history of the country that they must be taught to be proud of and live respectfully in. They must be taught to respect and live with the Constitution, that which is the measure of a citizen’s loyalty to the country. Teaching History would invariably involve the background of the Constitutional process, of the fight for independence, of the roles of the various groups, and that “the founding fathers” of this country were certainly not those at Merdeka 53 years ago, because this country had been in existence, with established authority and a system of government, long, long ago.

You have raised other pertinent points that need to be addressed. But as this reply is also already long, your remaining points may be addressed later.

1 11 2010
SSS Admin


A properly drawn up History syllabus would enable children to understand how Bahasa Melayu (now known as Bahasa Malaysia) became stated as the National Language of the country, why it should be the medium of instruction in all schools, and why it should be the common language of all Malaysians. It has been the language used in this region since the time of the first contacts with foreigners. It certainly was the lingua franca when Malacca became an entrepot, attracting traders from many parts of the world in the 15th Century.

Article 152 of the Constitution has a proviso, that the use and study of “mother tongue” must not be denied. Mandarin is not mother tongue among the Chinese in Malaysia, not even in mainland China where it is the Offcial Language and the Central Government has been trying to make the southern Chinese use it, but protested to and demonstrated against in Canton and Hong Kong only months ago. There has been no objection to the use and the teaching of Mandarin in this country so long as it’s not for official purposes like as medium of instruction in schools and in public places, and at their own expense.

Yet some Chinese, including the MCA, are becoming extreme. Not only do they want Chinese schools to continue but also ask that those speaking for the merging of Chinese schools with the national schools using Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction be charged under the Sedition Act. Yet they are the same fellows who are really seditious and should be charged in court for asking that the 30% Bumi equity target be abolished.

Are they by nature confrontational, protesting and demonstrating endlessly? In south China, protest against the requirement to use Mandarin, in Malaysia, protest against the use of Bahasa Malaysia and want Mandarin as the medium of instruction? The Government must not be botherd by them – the mainland Chinese Government doesn’t bother about their protests on Mandarin.

‘mother tongue’ certainly has nothing to do with making History a compulsory subject in schools. True, “It’s not even relevant to national education”. True, the Constitution does not oblige the Government “to preserve, teach & maintain the usage of immigrant language” at all. Those are good points you made and must be repeated: “Mother tongue of all Malaysians is Bahasa Malaysia … When every single Malaysian acknowledges mother tongue is BM and Motherland is Malaysia …, then that is the time the Gov should stop classifying Malaysians according to race”.

As regards Malaysian Insider not publishing your comment, the same complaint has been made by others in this blog in the past. They sure have a warped sense of freedom of expression, calling for unbiased views and such, yet print only those views that fit with theirs. We, however, have published many rude and nasty comments critising the Malays and the SSS, even hate and racist remarks that showed the kind of people we have in this country, that now make it very fitting for History to be made a compulsory subject in schools.

31 10 2010

Why Malaysian Bar Council acting like a political party? Should it not be independent from any party? I have never read that independent is an act of anti establishment. Is the Malaysian Bar Council empowered by Constitution or something? What statutory power do they have?

2 11 2010
SSS Admin


The Malaysian Bar Council was set up under the Legal Profession Act 1967. That Act regulates the legal procession, the practice of law in this country. Nothing is mentioned in that legislation allowing its members to engage in politics or the Council to be political in nature or stance.

The object and powers of the Malaysian Bar include

“to promote in any proper manner the interests of the legal profession in Malaysia”
“to protect and assist the public in all matters touching, ancillary or incidental to the law”

Presumably, they are relying on those two statements when engaging in activities deemed political by others.

As lawyers, they work with and some perhaps work around the law. Wayward political party members talk about changing the Constitution and the Perak Mufti recently said there is a “darft” of a new Constitution surreptitiously going around, which is seditious, because several sensitive Articles of the Constitution cannot be amended or repealed as PM DS Najib himself had explained in detail at the recent UMNO General Assembly. But the Bar Council talks about a “constitutional awareness” programme that the relevant committee members have embarked upon.

They used to be “infiltration” of labour unions and such by communists and leftist elements. Opposition political party members need not infiltrate the Bar Council because it is an open organisation that any lawyer, irrespective of political creed, can, and need to be a member of in order to practice. The number of those opposed to the Establishment, their activities and statements make the Bar Council appear like a political party.

Members of the Bar Council are also called “Officers of the Court”. They are required to uphold justice and expected to act in decorum and propriety. They must be on the side of the law and must report any illegal or suspiciously criminal acts to the authorities. They have been blamed for irresponsible and criminal behaviour many times in the past – breach of trust, non-declaration of bankruptcy status as an election candidate, and even alleged multiple murders in the Sosilawati and related cases. There have been accusations that lawyer friends of the accused knew certain things that, if reported, might have prevented some of those murders.

Many of them have a strong dislike for Tun Dr Mahathir on the matter of replacing Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas with Tun Abdul Hamid Omar and the Lingam Tape issue concerning alleged undue influence in the the appointment of judges. TDM had said more than once that the Bar Council needed to put their house in order.

31 10 2010
San Peng.

Tay Tian Yan?

My history teacher, Mr Pereira, said people like him are the “katak bawah tempurung”. He doesn’t know other worlds exist outside his coconut shell. Hence his coconut head qualifies him to croak proudly about the one two maggots that he shoots with his slimy tongue, and claim that he has created history.

Mr Pereira said that.

What do I say? I say he is the best historian his community can come up with. The source of his “facts” and the only “book” he reads are (1) Doreimon and (2) Samurai X. The first makes him feel very bright, and the second very noble.

Sorry Mr Admin. I love this Tay Tian Yan too much. I cannot but blurt out my adoration for him.

He just discovered himself yesterday. Bravo. A momentous superhuman feat like no other.

2 11 2010
SSS Admin

San Peng,

“Katak bawah tempurung” are not so much a problem as “ular ditepi sawah”. The katak only croaks but the ular may bite, like DAP Tony Pua and MCA Chua Soi Lek did recently on the Bumiputera housing discount and the 30% Bumi equity target. Nevertheless, the katak also needs to be removed of their tempurung because the croaking often irritates. Imagine, saying Malaysian history starts from the Malacca Sultanate. Then asking why History, not Maths or English.

This is the problem when we rushed to get pleasures – the pleasure of ruling ourselves and getting rid of the British. Rushing is often not a satisfying, even a satisfactory job. The British exploited us even at the eleventh hour. They just told us to accept the non-Malays. No need to go into the records – the fact that they asked the Rulers to give citizenship to the Chinese to win their “Hearts and Minds” against the communist terrorists is a generally known fact. It became amplified during the negotiations for independence. And some of them even deny the fact of history that the Americans sent back to China shiploads of the Chinese Trans-America Railway construction workers and the California Gold Rush diggers upon project completion in the 19th Century.

We must keep on writing and writing endlessly, pointing out the facts of history, the need to learn and understand history, the Ghee Hin and Hai San secret societies, thugs and gangsters, the Malayan Communist Party and their terroristic activities, the Race Riots of 1969, the origin and the rationale for the NEP. Despite them saying that these are scare tactics, that the Ghee Hin and Hai San are of the past, that the treacherous Kapitan Cina in Larut providing the British in Penang the excuse to enter Perak that led to British colonization, that there is no need for children to know the long term or underlying causes of the 1969 riots, or explanations about the Constitution and the sensitive Articles 153, the Social Contract and the fact that for over 100 years the Chinese were stateless and not citizens of this country, until after Merdeka, and that they should respect and abide by the Constitution fully when they carry Malaysian citizenship.

We need to carry on doing these for the sake of better understanding, goodwill, harmony and long-term peace in this country.

31 10 2010

Got to differentiate those who know the history of this country and those who don’t. Malaysian Chinese like Professor Khoo Kay Kim, a former history professor, knows history and the Constitution, interpretes them in acceptable ways, so no problem. But there some who know, have some differing views, then maybe a problem.

Malays are also like that. Like Dr Azmi Sharom, law lecturer of Universiti Malaya. He knows history and the Constitution but differs on the interpretation of Bumi rights under the Malay Special Position Clause.

Of course, those who don’t know history need to first be informed. Then we’ll see how they turn out.

2 11 2010
SSS Admin


Indeed, there are those who know the history of this country and accept the facts that may not be palatable to them. Just as there are Malays who have to gulp the bitterness of being side-tracked by 80 years of British colonial policies in this country and very resentful of the act of fellow Malays like Tengku A Rahman giving away Singapore to Lee Kuan Yew, who has now made the island 72% Chinese.

We must not try to change the geo-politics of this region. It has long-term implications on stability and peace. Just as we must not try to change the racial or religious composition within any particular country. Religious conversions on the individuals’ own free will are acceptable but deliberate attempts at conversions by religious missionary activities are things of the past, of colonial and religious zalots’ times.

Indeed, there are some who know but interpret in different ways. LKY was a lawyer, knew that promoting the so-called Malaysian Malaysia was, and still is, subversive to the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak, yet he did it fervently when in Malaysia until he and Singapore was kicked out in 1965.

It has been pointed out in this blog and elsewhere that Dr Azmi Sharom is not even a constitutional lawyer but chooses to interpret the Malaysian Constitution in ways that others more qualified and experienced than he is do not. For example, Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari of IIU, regarded as one of the constitutional law experts in the country, does not find any problem with the view that Article 153 affords rights and privileges to the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. He has written many books, wrote dissertations in many academic and law journals, presented papers at numerous meetings and conferences, locally and abroad, his views sought after by the media and others, like on the Kelantan Sultan ascension matter. Azmi Shahrom is only an environmental lawyer, his curriculum vitae is short, his comments are variedly published mainly because they are non-mainstream, applauded by those opposing the NEP, and have so-called “breaking news” or sensational value. He becomes a newspaper columnist and even writes comments in blogs, perhaps to further an unknown agenda, personal or political. He has been called a pseudo-liberal Malay – appearing to be liberal but not quite. One can’t be a liberal if one is not broad minded. One is not broad minded if one does not know history and appreciate the rationale behind the Malay Special Position.

We are happy to note your stand that those who don’t know history need to be informed. Children need to study and pass the SPM with it. The increasing racial polarisation in the country today badly needs future generations that are fully aware of the roles of the various communities in the development of this country, not just from Merdeka or British colonial times, but also from time immemorial. Those who have cleared the jungles along river banks, built riverine settlements, set values of right and wrong, of governance and law and order since the time of the Kingdom of Langkasuka over a thousand years ago, of a civilisation in a place called “Red Earth” that a Chinese emissary visited in the 7th Century and was recorded in the Chinese annals, and many other examples – all those have contributed to the making of this country into what it is today.

1 11 2010


Just curious, if there is any statistical study done to see the current passing rate or passing marks of Sejarah?

According to a posting by someone at Syed Akbar Ali’s blog, “One man who has been marking the SPM exam papers says that the passing marks for SPM Matematik can be as low as 15 marks !!!! This is really shocking. 15 markah saja boleh lulus Matematik SPM !”

Hopefully Admin SSS or anyone here in the education industry can clarify this because even if History is a compulsory pass but then the passing mark is low as what is alleged for SPM Maths, there is no point in this.

But that is a good start, and maybe the will have the guts next to implement the SSS step by step.

3 11 2010
SSS Admin


We are not aware of any studies done on the passing marks of Sejarah. The Ministry of Education has just announced the setting up of a committee to review the current history syllabus for schools. It is believed the matter of passing marks will also be touched in the review.

To the best of our knowledge, adjustments in passing marks may be made at the higher level, at the State Education Department Director or at the Ministry of Education Director General level, to adjust any inconsistencies that may occur in the marking of papers, or abnormal results of pupils in certain areas, based on the performance of schools monitored over a number of years in the past, or on suspected but unproven leakages of examination questions that are not serious enough to call for nationa-wide re-sitting of the subject concerned.

But the adjustment cannot be made by the person who marks the papers. Those who mark examination papers merely give marks based on the normal procedures and their evaluation on what the answers deserve, although one or two delinquents even at University level are known to have adjusted their markings or evaluation based on such things as appeals by relatives or cronies. The allegation that the passing marks for SPM Matematik can be as low as 15 marks, made by a person who does the marking of SPM papers but is not the policy or decision maker at the Departmental or Ministrial level, therefore sounds ludicrous.

We believe that irregularities in the marking of examination papers and any necessary adjustments made to passing marks at the Departmental or Ministerial level do not affect the integrity of the SPM examinations as a whole. Major leakages of examination questions without being rectified by a re-sitting of the subject concerned would affect its integrity. To give credit where credit is due, the MOE had in the past always taken a responsible attitude in this matter.

Making History compulsory in schools was stated in our Memo to the Minister of Education. We have published that Memeo, which appears as a separate section in this SSS website, since over a year ago. That a decision has now been made for it to be a compulsory subject may be regarded as a first step in the implementation of SSS. Next is the more difficult task of determining whether the rakyat wants SSS now or not – Dato Seri Najib has said in his 1Malaysia blog some time back that “single-stream schooling will be implemented when the rakyat wants it”. That step may not be taken until after the 13th General Elections for which the PM has been running after each and every vote he hopes to get. We will however press on demanding that the next steps in SSS implementation be done as soon as possible.

1 11 2010

1. Keputusan Sejarah SPM 2010
~70% Lulus Sejarah. ~90% Lulus BM (p. 13)


Adakah guru-guru bersedia?

3 11 2010
SSS Admin


Terima kasih diatas rujukan yang diberikan itu. Rujukan pertama itu tidak dapat diakses – Google kata “Object not found”. Mungkin ada kesilapan rujukan. Apa mungkin “Keputusan Sejarah SPM 2010” dikeluarkan begitu awal.

Berkenaan tesis Masters pembangunan patriotisme itu, kajian baginya adalah digalakkan. Berdasarkan bacaan sepintas lalu perenggan-perenggan yang berkenaan, nampaknya kajian itu tidak mendalam. Tiada langsung diberi penerangan apa itu patriotisme, bezanya dengan nasionalime dan ta’at setia kapada negara. Juga tidak disebutkan langsung Perlembagaan negara yang seharusnya menjadi ukuran bagi semangat atau perasaan ta’at setia, nasionalisme dan patriotisme itu. Memang itu adalah kajian pengajaran dan pembelajaran di Tingkatan 2 tetapi sedikit sebanyak penerangan perlu diberi berkenaan istilah istilah tersebut. Inilah yang Jawatan Kuasa Mengkaji Semula mata pelajaran Sejarah, yang diumumkan penubuhannya sehari dua yang lalu, perlu meneliti, menimbangkan dan mengesyorkan.

Rujukan ketiga itu membawa Google berkata “This link appears to be broken”. Berkenaan sama ada guru-guru sudah bersedia atau belom, ini juga perlu diperso’al oleh Jawatan Kuasa mengkaji pengajaran Sejarah tersebut. Banyak bergantung kapada sejauh mana rombakan sukatan pelajaran Sejarah perlu dibuat, apa yang perlu ditekankan dan sebagainya. Perlembagaan, dan sejarah berkaitan Perlembagaan itu, mesti diajar supaya kanak kanak faham dan benar benar hormatkannya sepenuhnya. Perlembagaan adalah undang-undang tertinggi di sesebuah negara; undang-undang lain timbul daripadanya, berpandukan kapadanya dan tidak boleh bercanggah dengannya.

Kursus-kursus tambahan perlu diadakan bagi guru-guru Sejarah. Kerena mereka sudah ada latar belakang Sejarah, kursus-kursus pendek boleh dilakukan dalam tempoh setahun dua. Ciri-ciri ta’at setia, nasionalisme dan patriotisme perlu diajar, berdasarkan tidak lain dan tidak bukan – Perlembagaan negara.

3 11 2010

Mohon maaf pautan tersebut tidak betul di atas.




Mesti budak-budak terkejut beruk apabila menyedari bahasa ibunda asing tidak seharusnya digunakan sebagai bahasa pengantar semasa di sekolah melalui pembelajaran matapelajaran Sejarah!

3 11 2010



5 11 2010
SSS Admin


Terima kasih diatas pautan-pautan tersebut.

Sebab-sebab penukaran penggredan mulai tahun 2009 itu tidak diterangkan sepenuhnya. Maka masih ada tanda so’al tujuan “membezakan pencapaian calon yang memperolehi keputusan yang cemerlang tertinggi” seperti disebut Ketua Pengarah Pelajaran itu. Apa kah ini juga mengakibatkan timbulnya kecemerlangan sehingga ada yang mendapat berbelas A diSPM, dan apa tujuannya berbuat demikian?

Namun demikian, kita perlu ambil perhatian diatas kata katanya bahawa ada “mesyuarat penentuan standard SPM 2009, pakar-pakar pentaksiran dari luar negara seperti daripada Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) dan London Chambers of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) telah dijemput bersama … bagi tujuan penandaarasan dan penjaminan kualiti di peringkat antarabangsa”. Walau pun tidak disebut, adalah dipercayai bahawa mesyuarat seperti itu juga menyentuh cara memangkah kertas-kertas jawapan murid, berapa markah pass dan keadaan-keadaan yang membolehkan penyesuaian dibuat bagi jumlah markah pass dan gred gred baru yang disebut itu.

Jika murid-murid terkejut bila menyedari bahasa ibunda asing tidak seharusnya digunakan disekolah sekolah, ini bukti bahawa sekolah sekolah tersebut tidak mengajar atau memberi tahu murid muridnya perkara-perkara penting berkenaan Perlembagaan negara. Oleh itu, nyatalah keputusan TS Muhyiddin memestikan Sejarah disekolah sekolah amat sesuai dan tepat. Adalah dijangka bahawa silibus Sejarah akan mengandungi pengtahuan berkenaan Perlembagaan negara.

Kita mesti dapatkan generasi muda diMalaysia kita fahamkan sejarah dibelakang Perelembagaan negara supaya tiap rakyat dimasa hadapan akan hormatkan dan ikuti sepenuhnya Perlembagaan kita itu. Perlu juga ditekankan bahawa wakil-wakli kaum yang berkenaan telah bersetuju diatas isi Perlembagaan itu dan wakil-wakil semua kaum yang ada dinegara ini telah membincangkanya dan meluluskannya dimasa Merdeka ditahun 1957 dan meluluskan pindaannya dimasa penubuhan Malaysia ditahun 1963.

1 11 2010


There is no country like malaysia in this region, even in the world, accomodating and tolerance. They talking about Singapore but even those who admire LKY don’t want to live under what they say – Big Brother on the wall.

I support those who say if anybody not happy in Malaysia because of what the constitution says, let them leave. It’s a free country. And don’t persuade them to come back because they have no heart for this country and will only become problems later.

And Minister of Tourism has already spent RM3.2 million travelling overseas, a lot to China. And many of Chinese “tourists” end up as GROs, even sex-by-phone operators. Jadi sakit la, tuan. In more ways than one.

3 11 2010
SSS Admin


Admiring LKY, supporting Singapore, even comparing Malaysia and Singapore are not politically correct. LKY has been mischievous in and towards Malaysia when he and the PAP promoted the so-called Malaysian Malaysia concept which subverts the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak, wanting equality without giving regard to Article 153 of the Constitution. Singapore is an island state and ruled with an iron hand and simply cannot be compared with Malaysia. After being thrown out of Malaysia in 1965, he continued to be mischievous towards Malaysia and his other neighbours by marginalising the Malays and Indians in Singapore and bringing in communist Chinese in large numbers, making Singapore 80% Chinese (by some accounts), changing the geopolitic of the region in that respect.

The call for those who have left the country – mainly Chinese – to return was made largely with the political motive. Dato Seri Najib has embarked on a policy of placating the Chinese for their votes in the coming 13th General Elections. Arguments that they are needed in Malaysia to help speed up the economic development of the country are not valid as what are needed are investments that widen job opportunities, and those people are not likely to come back when job prospects are not attractive. Arguments that foreign investments are not coming in due the absence of the the kinds of skills those departees possess are not valid because there are a whole host of other factors that affect foreign investment, including high cost of labour and production in this country, and long-term political stability.

Everybody has observed the high cost of labour in Malaysia. Vietnam and Cambodia have been attracting foreign investments because of the cheaper labour there. Najib’s policy of achieving a high income nation status has its pros and cons. Yet he is rushing towards there to score points to the Chinese for their votes, to the chagrin of the Malays who find that the NEP may be sidelined in the process. Unless the NEP is clearly visible in the NEM, he might find that the votes he runs after may not come (Hulu Selangor and Sibu by-elections are proofs), the traditional BN votes he assumes exists among the Malays may dissipate. We are concerned to the extent that all those may affect unity and the sense of togetherness in the country.

1 11 2010

Ape siTony Pua DAP ni punya orang. Teman rasa nak carut aje tapi orang kata Nik Aziz saja yang boleh carut sampai Tuhan pun die kata mencarut.

Dulu siTony Pua nak cebiskan diskaun beli rumah Bumiputera. Ni dia cakap mcm mcm pulak pase Sejarah dimestikan disekolah –

“Tony Pua Kiam Wee telah memberi reaksi yang negatif dan tergesa-gesa mengadakan sidang media dan menzahirkan sikap buruk sangka .. kononnya .. pengajaran Sejarah itu nanti akan menjadi satu “percubaan sembrono untuk mengindoktrinasikan para pelajar kita dengan satu tafsiran sempit tentang Perlembagaan.

“Dia bimbang (berprasangka?) kiranya sukatan baru pelajaran Sejarah itu nanti hanya akan tertumpu kepada Fasal 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan perkara-perkara lain berkaitan hak-hak keistimewaan Melayu”.

4 11 2010
SSS Admin


Bagi sukatan baru pelajaran Sejarah disekolah sekolah, Perlembagaan mesti di tafsirkan seluas-luasnya. Mesti ada “liberal interpretation of the Constitution”. Ini bermakna segala peruntukan diPerlembagaan itu yang tidak disetujui atau diragukan oleh Tony Pua dan puaknya mesti dititk-beratkan. Seperti Perkara 152 berkenaan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Bahasa ibunda (Mandarin dan Tamil) boleh diguna dan diajarkan tetapi hanya luar dari uruan resmi. Ia-itu, tidak boleh sebagai bahasa pengantar disekolah sekolah dan tidak boleh diguna dikhalayak ramai.

Begitu juga perlu diberi penerangan seluas-luasnya mengapa ada Fasal 153 berkenaan Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu. Tekankan hal bahawa Menteri Penjajahan Britain telah berkata dimasa membincangkan kemerdekaan Malaya diParlimen Britain ditahun 1956, bahawa Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu itu telah ada sedia kala “since day one” dan Britain telah mengakui serta menghormatinya sejak mula berhubung dengan negara ini beratus tahun dahulu. Kedudukan Istimewa itu telah meliputi Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak dimasa penubuhan Malaysia ditahun 1963.

Tidak ada so’al bimbang atau takut sukatan baru pelajaran Sejarah itu menumpukan kapada Fasal 153 Perlembagaan itu. Melainkan kerana pendirian dan tabi’at kiasu merea seperti Tony Pua, pentingkan diri mereka sendiri teramat sangat, mempolitikkan segala apa yang boleh, sentiasa mencari apa sahaja yang boleh dipolitikkan, mengeluarkan syak wasangka dikalangan rakyat negara ini. Politik perkauman yang melampau itu mesti dielakkan dan dipudarkan. Penerangan perlu dibuat bahawa tidak salah menggunakan perkataan “pendatang”, hanya jangan menggunakannya dengan maksud mengeji dan, jika Fasal 152 dihormati, Fasal 153 dan lain-lain yang sensitif tidak diungkit oleh sesiapa, tidak timbul penggunaan perkataan itu dengan maksud mengungkit kembali mereka yang mengungkit.

2 11 2010

Aysay, it’s high time lah people, be politically correct. Apa macam politik lagi mau? History pun tak tau, tapi mcm mcm mau, tak kira asal usul ini negara ka?

The Americans sent back to China the Railway and Gold Rush workers because America was their country – the Americans became independent from the British after fighting them in their War of Independence.

We had no war of independence and bloody British exploited us la. Najib said we lost Malacca to the Portuguese in 15th Century because no guns and canons. We still didn’t have guns and canons when British sent their soldiers into Perak in 19th Century, and “fighting for independence” only with words and sengeh sini sengeh sana lah. But now have Constitution.

Study history lah so that no more “fighting” 53 years after independence, man.

4 11 2010
SSS Admin


There have been a few comments in blogs stating that the Americans did not send back the Chinese railway and gold digging workers back to China and that the Chinese labourers became citizens, and now one Chinese American even became a Secretary (Minister) in the US. This is the kind of Malaysians who are ignorant of history yet wish to speak here and there giving bad influence on the ignorant others. Clearly, those who became citizens were those who might have escaped the rounding up to have them sent back by the shiploads and those who came via other means than imported labour during other periods of US history.

The statement that the Americans sent back Chinese workers because America was their country needs some qualification. The Europeans and others came and settled in America, killed the resisting Red Indians and pushed the others into the interior, until the Red Indians ended up in what are now known as Indian Reservations. A little credit may be given the British colonialists in Malaya in that, while they did not send back the Chinese and Indian labourers they brought in, they respected the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers and did not unilaterally offer the non-Malays citizenship, instead tried to persuade the Rulers to do so when trying to win the “Hearts and Minds” of the Chinese when fighting the mainly Chinese communist terrorists who were causing endless disruption in the country.

The non-Malays should be grateful that the Malays agreed to their citizenship but some say that their right to citizenship is already enshrined in the Constitution, they do not want to talk about it any more, and want to talk only about what they can get from the country. Indeed, there are those who say, “Give me what I want, then only I give what the country wants from me (loyalty, etc)”. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the background to the “enshrining” of such citizenship right and the Malay Special Position be explained i.e the history of the coming in of of the non-Malays in large numbers, their stay in this country for over a hundred years as stateless people, and the circumstances of the fight for independence be taught to school children in sufficient detail.

School children need to be made to understand the position of each community in this country before independence so that there will be greater appreciation of the need for tolerance and mutual respect among the various communities. The adults are generally hardened in their thinking and have already set attitudes and values and we must get the younger generation adopt common values, hopes and aspirations through the teaching of History in schools.

3 11 2010

“this ruling should only be implemented in specific developed nations … In these countries, history is not meant to re-engineer the students’ minds, but to inspire them. History is not made to serve the purpose of politics, but to elevate human characters and social progress.”

He talks nuts, this fellow.

What the hell do the Americans teach about the early settlements (pendatang), the pioneering years, the massacre of Red Indians, the War of Independence, the Civil War etc for? Is it not politics when they don’t talk much about Red Indians being reduced to the Reservations even nowadays? Is that not a product of their education system? Is that not bloody racism?

The Red Indians were swarmed. Had only bows and arrows, machetes and the like against the settlers’ guns and fire power. They as a community hardly had any education, had been reduced to the Indian Reservations.

The Malays refused to be treated such. Thank God people like Dato Sagor and his men speared British Resident James Birch to death in 1875. It taught the British that the Malays cannot tolerate their exploiting the situation arising from the Larut Wars, entering Perak with a military force, forcing the Malay Chiefs to sign a treaty in Pangkor and starting to enforce their authority derived from the unequal treaty. Still, they could not be bothered to provide secondary education for the Malays who live mostly in the rural areas.

Merdeka and NEP – MRSMs and other residential schools and scholarships for the Malays made available. Then the others began questioning the rights and privileges given to the Malays. All Malaysian school children need be taught such history so that future generations would understand the background and not question the Malay rights and privileges and cause racial apprehension in the country.

4 11 2010
SSS Admin


Implying that there is or will be “re-engineering” of the minds of the young is really nuts. As stated earlier, these are people who want only the aspects of history acceptable to them be taught in schools. Perhaps they would not want school children to know about the ingratitude of the first group of Chinese miners brought in by Menteri Larut Ngah Ibrahim, the kiasu nature of the Ghee Hins and the Hai Sans, the role of the secret societies, thugs and gangsters in the Larut Wars leading to British intervention and colonial rule, Chin Peng and the Malayan Communist Party wanting to have Malaya under the suzerainty of communist China, the influence of the so-called Malaysian Malaysia concept and the uncontrolled DAP election victory celebrations in the 1969 race riots. Like that, there’ll be hardly any History teachable to the school children.

The history of this country simply cannot begin from the fight for independence, or from when we first had a Constitution, and that our “founding fathers” were not Tengku A Rahman, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun Sambanthan, as a few seemed to have the impression. It’s ridiculous to think so. The History that must be taught must be from the very beginning, well beyond the Malacca Sultanate and the Hindu kingdoms. Every Malaysian must be made to understand that the Malays originated from the Malay Archipelago some 5,000 years ago, as stated in the book, “Tamadun Alam Melayu”, published by the Historical Society of Malaysia in 2009. That organisation is not any, but the historical society in the country. It is a very respectable organisation, set up since the British colonial times. It is equivalent to the internationally respected Royal Asiatic Society, which in the Journal of its Malayan Branch during the colonial era, expressed the views mainly of the expatriates.

The Historical Society of Malaya was set up to represent the views of then Malayans, presided by a Malay serving in the elite British-dominated Malayan Civil Service, having members like Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard, a British MCS Officer who spoke for and felt for the Malays – he chose to stay and lived in Malaya after independence, set up Muzium Negara and ran it until there were locals trained in anthropology etc to hand it over to. The Historical Society has well qualified members, including University Professors (e.g well known historian Professor Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim, Malay Studies Professor Dato Mohd. Taib Osman, History Professor Dato Zainal Abidin Wahid) and others qualified in anthropology, archaeology etc.

The objective in the teaching of History in schools must be the instilling of a sense of understanding and mutual respect, feelings of togetherness, common values, hopes and aspirations. That “commonness” can come about when they know in some detail how this country came about from the very beginning, the contribution of the various communities, and why the British adopted self-serving policies that led to the Malays being left far behind economically and educationally. It should lead to future generations understand, fully respect and live by the Constitution of the country.

3 11 2010
Anak Bapak

Dengar sini semua orang. Mesti satu silibus pelajaran Sejarah yang sama setiap sekolah, setiap peringkat. Akedimik University Malaya kata –

Rasa kebersamaan (persamaan persepsi tentang sejarah masa lalu dan persamaan harapan untuk masa hadapan) adalah salah satu syarat utama untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa.

Dan ini akan dapat dicapai melalui satu silibus pelajaran Sejarah yang seragam yang sama-sama dipelajari oleh semua murid dan pelajar pada setiap peringkat sistem persekolahan kita.

5 11 2010
SSS Admin

Anak Bapak,

Tujuan memestikan Sejarah bagi semua murid sekolah ialah untuk menimbulkan nilai-nilai, harapan dan cita-cita yang serupa diantara mereka, yang boleh membawa kapada perasaan dan semangat sama nasib, sama tujuan dan sama haluan sebagai rakyat Malaysia. Justru, amat pentinglah silibus pelajaran Sejarah itu “seragam, .. sama-sama dipelajari oleh semua murid dan pelajar pada setiap peringkat sistem persekolahan kita”. Ini bermakna diSekolah Kebangsaan dan apa lain jenis sekolah yang masih ada sekarang.

Garisan selari (parallel lines) tidak akan bertemu, walau bagaimana pun. Garisan itu perlu disatukan, tidak lain dan tidak bukan. Sekolah vernakular mesti diserapkan kedalam sistem Sekolah Kebangsaan untuk mencapai persefahaman antara kaum, perhubungan rapat dan persepaduan dijangka masa panjang. Hujah-hujah perundangan yang tepat dan padat berkenaan perkara ini, hasil suatu kajian yang serius, ada dikeluarkan diblog Pure Shiite sekarang ini.

TPM dan Menteri Pelajaran Tan Sri Muhyiddin telah menempa legasi atau tempat didalam sejarah dengan keputusannya memastikan pelajaran Sejarah. Sekarang kita harapakan PM Dato Seri Najib menempa tempat baginya dengan membuat keputusan dan memberi isyarat atau arahan bagi sistem sekolah satu aliran diimplementasikan. Dia telah mengatakan diblog 1Malaysianya bahawa sistem sekolah satu aliran “akan dilaksanakan bila rakyat mahukannya”. Dia boleh mulakan tindakan dengan menyatakan apa caranya bagi menentukan sama ada rakyat mahukan sekarang atau tidak.

Membina sebuah negara yang kukuh dan bersepadu perlu berlunaskan kapada Perlembagaan negara sepenuhnya. Hujah-hujah yang dikeluarkan diblog Pure Shiite itu nyata menunjukkan bahawa sekolah vernakular tidak wajar diteruskan. Telah dikeluarkannya kes Merdeka University Vs The Government of Malaysia : (hakim-hakim terkemuka: Suffian, Raja Azlan, Salleh Abas dll .. Lord President, Chief Justice, 2 Federal Court Judges) berkenaan interpretasi Perkara 152 Perlembagaan. Juga kes Mark Koding, yang khusus merujuk kapada bahasa pengantar disekolah rendah. Wakil Rakyat itu dituduh menghasut didalam kata katanya diParlimen berkenaan penerusan membenarkan sekolah-sekolah China dan Tamil. Dia didapati tidak bersalah. Perkara 152 membenarkan penggunaan bahasa ibunda tetapi tidak sebagai bahasa pengantar disekolah sekolah.

Memestikan pengajaran Sejarah disekolah sekolah boleh mendatangkan fahaman latar belakang memasukkan Perkara 152 diPerlembagaan, menjadikan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan dan Bahasa Resmi negara ini.

3 11 2010
Anak Jantan

Professor Universiti Malaysia Sabah pulak cakap:

“Dalam memahami hak-hak keistimewaan orang Melayu sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Perkara 153 (yang mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan ‘kontrak sosial’, ia perlu dikaitkan dengan sejarah perjuangan bangsa serta struktur negara. Bagi melihat dan memahami perkara ini, perkara 153 tidak boleh dilihat secara bersendirian. Hanya semata-mata membincangkan perkara 153, ia akan memungkinkan kita menjadi keliru. Di antara perkara yang berkait rapat dalam memahami perkara 153 adalah:

1. Perkara 38 (5) (Pasal persetujuan Raja Raja)

2. Perkara 10 (4) (Pasal tak boleh diperso’alkan)

3. Perkara 8 (2) (Pasal kesamarataan mengecualikan Kedudukan Istimewa di Perkara 153)”

Jadi, jangan so’al lagi, jangan ungkit lagi, jangan cakap nak tukar Pelembagaan perkara perkara sensitif tu, ada derap Perlembagaan bahru ke hape ke macam Mufti Perak cakap. Mengarut cauvinis DAP tu.

5 11 2010
SSS Admin

Anak Jantan,

“Struktur negara” yang disebut professor itu bermakna bukan sahaja berbilang kaum, tetapi juga lapisan kaum, dikira dari permulaan sejarah negara ini. Ada yang mengatakan bahawa yang mula mendiami negara ini ialah Orang Asli, tetapi telah diterangkan beberapa kali diblog ini bahawa Orang Asli ada-lah juga Rumpun Melayu, dikenali juga sebagai Proto Malays, sebagaimana juga ada Deutero Malays (termasuk Melayu yang didifinasikan diPerlembagaan negara), dan yang diistilahkan sebagai Malayo-Polynesians dan Austronesians. Maka Melayu adalah lapisan yang ulong dinegara ini.

“Struktur negara” juga bermakna Melayu telah mendiami negara ini dengan sistem undang-undang, peraturan pentadbiran dan adat resam yang nyata menunjukkan adanya suatu tamaddun Melayu, sejak zaman Langkasuka, “zaman Hindu” lebih seribu tahun yang lalu, yang sudah dibuktikan ada diLembah Bujang, Kedah, diBeruas, Perak dan lain-lain lagi. maka Melayu telah ada kedudukan istimewa sebelom datangnya bangsa bangsa lain. “From day one”, kata Menteri Penjajahan British diParliman Britain masa membincangankan Kemerdekan Malaya ditahun 1956. Kedudukan Istimewa itu telah dirakamkan diPerlembagaan negara sebagai Perkara 153.

Maka pengtahuan sejarah negara akan membolehkan rakyat faham dan tidak mengungkit atau menyo’al Kedudukan Istimea Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak. Kita perlu maju kehadapan dengan kesedaran tanggung jawab setiap rakyat menghormati dan mengikuti Perlembagaan negara sepenuhnya. Pengtahuan dan pembelajaran Sejarah disekolah sekolah boleh membawa generasi akan datang kearah tersebut.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: