Pengendali laman citra PURE SHIITE telah membuat sebuah analisa yang amat baik dalam memberi maklum balas terhadap artikel Tun Dr. Mahathir yang bertajuk “A Reply to Tun Perkasa Post : Peruntukan Perlembagaan dan Isu Bahasa Pengantar Di Sekolah Jenis” yang diterbitkan dalam bulan November tahun lepas. Artikel ini telah memberikan analisa yang komprehensif mengenai Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta-Akta Pendidikan yang telah diujudkan selama ini. Melalui analisa PURE SHIITE ini, adalah jelas bahawa kewujudan sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan china dan tamil di negara ini adalah sememangnya HARAM dari sisi Perlembagaan Negara dan akta-akta / undang-undang yang berkaitan yang ada pada hari ini.
Walaupun pihak-pihak yang mempertahankan kewujudan sekolah-sekolah vernakular ini cuba menggunakan Akta Pendidikan 1996 yang diusahakan oleh Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu, DS Najib, yang memberi kuasa kepada Menteri untuk menubuhkan sekolah-sekolah vernakular, semua sekolah-sekolah vernakular yang wujud sebelum akta ini adalah tetap HARAM. Perubahan besar terhadap akta pendidikan seperti yang dilakukan pada tahun 1996 tetap menyalahi Artikel 152 Perlembagaan dan akta-akta bahasa yang sedia ada. Oleh itu, adalah wajar untuk dikaji semula peruntukan-peruntukan yang berkaitan yang terkandung dalam Akta Pendidikan 1996 kerana ianya hanyalah merupakan satu akta yang bertentangan dengan undang-undang tertinggi negara, iaitu Perlembagaan disamping juga menyalahi akta-akta lain yang berkaitan, seperti Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan. Akta Pendidikan 1996 dari sudut ini, telah juga tidak selari dengan Akta-Akta Pendidikan yang telah diwujudkan sebelumnya.
Artikel PURE SHIITE ini juga telah diulas oleh seorang lagi pengendali blog, VOICES AROUND di dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk “SEKOLAH HARAM II“. Saranan penutupan sekolah-sekolah vernakular ini telah diutarakan di dalam Parlimen oleh YB Mark Koding, di mana ianya sengaja diputar-belitkan oleh pembela-pembela sekolah vernakular dengan mengatakan bahawa YB Mark Koding telah bersalah dalam membuat saranan tersebut. Hendaklah difahami bahawa YB Mark Koding didapati bersalah bukan kerana beliau mengutarakan saranan penutupan sekolah-sekolah vernakular ini. Sila baca tulisan PURE SHIITE mengenainya dan juga ulasan VOICES AROUND yang bertajuk, “Usul B.I. sebagai Bahasa Rasmi di Penang“.
Berikut adalah paparan semula artikel penuh yang diusahakan oleh PURE SHIITE.
First of All Happy Deepavali to all my readers.
Salam my dearest Tun Mahathir.
Initially I wanted to send in a comment to your latest post but after thinking about what I wanted to say, don’t think it will fit your comment section and get the necessary attention that it should.
So here goes. You said:-
1. Saya ucap terimakasih kerana ramai yang melawat blog saya dan membuat komen menyokong atau menolak. Ramai juga yang bercakap berkenaan bahagian-bahagian Perlembagaan yang tidak boleh dipinda (entrenched). Tetapi ramai yang tidak ambilkira tentang peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan yang begitu adil. Tiada perlindungan bagi hak sesuatu kaum yang tidak diimbangi dengan hak kaum-kaum lain.
2. Demikian apabila agama Islam dijadikan agama rasmi negara Malaysia, susulan daripada itu perlembagaan memperuntukkan bahawa agama-agama lain boleh dianuti dan dipraktik oleh penganut-penganut agama berkenaan tanpa gangguan.
3. Apabila bahasa Melayu diterima sebagai bahasa rasmi negara, tetapi bahasa-bahasa lain boleh digunakan sebagai bahasa ibunda dan bahasa pengantar di sekolah-sekolah.
4. Apabila sekolah kebangsaan ialah sekolah yang mengguna bahasa kebangsaan sebagai bahasa pengantar, sekolah-sekolah jenis nasional boleh mengguna bahasa Cina (bahasa kebangsaan China) dan bahasa Tamil (bahasa suku kaum Tamil).
To begin this discourse on a matter very close to my heart. Let us get a couple of facts out in the open for the benefit of our readers.
Article 152 of our Constitution clearly states that:-
The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide: Provided that-
(a) no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language; and
(b) nothing in this Clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation
The issue on the medium of instructions have been put to our Federal Court. I will cite the case of Merdeka University Vs The Government of Malaysia : (All star Judges : Suffian, Raja Azlan, Salleh Abas among others…..they were Our Lord President, Chief Justice, 2 Federal Court Judges and a sitting Judge) .This is how they interpreted our Article 152:-
MEANING OF ARTICLE 152
Such was the background to Article 152, but in construing it, reference must be made to the National Language Act, 1963/67, of which the following sections provide:
2.Save as provided in this Act and subject to the safeguards contained in Article 152(1) of the Constitution relating to any other language and the language of any other community in Malaysia the national language shall be used for official purposes.
4.The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may permit the continued use of the English language for such official purposes as may be deemed to be fit.
With regard to s 4, His Majesty has made an order published as PU 410 of 1967 permitting the continued use of English for certain official purposes — which does not, however, include university teaching in a language other than bahasa.
Reading Article 152 together with the National Language Act, in our judgment, the law may be stated as follows:
Bahasa is the national language;
Bahasa is the official language;
A person is prohibited from using any other language for official purposes — subject to exceptions as regards the continued use of the English language allowed by s 4 and of other languages by other provisions of the National Language Act;
No person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (to be specific) Chinese for unofficial purposes;
No person shall be prohibited or prevented from teaching Chinese;
No person shall be prohibited or prevented from learning Chinese;
The Federal or a State Government has the right to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any non-Malay community — as indeed the Federal Government is doing in school and at the Institute of Technology, Mara, and in the Departments of Chinese and Indian Studies and in some other departments at the University of Malaya where even Arabic, Japanese, Thai and other languages are taught. (This right belongs to Government).
Government cannot legally prohibit or prevent MU from teaching and offering courses to enable students to learn Chinese.
But the crucial question is: would MU be prohibited from teaching in Chinese as the sole or major medium of instruction? It certainly would if it is a public authority, for then the use of Chinese there would be use for an official purpose which the Constitution read together with the National Language Act says is prohibited.
And this is their decision
In any event, bearing in mind the history of education in this country and the divisive results of allowing separate language schools and the lesson learned from the experience of our neighbour with a private university and the determination of Parliament to so regulate schools and universities and education generally as an instrument for bringing about one nation out of the disparate ethnic elements in our population, we have no choice but to hold, as we have already held, that MU if established would be a public authority within Article 160(2) of the Constitution and that accordingly teaching in Chinese there would be use of that language for an official purpose, which use may be prohibited under Article 152.
As there is no right to use the Chinese language for an official purpose, accordingly in our judgment it was not unconstitutional and unlawful of Government to reject the plaintiff’s petition to establish MU.
We would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.
For full judgement go here
Folks may try to say that the case above refers to a University but not Primary Schools. But aren’t schools a Public Institution?Let us look at another case which specifically talks about the Medium of Instructions in Primary Schools………my favourite reference actually…. the Mark Koding Case
The question therefore arises as to the true interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 152(1). Having regard to the words used in the proviso, viz. “teaching or learning any other language” as opposed to “teaching or learning in any other language”, I tend to agree with the restricted meaning enunciated by Abdoolcader J when dealing with schools or other educational institutions.
In my view, under proviso (a), although the National Language shall be the Malay language, the usage of any other language other than for official purposes, is guaranteed; so is the teaching or learning of any other language in schools, be it Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English. But there is nothing in proviso (a) to justify the extension of the protection to the operation of schools where the medium of instruction is Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English.
This strict interpretation is consistent with proviso (b) which guarantees the right of the Federal Government or any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation. Thus, the preservation and sustenance of usage of language of any other community is guaranteed.
So is the preservation and sustenance of study of any other community’s language, but again there is no justification in extending the guarantee to the preservation and sustenance of study in the language of any other community in the absence of specific words to that effect.
Any other interpretation of proviso (a) would result in abusing the words used in the proviso. It is absurd for instance to think that the proviso gives constitutional protection to teaching or learning in school where the medium of instruction is Russian or Japanese. To my mind, the protection only extends to language but not to medium of instruction in schools.
In other words, no person shall be prohibited or prevented from teaching or learning Chinese or Tamil or, for that matter, any language which is not the national language in any school as a language subject, but such protection does not extend to the teaching or learning in a school where the teaching or learning is in any other language. As correctly stated by Abdoolcader J the omission of the preposition “in” after the words “teaching or learning” in proviso (a) makes the distinction necessary. Go here
Now Tun I shall not try to interpretate your operative word “BOLEH” since you were once an Education Minister and was our Prime Minister for 22 Years. You know much more about this issue especially behind the scenes compromises of Inter Communal Demands
But the cold hard truth is that this is more of a policy issue.
The constitution is VERY CLEAR on the matter.
Even rabid racist Lim Kit Siang knows that…
“That this House pursuant to Standing Order 49(1), grants leave to the Hon’ble Lim Kit Siang to introduce a Private Member’s Bill intituled the Education (Amendment) Act 1980 to amend the Education Act 1961 to provide for:
(i) the repeal of Clause 21(2) of the Act which empowers the Minister of Education to convert a national-type primary school into a national primary schools;
(ii) the enactment that where there are fifteen or more pupils in a class or standard/form in a national primary school or national secondary school being Malaysians of Chinese or Tamil descent, such pupils shall be instructed in their mother tongue for a period of at least 3 hours in each week within the hours of general instruction of the school.”
This motion seeks to repeal Clause 21(2) of the Education Act 1961 which reads:
“(2) Where at any time the Minister is satisfied that a National-type primary school may suitably be converted into a National primary school, he may be order direct that the school shall become a National primary school.”
On Tuesday, the Minster of Education, Datuk Musa Hitam, was quoted as having given an assurance at a meeting with MCA Youth Delegation that the Chinese primary schools would not be converted into national schools as long as they are in demand.
It is significant that this reported assurance was not announced by the Education Minister to the Press himself, but was made by the MCA Youth leader, Datuk Lee Kim Sai, after the meeting.
What is even more significant is the failure of the MCA Youth Leader to explain why the Minister of Education and MCA, UMNO, Gerakan, SUPP, Berjaya Ministers and MPs refuse to repeal Clause 21(2) in order to give substance to the reported Ministerial assurance that ‘Chinese primary schools would not be converted into national schools as long as they are in demand.” Go here
You see folks the Minister of Education under the Education Act 1961 has THAT POWER…..allowing SRJK is already in violation of Article 152 as we have seen above………
It is this clause that some how mysteriously disappeared from Education Act 1996 .
But worry not folks it has been replaced by the “scary” Section 17 (go here for Full Act)
National language as the main medium of instruction
17. (1) The national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the National Education System except a national-type school established under section 28 or any other educational institution exempted by the Minister from this subsection. and Section 28
Establishment and maintenance of national and national-type schools
28. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister may establish national schools and national-type schools and shall maintain such schools.
Quick question folks
HOW MANY NATIONAL TYPE SCHOOLS DID THE MINISTER ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS ACT (from 1996 onward?)
The older schools were established under the 1961 act which still gives the CONVERSION power to the Minister
They strongly stressed that the institutional guarantee in Section 17(1) of the 1996 Act could be applied only to national-type schools established after the implementation of the 1996 Act. Except for one or two schools, practically no Chinese primary schools are guaranteed continued existence.
This is because they were all established before 1996. The number of Chinese primary schools was 1,287 in 1996, 1,283 in 1997, 1,283 in 1998, 1,284 in 1999, 1,284 in 2000, 1,285 in 2001, and 1,286 in 2002 (Malaysia 1997-2003). The number of Chinese primary schools established after 1996 is very small.
In addition, a qualification of exemption from the Minister of Education, which is another way of guaranteeing the continued existence noted in Section 17(1), has not been formally given to any non-Malay primary school. Some human-rights advocates warn that in the absence of new non-Malay schools established after 1996 and of a qualification of exemption from the Minister of Education, all schools in the National Education System, whether they are government, government-aided or private educational institutions, will have to use the national language as a medium of instruction (Yang 1998, pp. 47-51).
Malaysia’s 1996 Education Act:The Impact of a Multiculturalism-type Approach on National Integration Noriyuki SEGAWA (A MUST READ FOR ALL INTERESTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE POWERS OF THE MINISTER AND HOW WE CAN SHUT DOWN THIS ILLEGAL INSTITUTION)
A good example is the Unified Examination which has been conducted by the national Chinese school committees and school teachers associations (Dong Jiao Zong) since 1975. For the past 22 years, such examination has been conducted for Independent secondary schools providing largely mother tongue education in Chinese.
The Unified Examination Certificate has gained worldwide recognition by universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, etc. although it is not recognised by the Malaysian Government.
S.69(4)(c): Schools may conduct own examinations
Despite the near-complete prohibition on the conduct of public examinations by any private person or educational institution, apologists for the ruling coalition argue that subsection (69(4)(c)) operates to legalise the conduct of the Unified Examination for the 60 Independent schools.
In fact, s.69(4)(c) merely says the a school may conduct its own examination for the purpose of assessing its own pupils.
s.69(4)(c) does not in any way legalise the conduct of the Unified Examination, for it merely says that s.69(1) (relating to the prohibition of conduct of public examinations) shall not apply to … an educational institution which conducts its own examination … for the purpose of assessing its own pupils.
It is to be noted that such provision applies only to an educational institution, and not to any other body or organisation, and the term educational institution is defined in s.2 to mean a school … and includes a kindergarten and a distance education centre… .
Dong Jiao Zong, which conducts the Unified Examination, comprises two associations (UCSTAM and UCSCAM) registered under the Societies Act 1966. They are by no means an educational institution in the eye of the law. They do not fall within the definition of an educational institution. go here
The Chinese knows this folks……..
The will fight hard to defend this Illegal Institution……..
They will try to quote UNESCO positive message of the Right to Vernacular Education for Children……
But what is Vernacular to them is it Hokkien, Cantonese, Foo Chow etc
Or is it Mandarin……..
In the 50’s after realising that SRJKs was illegal they went on a drive to push for the recognition of Mandarin as one of our NATIONAL LANGUAGES boleh cita ke….
The demand to recognize Chinese as an official language was officially adopted by the UCSTA when Lim Lian Geok was appointed its President on 19 December 1953. Lim was noted for his “unwavering stand and fearless struggle” (Yen, 2008:252) to safeguard the cause of Chinese education on the grounds of equality and justice throughout his tenure as the President of the UCSTA.He strongly believed that the only way to legitimize the position of the Chinese schools in the national education system was through the recognition of Chinese as an official language. This conviction was the result of a meeting with Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray, the Deputy High Commissioner, on 8 November 1952.
The meeting was called by the Deputy High Commissioner to assure the Chinese educationists that the government had no intention to eliminate the Chinese schools. Lim was more interested to find out as to why the Chinese could be accepted as the citizens of the country, but their schools could not be accepted into the national education system.
He was referring to the proposal of the British to establish national schools which excluded Chinese as a medium of instruction. MacGillivray‟s answer to the question was that national schools could not use Chinese as a medium of instruction as it was not an official language. This was an awakening call for Lim. Lim came to realize that efforts to legitimize the position of Chinese schools within the ambit of the national education system must invariably include the recognition of Chinese as an official language (Tan, 1997:101).
The drafting of the Constitution for an independent Malaya by the Reid Commission was a critical moment for the Chinese educationists to present their case relating to the recognition of Chinese as an official language of the country. The Reid Commission was appointed by the British government to make recommendations on the future constitution of an independent Malaya. It began its work by visiting the Federation in May 1956 (Oong, 2000:224).
On 29 August 1956, the Chinese educationists met the Reid Commission to voice their demand over the official language issue. They urged the Reid Commission to include the three main languages of the country, i.e., Malay, Chinese and Tamil, as the official languages of independent Malaya. They tried to convince the Reid Commission that it would not be possible for the Chinese and Indians to work with the Malays for the purpose of nation building if their languages and cultures were not guaranteed a place in the Constitution. This would also lead to other related problems that might complicate the nation building process. They demanded that the official language of the Federation should be picked from languages widely used by its people (Jiao Zong 33nian Bianjishi, 1987:516). But much to the despair of the Chinese educationists, the Reid Commission did not heed their demand.
Article 152 of the Federal Constitution had accepted Malay as the national language and stipulated that all official purposes should be conducted in Malay, though it had also allowed the continued use of English for official purposes for a period of ten years after independence. Thus, the Chinese educationists had failed in their attempt to push for the recognition of Chinese as an official language. Nonetheless, the Federation Constitution did not prohibit the learning or teaching of Chinese.
Prior to the enactment of the National Language Act in 1967, the Chinese educationists took the opportunity to resurrect the demand for Chinese to be recognized as an official language, though the enactment of the National LanguageAct was meant to review the status of English as an official language after ten years‟of independence. On 7 July 1965, the Chinese educationists, headed by Sim Mow Yu, who took over the helm of the UCSTA from Lim Lian Geok, managed to garner the support of the Chinese associations and guilds to organize a convention to demand for the recognition of Chinese as an official language (Jiao Zong 33nianBianjishi, 1987:517-518). The action taken by Sim alarmed the MCA as Sim was also the Vice-Chairman of the MCA Youth Section. The MCA Youth Section had openly supported Sim‟s action. On 3 August 1965, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the MCA held an emergency meeting to discuss Sim‟s intention to resurrect the official language issue. The CWC arrived at the conclusion that any public demand that had ethnic overtones would be detrimental to the interests of a plural society. It proposed the establishment of a special committee by the Alliance to look into the official language issue instead (Cheah, 1984:130).
Meanwhile, the government was also worried that the convention, which Sim had intended to organize, would fuelled unnecessary ethnic tensions. This was because the Malay nationalists affiliated to the National Language Action Front (NLAF), were extremely unhappy with the implementation of the language policy and had stepped up their demand for Malay to be made the sole official language of the country prior to the enactment of the National Language Act. Sim was subsequently summoned by the Minster of Education and the Minister of Home Affairs who advised him to cancel the convention. However, Sim was determined to go ahead and assured the ministers that the convention would be peaceful and would not jeopardize the interests of the Malays (Jiao Zong 33nian Bianjishi, 1987:515).
CHINESE LANGUAGE MOVEMENT IN MALAYSIA, 1952-1967: THE NEXUS OF LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY IN A PLURAL SOCIETY Dr Tan Yao Soa go here (psst another must read folks!)
Perhaps we should also take a quick peek at the Alliance Memorandum to the REID Commission
UMNO proposed that English should continue to be used for official purposes for a MAXIMUM of 10 years after the Independence, whereas the MCA and MIC submitted that English should be allowed to be used for official purposes for a MINIMUM of 10 year, after which the legislature should decide on its use. Further the MCA and MIC also proposed that Mandarin and Tamil should be allowed in the legislatures for a MINIMUM period of 10 years. The MCA argued that some potential candidates would be unable to express themselves well in English or Malay in the legislatures and if deprived the right to speak the vernacular languages would be prevented from participating in mainstream politics.
The MCA representative, Ng Ek Teong, told the commission that it was indeed a temporary measure. The UMNO Leaders, however were against the proposal, fearing that the provision would lead to a continued demand for it. Tunku Abdul Rahman told the Commission
At the end of 10 years, the general trend will be that people will still demand for it and the people who propose it now are not sure that they would be there to guarantee it. It is bound to cause a lot of debate later on
Reid himself did not seem to be in favour of the proposal, saying that it would cause practical difficulties. He said that EACH SENTENCE would have to be translated it would be difficult for the speaker of the house to act when a member got out of order
The Making of the Malayan Constitution : Joseph Fernando extracted Minutes of Alliance Hearing before the Commission 27 September 1956 (Sorry no soft copy ..nanti gua scan and post it up….tapi violate copyright boleh ke?)
This is 2010 in case you are wondering.
For today I will not put up Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua Logo….
But instead I would like to build a NEW Logo……
Something in the tune of
TUTUP SEKOLAH HARAM INI
Before you wanna say that I’m seditious allow me to quote what Mark Koding actually said in Parliament
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, masanya sudah tiba bagi Dewan yang mulia ini untuk memutuskan samada kita akan terus membenarkan sekolah-sekolah China dan Tamil dan bahasabahasa tersebut di papan-papan tanda di jalan-jalan raya di negeri itu. Saya, seratus peratus berpendapat bahawa kita harus menutup sekolah-sekolah jenis tersebut dan menyekat sama sekali penulisan papan-papan tanda dalam bahasabahasa itu.
Remember he was NOT GUILTY for advocating closure……
What more of something that is clearly against the Constitution….
Anyone with Fancy Logo Skills please drop me a message….. other variations of the message would also be considered.
Oh by the way Tun, since you support PERKASA and PERKASA supports Satu Sekolah…
Boleh taruk logo kat your blog tak?
The Space Monkey from Uranus
UPDATE 7Nov 2159:
Wee Macai and Chua Porn Star.
Berani mau discuss ini isu ka?
No need closed door la fei chais…..I got tissue box ready for you…