A Tribute to the late Mark Koding

15 12 2011

The Equation of Nonsense

 

This post is dedicated to the Late Mark Koding

How should one react when other bloggers engage you in a post?

I had one the other day by this Hard Core Vernacubeng one way traffic blogger (here)
Today another blogger responded to a link…
Siap taruk nama gua dalam title post tu beb…..
Gerammer macem pelik je…but good effort….did you think in BM or another language when u wrote that?
In there the blogger tries hard to equate DAP’s Malaysian Malaysia/Anak Malaysia push as Equal to Satu Sekolah Objective
Hakikatnya SSUS dan DAP seperahu dalam hasrat membentuk Bangsa Malaysia!! Saya pasti DAP dengan falsafah Malaysian Firstnya akan memberi sokongan padu kepada usaha murni SSUS. Natijah berkongsi ideologi, parti tersebut semestinya mahu menghulurkan pertolongan demi memungkinkan pembentukan 1Sekolah — tempat Anak Malaysia bakal bertadah payung. Selamat berjuang dan semoga berjaya!
This is coming from someone who said this in her comment section
Sudah berkali-kali dalam blog ini dan juga di mKini saya secara konsistennya mengatakan saya sokong sekolah vernakular.
As I’ve been asserting in this blog, those of us who support vernacular education actually want to remain Chinese and Indian. I will even admit to you that I speak Chinese to my dog.
The reason I take issue with the Firsters, and this is where SSUS overlaps, istheir intellectual dishonesty. (here)
So do Satu Sekolah share the same boat as DAP?

Let’s not go too far back

Malaysia today would be a very different country if there had been no DAP in the past 28 years

Speech by the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang when launching the Pull Liberalisation campaign in Perak at a ceramah at the Tou Boo Kong Hall in Ipoh on Saturday, 10th December, 1994 at 8pm

Malaysia today would be a very different country if there had been no DAP in the past 28 years DAP MPs and leaders can feel proud that when Chinese education, Chinese primary schools, Chinese Independent Secondary Schools faced their greatest threat in the 1970s and early l980s, they were there to stand up in Parliament in the defence of Cultural Democracy.

Those were the darkest and most dangerous period of nation-building in Malaysia, which culminated in the demand for a ‘One-Language, One Culture’ Policy in utter disregard of the fact that Malaysia is a nation of many races, languages, cultures and religions. In the sixties, there were calls for the ban on ‘un-Malaysian’ symbols like the dragon in Malaysia, the closure, of Chinese and Tamil primary schools and even the closure of Chinese and Tail newspapers.

In the 1970s a powerful Cabinet Minister seriously suggested the replacement of the lion dance by the tiger dance! Malaysia would be a very different country today if there had been no DAP in the past 28 years to oppose, resist and check the undemocratic forces which wanted to establish a ‘One Language, One Culture’ Malaysia, and there would definitely be no ‘Minor Liberalisation’ in certain government economic and educational measures in the past three years.

The ‘Minor’ Liberalisation’ of the past three years must be seen in the context of the 28-year political struggle of the DAP for a Malaysian Malaysia aria the people’s consistent support for this political objective. The ‘Full Liberalisation’ will serve as a standard to measure how tar short the Barisan Nasional’s ‘Minor Liberalisation’ had fallen from the legitimate aspirations of the people It is the greatest fallacy for anyone to think that the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ had fallen from the skies, or is the result of the ‘charity’ of ‘the Barisan Nasional Government, or even worse, is the achievement of the Gerakan and MCA. This is not the case. The ‘Minor Liberalization’ are the ‘tiny results’ of the long-ten political struggle of the people with the PAP for a more just and equal Malaysia – a Malaysian Malaysia – for the past three decades.

If we see the ‘Minor Liberalization’ completely out of context of the people’s struggle with the DAP for a more just and equal Malaysia, as if Malaysian politics started in 1991, we will get the impression that the Barisan Nasional Government is getting more and more enlightened and, we should be happy and content However, It we judge the Minor liberalisation in the context of the people’s political struggle with the DAP for the past three decades, we will then be able to place it in a proper context. Although we welcome the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ of the past three years, we cannot over look the fact that in the past three decades, the rights of the people had suffered serious erosion and that the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ of the past three years had not even fully restored these lost rights. If we regard the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ of the past three years as ‘three forward steps’, and look at them in isolation, then they are a great advance.

However, if we place the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ in the context of the past three decades, where the Barisan Nasional policies had made the people to ‘go back by thirty steps’, taking ‘three steps forward’ while welcome is clearly not sufficient or satisfactory. This is why DAP has called for Full Liberalisation’ as the people and the DAP cannot be content and satisfied with the ‘Minor Liberalisation’ of the past three years – which have not even restored the political, economic, educational, cultural and citizenship rights eroded away in the past three decades. The ‘Full Liberalisation’ call of the DAP will not only serve as a rallying cry for all Malaysians to demand a more, just and equal Malaysia where all Malaysians can enjoy an equal place under the Malaysian sun, it will also serve as a standard to measure as to how far short the Barisan Nasional’s ‘Minor Liberalisation’ had fallen from the legitimate aspirations of the people.

DAP challenges MCA to declare its stand on the National Charter for Mother-Tongue Education One acid test as to whether the MCA leadership can support full liberalisation is the DAP’s National Charter for Mother-Tongue Education. A week ago, during the debate in Parliament on the Ministry of Education, I read out the DAP Charter for Mother- Tongue Education and asked the Barisan Nasional component parties and the government to give full support to the Charter.

The Charter is aimed at restoring mother-tongue educations to their rightful place in the national education system and which would also mean full government recognition for a comprehensive system of Chinese education, from primary, national to university level. Under the Charter, the government would give full financial support to Chinese primary schools and would launch a crash programme to build new Chinese primary schools to meet the needs of the pupils. The government would also give annual financial allocations to the Chinese independent secondary school arid recognise their Unified Examination Certificate. Private universities, including those using Mandarin and other languages as media of instruction would also be allowed in the country.

I had expected the MCA Deputy Education Minister Dr. Long. Chan Onn who was in the House when .1 spoke, to reply on behalf of the MCA and the government on their stand on the National Charter for Mother-Tongue Education. Instead Long Chan Onn chickened out’, and it was the other Deputy Education Minister Dr. Michael Toyad who answered. The MCA leadership should stop running sway from taking a stand on the National Charter on Mother Tongue Education. Its failure to support this National Charter will be equivalent to its failure in 1961 to oppose the 1961 Education Act, its failure in 1969 to give full support to the proposed Merdeka University, and its failures in the past few decades to get official government recognition and regular financial support for the 60 Chinese Independent Secondary Schools. The DAP challenges the MCA to come foreward and to declare clearly and unequivocally its stand on the National Charter for Mother Tongue Education. If it is not prepared to give its full support to the National Charter, then let the MCA leaders have the courage to give, reasons for their rejection of the National Charter for Mother-Tongue Education. (here)

If you want to know more on historical DAP position on Vernacular Education go here

Fast forward a little bit….remember Mukriz statement on Vernacular Education?

Media Statement by Lim Kit Siang in Petaling Jaya on Friday, 5th December 2008:
Mukriz cannot quote Razak as authority and protection for his call for closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools as he had violated Razak’s “sensitive” issues The Umno Youth chief candidate Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir now claims that he is only emulating the second Prime Minister, Tun Razak when he proposed the scrapping of the current dual-stream system of national and vernacular schools to be replaced with a single school system as the only way to check racial polarization.

However, Mukriz should should realize that it was Razak who amended the Malaysian Constitution in 1971 to make it an offence of sedition to propose the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools. Umno Youth leader and Education Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has stepped forward to rescue Mukriz by claiming that Mukriz’ call, which must imply the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools as they exist at present, is not seditious.

Such a statement coming from Hishammudin is understandable but the Education Minister should realise that he cannot usurp the functions and powers of the Attorney-General and the judiciary by overturning clear legal precedents that any call for the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools runs afoul of the four “sensitive issues” protected by the 1971 Constitution Amendment by making it an offence of sedition to question them, to the extent of even removing parliamentary immunity on these four “sensitive” issues.

I am not advocating that Mukriz be charged under the Sedition Act which could involve his disqualification as MP for Jerlun and the disenfranchisement of his civil rights to hold office in any political party or society for five years if he is convicted and fined RM2,000 or jailed for more than a year, but Mukriz should realize that he has committed the offence of sedition as he has violated the constitutional prohibition against any questioning of the four sensitive issues which was initiated by Tun Razak when he became the second Prime Minister in 1971.

Malaysians are however outraged by police double-standards when MCA Deputy President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek could immediately be summoned by the police for investigation into his remarks on ketuanan Melayu which have the most remote connection with the offence of sedition while police have been completely indifferent in the Mukriz case. Mukriz should not try to defend the indefensible claiming that he had not called for the Chinese and Tamil primary schools to be closed down, as he knows better than anybody else that the Chinese and Tamil primary schools as they exist at present would have to be closed down if his proposal is to be implemented. Mukriz should apologise for his error as well as admit that he could not quote Razak as authority and protection, as Mukriz had violated the 1971 Constitutional Amendment which was spearheaded by none other than Razak himself. source here

Aiyoo these people know how to read or not?

Lets look at the CLEAR LEGAL PRECEDENTS this old Ah Pek is talking about the late Mark Koding Case (here)

He actually said this

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. Sekiranya tindakan-tindakan ini kelak bertentangan dengan Artikal 152 Perlembagaan maka kita harus merombak Perlembagaan tersebut demi kepentingan rakyat dan negara. Kalau kita gagal melakukan hakikat ini bermakna kita menghampakan amanah yang diamanatkan oleh rakyat dan juga melenyapkan harapan dan aspirasi generasi baru kita yang tidak mahu melihat negara mereka dicap oleh identiti orang asing. Adakah kita mahu mengwujudkan identiti kita atas asas kemelayuan, kechinaan atau keindiaan. Saya rasa sudah pasti kemelayuan atau kebumiputeraan kerana tidak ada alternatif yang lain demi survival negara kita.

This is how the Judge interpreted what he said

 Reading the two passages of Accused’s speech, particularly the second passage, it is my finding the Accused is in fact questioning,

Firstly, the policy of Government in allowing Chinese and Tamil schools to continue in this country.

Secondly, he questions the use of Chinese and Tamil on road signboards. He advocates the closure of these schools and restrict completely the use of the two languages on the signboards.

Thirdly, he goes one step further by suggesting that if such closure and restriction contravene Article 152, then the Constitution should be amended in the interest of the people and the nation.

This is what he decided on “Constitutional Protection” and Advocating Closure of Vernacular Schools

 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. In the event, it is my finding that the Accused is not guilty of sedition when he advocates for the closure of Tamil or Chinese schools.

And this is what he decided on the Sign Boards

 As regards the use of signboards in Chinese and Tamil, I am satisfied from the speech that the Accused was referring to road signboards. Such signboards are erected under the Road Traffic Ordinance and therefore they are erected for official purpose. In the event, this particular part of the impugned speech is not protected under proviso (a) which provides that no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using any other language otherwise than for official purpose. The words used by the Accused cannot therefore be said to have seditious tendency since he does not in fact call in question the existence of any right protected by any part of Article 152. In the context of the two paragraphs of his speech in App ‘X’, he was in fact demanding for the implementation of the national language as provided for in that Article

So what was he guilty of then?

But, on the third part of his speech in App ‘X’, the Accused has, to my mind, committed a breach of para (f) of s 3(1) by demanding the amendment of the Constitution if his demand for abolition or closure of Chinese and Tamil schools, and for discontinuance of the use of such languages on road signboards contravened Article 152. By so doing, he has questioned the provision of Article 152 by demanding for its repeal or amendment should it prove necessary. To my mind, it makes no difference if such repeal or amendment turned out to be unnecessary. The ban on questioning the existence of Articles 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution is made absolute by para (c) of s 3(2) of the Sedition Act. As stated by the Federal Court at page 10:

Now lets go back to what the blogger said

Minta maaf. Saya tidak berlatarbelakang bidang perundangan untuk boleh membidas ataupun mengiyakan tafsiran SatD.

Did I tafsir anything ?

What I did was just to provide you the link to the judgement, kasi taruk bold, merah and underline

If that is tafsir then I need to look up the Kamus Dewan

 1. keterangan dan penjelasan bkn ayat-ayat Quran (kitab suci): kuselidiki isi Quran sedalam-dalamnya, ~nya kukaji; ahli ~ orang yg bijak menerangkan maksud atau tujuan ayat-ayat Quran; 2. = tafsiran keterangan dan penjelasan (maksud ayat dll), kupasan, ulasan: ada manusia yg salah ~ meng­anggap sajak Salim berunsur cercaan; berbagai-bagai tafsiran telah diberi terhadap kenya­taan tersebut; juru~ orang yg memberi pen­jelasan (ulasan dll); mentafsirkan 1. menerangkan maksud (ayat-ayat Quran): guru itu diminta ~ ayat-ayat Quran yg disebutkannya; 2. memberi pen­jelasan (keterangan), mengulas, mengerti­kan, menjelaskan: mahkamah mempunyai kuasa utk ~ perkara undang-undang yg syak dan waham; tafsiran 1. penjelasan (ayat-ayat Quran), tafsir; 2. hasil mentafsirkan, pengertian, pendapat; pentafsiran perihal (perbuatan) mentafsir­kan (sesuatu); pentafsir orang yg mentafsirkan, ahli tafsir.Source here

Her mindset is similar to Lim Kit Siang, who mentafsirkan a judgement according to their own pre determined mindset  and ethnically biased logic.

I understand her.

I actually wrote about folks like her sometime back

 To me it is their ethnocentric views and the love for everything that is Chinese or Tamil that have clouded the thinking process of the proponents of Vernacular School making them BLIND with regards to the bigger agenda of nation building and at the same time DEAF to any logical and valid arguments against it.

They are unable to think with logic anymore and have gone into the engagement with one single frame of mind…..

Lu olang manyak jahat mau kasi hapus gua punye culture

…. I shall now try to indulge you in this logic to see if it makes any sense or not…..

The underlying aspect of this logic implies that Language is Culture and Culture is Language

Is that so?

Can someone learn Culture without Learning the Language of the native people in which the Culture originates from?

Or can someone learn a language without absorbing the Cultural aspects of the Language?

And more importantly will learning other subjects in another language (The National Language of The Land!) together with specific language subjects dedicated to the learning of “bahasa ibunda” create significant decay in one’s understanding or absorption of one’s own culture.

I believe these people are from the school of thought of extreme linguistic relativity….

The linguistic relativity principle (also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) is the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.

Or in laymans term “Thought is shaped by Language and since Language differs, their speakers too should differ in how they perceive and act in objectively similar situation” (here)

I’m just a blogger girl……

I do not represent Satu Sekolah

Satu Sekolah initiative belongs to EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT

And as far as I’m concerned I have been “Intellectually Honest” about my support for this initiative and have consistently provided verifiable facts for my readers to make their own judgement, not only that I have  also allowed full freedom of expression without moderation in this blog (Of late the my Ahbeng fishing activities have dried up, wonder where they all went ya?)

Thank you for the encouragement with regards to the Satu Sekolah initiative.

And please be honest about it, you may do so by signing the petition here

Stop being BLIND and DEAF girl 


OPEN YOUR EYES AND ENGAGE US WITH FACTS ON WHY VERNACULAR EDUCATION MUST OR CAN CONTINUE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, NATIONAL LANGUAGE ACT AND ITS IMPACT TO MALAYSIA’S FRAGILE NATIONAL UNITY AND IDENTITY.

 


Actions

Information

One response

23 12 2011
The Problem with the National Language: Spoken with a White Man’s Forked-Tongue « 書 政 shuzheng

[…] This post is further rebuttal to the Hard Core Hannah Malaiyoo Pure Shiite Shit named Sat Dee, or whatever he chooses to call […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: