Towards Improving Our National Education System

14 08 2012

Around circles of readers, many have discussed and asked among themselves the appropriateness and the need for Malaysia to streamline their education system and importantly, the effort to improve the quality of our schools as a whole.

Chief among the concerns is the legality of vernacular schools itself vis-á-vis the Constitution and the Education Act 1996.

This I may add has been discussed rather thoroughly here.

But this issue shall be discussed at another time.

My main interpretation of school’s education system is this:

It must be free from any religious or cultural extremities.

In a way, it should be secular. Secular sounds dirty these days. Mainly because the word had been bastardised to the extent, it meant atheism or a belief system that is devoid of any religious connotations. Worse, it meant anti-Islam. However, the definition of secularism with regards to our children’s education should not be taken to the extreme. Certainly it does not mean that one rejects religion and faith in totality.

What we need is moderation.

These days, the majority of school children in national schools are Malays. Therefore, inadvertently Islamic teachings made their way into the schools’ general rules and education philosophy. I assume, those who are more objective as well as those who are not a fan of Anwar Ibrahim will pin point the cause of this ‘Islamisation’ of our national schools and the reason why non-malays shun these schools stemmed from the period when Anwar Ibrahim was the Education Minister.

That too, is an issue that can be discussed in another place.

But what I imagine is a school system that do not put too much emphasis on skin deep outlook on what is Islamic and what is not. It means, an education philosophy that prioritises worldly skills and knowledge instead of just focussing to permeate an intense Islamic culture within a school’s environment.

Without a doubt, this has made non Muslims felt alienated in their own surroundings. Parents were not happy. Even the less conservative Muslims found it hard to digest some of the do’s and don’ts. The effort to educate the children properly seems lost in the midst of all this. As the result, we cannot develop a well rounded Malaysians who are capable to interact with each other with ease.

In other words, the recent education system is worse than the education set in the 60’s, 70’s and till the mid 80’s. Experts pin pointed it due to the degradation of national schools; both in quality and self respect.

The cliché now is the world is changing at a rate faster than our children’s ability to absorb and comprehend all the knowledge. If we burden them with misguided priorities, then our future generations are trapped in a cycle of ignorance, or being mediocre at best.

Toning down religious and cultural extremities enables the school to produce a much healthier environment where tolerance is paramount and it breaks down the barriers between races, castes and classes. Emphasising too much on the ritual demands will not breed respect in fact, will isolate the children from each other. It will be “it’s us against them” mentality. And this does not happen in malay majority schools only.

How to move forward and take that jump in order to escape the mediocrity of our education system?

It is about time the Ministry of Education take a stronger role in steering our children’s future away from the negative elements that have been plaguing it. Elements that have always been sniping and eating away the very fabric of one’s edification in growing up within our Malaysian universe.

The bigger objective here is always a two edged sword. One that can improve via knowledge, a whole generation of Malaysians and one that also inculcate the spirit of togetherness and racial harmony among the children.

Of course this can be done with a single stream national education system. Preferably at the primary level.

Delving into few discussions on the one school system, there are obviously few doubts being raised among the concerned readers. Among others, questions regarding the quality of education and syllabus, quality of teachers and their approach, learning environment and school’s infrastructure as well as its overall ability to coalesce different ideologies, religions and cultures into one symbiotic and workable system.

Generally, many agreed that the holistic performance of the students is very important for their own future and this can only be done if the MOE is not weak in steering its direction and truly knows how improvements can be implemented.

One of the reasons why national schools could not generate enough interests from all levels of society is due to its inability to churn good students across the board. Yes we do have excellent schools that produce a myriad of high achievers. But these schools are far from between. The MOE should make all national schools at par with their more affluent counterparts.

Fortunately, all the points above are being discussed in the national education dialog which have been running since April 2012. They have 9 priority fields which they ought to improve which are:

1. quality of teachers

2. quality of headmasters

3. quality of school

4. curriculum and its evaluation

5. multilingual proficiency

6. post-school opportunity

7. role of parents and community

8. knowledge resources in school and its effectiveness

9. teaching methods and administrative structure

This could be the biggest project MOE has embarked since Penyata Razak in 1956 and Rahman Talib Report in 1960.

On that note, I do hope the MOE will reinstate the PPSMI after reviewing the youtube video below.

Thank you.

_________________________

An article by:

Jebat Must Die

Advertisement




Apa yang kita semai, itulah yang kita akan tuai.

12 03 2012

Dasar pendidikan negara kita pincang

Apa yang kita semai, itulah yang kita akan tuai.

Semasa pemimpin-pemimpin menanamkan cerucuk asas pendidikan Negara kita kira-kira lebih 40 tahun dahulu, mereka hanya menekankan untuk memberi ilmu pengetahuan sains, teknologi dan kemahiran kepada anak-anak sekolah bagi menyediakan dan memabawa Malaysia kearah Negara maju.

Tetapi setelah melihat kepada ciri masyarakat yang terbentuk hasil melalui sistem yang ada ini, dapatlah kita membuat kesimpulan, terdapat sesuatu yang tidak kena dalam sistem pendidikan kita.

Pendidikan di sekolah dan di rumah sangat memberi kesan kepada pembentukan sahsiah sesuatu masyarakat.

Kita di semenanjung, terdiri dari tiga kaum yang terbesar iaitu Melayu, Cina dan India. Tiga-tiga kaum ini menerima pendidikan di peringkat tadika dan sekolah rendah secara berasingan. Selalunya kelompok tempat tinggal mereka juga berasingan. Kalau masa dulu, orang Cina ramai tinggal di kawasan Bandar, orang Melayu di kampong dan orang India di estet.

Di masa ini pun, walaupun ketiga-tiga kaum ini tinggal di taman perumahan, mereka masih cenderung untuk tinggal dalam kelompok kaum mereka.

Pengasingan sekolah dan kawasan penempatan mengikut kaum ini menyebabkan peluang untuk mereka berkenal lebih rapat dan bersahabat antara kaum sangat sukar sekali. Mereka hanya bertemu dalam aktiviti yang tertentu sahaja, seperti dalam urusan jual beli dan urusan pekerjaan sahaja, selain dari itu mereka seperti tidak bergantung antara satu sama lain.

Amat jarang sekali tiga kaum utama ini berpeluang menjalankan aktiviti kehidupan bersama. Ekoran dari itu, tiga kaum ini tidak berpeluang mengenal antara satu sama lain dengan lebih dekat, hasilnya mereka mempunyai aspirasi yang berlainan. Mereka tidak dapat merasakan kehendak, kemahuan dan keperluan kaum lain. Sebaliknya semua tindak tanduk dan aktiviti mereka hanya berkisar kepada kaum mereka sahaja.

Pemisahan kaum-kaum ini telah melebarkan jurang perbezaan antara mereka, akhirnya mereka terus selesa dengan keadaan demikian, mereka menganggap kaum yang lain itu sukar untuk didekati dan dicampuri. Jauh dari menjadi sahabat, sebaliknya mereka menganggap kaum lain itu sebagai ‘musuh’ yang boleh menyusahkan hidup mereka. Suatu kaum akan berusaha untuk ‘membunuh’ atau mengalahkan kaum yang lain.

Perasaan curiga dan prasangka kepada kaum lain sentiasa wujud dalam pemikiran masyarakat Malaysia. Baru-baru ini telah terjadi pergaduhan antara pekerja restoran KFC berbangsa Melayu dengan pelanggannya berbangsa Cina. Masyarakat tidak melihat siapa yang bersalah dan berkelakuan buruk secara individu yang telah menyebabkan pergaduhan itu, tetapi sebaliknya masyarakat Malaysia melihat insiden itu dengan kacamata perkauman dan melabelkan kaum A atau kaum B sebagai kurang ajar atau biadap.

Parti-parti politik yang wujud juga tidak terlepas dari mengikut polarisasi kaum dan ia sebenarnya adalah lanjutan hasil dari pemisahan kaum dalam kehidupan sebenar mereka. Dalam meraih sokongan, ahli politik lebih suka dilihat untuk menjadi hero kepada kaumnya.

Bila bercakap soal untuk membasmi kemiskinan dan membantu golongan miskin, mereka lebih suka bercakap untuk memperjuangkan taraf ekonomi dan kehidupan orang Melayu. Padahal kalau dia kata untuk meningkatkan ekonomi rakyat yang miskin, yang akan dibantu adalah orang Melayu juga, kerana kaum Melayu lah yang paling ramai miskin. Tetapi disebabkan untuk meraih sokongan politik, mereka lebih suka bercakap untuk membantu dan membela orang Melayu.

Sikap dan tabiat orang Melayu, orang Cina dan orang India juga berbeza. Orang Melayu dikatakan baik hati tetapi malas, orang Cina dikatakan tamak tetapi rajin, orang India pula dikatakan taat tetapi culas. Apakah sikap dan tabiat setiap kaum itu diwarisi atau dididik dari kecil. Tetapi kalau kita letakkan kesalahan ini kepada sistem pendidikan pun ada kebenarannya, kerana mereka dididik dan melalui sistem persekolahan yang berbeza, sudah tentu hasilnya juga akan berbeza.

Ada kemungkinan kalau ketiga-tiga kaum ini bersekolah dalam sistem sekolah yang sama, sikap dan tabiat mereka akan menjadi lebih kurang sama atau hampir seragam.

Orang Jepun terkenal dengan memiliki sikap-sikap yang murni seperti tidak mementingkan diri, jujur, telus, tidak mencuri, rajin, gigih, sabar, tidak membuang sampah merata-rata, bebaris mendapatkan giliran tanpa memotong barisan, sikap ingin belajar dan ingin tahu, berbangga untuk membuat kebaikan, membantu orang yang memerlukan.

Kenapa Jepun boleh menghasilkan manusia yang berakhlak mulia tetapi kita tidak boleh? Ini mesti ada yang tidak kena dengan sistem pendidikan kita. Kita patut belajar dari Jepun.

Nilai yang murni tidak cukup sekadar diceramah dan diberitahu sahaja, tetapi ia perlu dilatih untuk melakukannya supaya ia akan menjadi amalan dan budaya masyarakat.

Di universiti sekarang ini begitu ghairah dan sibuk sekali menekankan latihan generic skill atau soft skill atau kemahiran keterampilan diri. Bagi saya generic skill ini mesti bermula dan dilatih diperingkat tadika lagi, bukan di universiti baru hendak diperkenalkan kepada mereka, kerana ia melibatkan sikap, amalan dan budaya.

Kenapa anak-anak muda Melayu kita suka merempit dan melepak? Kenapa anak-anak muda kita banyak terjebak dalam masalah sosial, menghisap rokok, penyalahgunaan dadah, seks bebas. Semuanya ini memerlukan kita melihat semula kepada sistem pendidikan yang dilalui oleh anak-anak kita samada di sekolah mahupun di rumah.

Anak-anak sekolah kita lebih berbangga untuk menjadi jahat, mereka bangga kalau kenal samseng atau gangster di luar sekolah, sebaliknya murid yang ingin membuat perkara yang baik sering diperli, dikutuk dan diejek.

Penguatkuasa banyak terlibat dengan rasuah, mereka tidak amanah. Masyarakat kita juga dibelenggu dengan masalah perbezaan status yang diukur mengikut pekerjaan dan tahap ekonomi mereka. Pemungut sampah dianggap golongan rendah. Amat memalukan kalau berjalan kaki atau menggunakan pengangkutan awam. Sebaliknya menaiki dan memiliki kereta Mercedes dan BMW di pandang tinggi.

Apakah semua masalah dan kemelut yang kita hadapi hari ini ada kaitan dengan kepincangan dalam sistem pendidikan kita?

Tetapi yang pastinya, kalau kita semai benih lalang tidak mungkin kita akan menuai padi.





Score “A” – Tuhan Pendidikan Kini

17 02 2011

VOICES AROUND dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk “Mengejar tuhan ‘A’” telah menyentuh soal dasar/sistem pendidikan negara ini dan menyokong suspaya Dasar Pelajaran yang ada sekarang diulangkaji serta diubah-baiki semula.

Pagi ini (10/02/2011), seperti kebiasaannya, semasa menghantar anak-anak ke sekolah, saya mendengar perbualan di radio stesen FlyFM.
Topik perbincangan ringkas adalah mengenai seorang pelajar yang mati, jatuh dari tingkat 2 bangunan sekolah (Berita Kosmo DI SINI).
Salah seorang dari DJ stesen radio mencerita bahawa BEFRIENDER telah menerima beratus-ratus email setiap hari, yang kebanyakannya dari golongan muda (teenagers) yang menyatakan masalah “kemurungan” (depression). Lebihkurang 30% dari ini adalah berkaitan dengan tekanan yang dihadapi dalam pembelajaran (education stress).
Sistem Pendidikan kita telah menjadi begitu “ultra-kiasu” di mana tuhan pendidikan yang begitu disembah adalah untuk “Mendapat A”. Sekiranya boleh, “A” dalam semua matapelajaran dan sebanyak mana matapelajaran yang mungkin. Tidak ada bezanya dengan penyembahan tuhan yang satu lagi, iaitu “tuhan duit”. Segala-gala mengenai “duit”, negara berpendapatan tinggi, kejar wang semuanya, tidak kiranya kalaupun nilai wang itu menjunam, asalkan dapat kaut wang dengan begitu banyak.
Di manakah telah kita lemparkan adab sopan, budaya murni? Ada sesiapa tahu tak makna “spirituality” dewasa ini? Sesuatu yang menarik, saya petik dari laman BEHIND THE VEIL:-
Someone says,
I can’t help feeding my family.
I have to work so hard to earn a living.
He can do without God,
but not without food;
he can do without Religion,
but not without idols.
Where is one who’ll say,
If I eat bread without awareness of God,
I will choke.
(Baca artikel sepenuhnya DI SINI)
Berbalik kepada sistem atau dasar pelajaran kita yang ada pada hari ini. Saya rasa dalam keghairahan mengejar “A”, keadaan telah menjadi tunggang terbalik. Saya pernah mendengar aduan-aduan guru-guru sekolah yang mengatakan sekarang ini prestasi sekolah diukur dengan pencapaian akademik. Masing-masing akan membuat apa saja untuk mencapai 100% “A” dalam semua matapelajaran sesebuah peperiksaan utama. Kalau zaman saya dahulu, kita cuba mencapai 100% “lulus” dan hanya ada sebilangan saja, (best student) satu atau dua pelajar sahaja yang mencapai 100% “A” dalam semua matapelajaran.
Keadaan menjadi semakin “teruk” apabila insentif  (selalunya berbentuk kewangan) diberikan bagi sekolah-sekolah/pengetua yang berjaya mencapai pencapaian yang “tinggi” ini sehingga ada insiden di mana murid-murid “dibantu” supaya dapat menjawab dengan betul semasa peperiksaan. Cara “bantuan” adalah cara yang tidak jujur seperti “soalan bocor”, “memberi jawapan semasa pelajar sedang menjawap soalan peperiksaan” dan lain-lain lagi. Betul atau tidak, anda selidiki sendiri sekiranya berminat.
Tetapi pokoknya, sistem pendidikan telah menjadi bercelaru akibat ketaksuban mengejar “A”, sepertimana “kualiti” masyarakat yang menjadi semakin gelojoh, tamak, tidak mengenal erti adab sopan dalam mengejar wang ringgit.
Memang betul pencapaian akademik yang tinggi itu adalah menjadi harapan ramai (seperti juga mengaut wang dengan banyak). Tetapi setinggi mana, sesuci mana “kualiti” pencapaian itu? Adakah kita bangga dengan mempunyai seorang yang kaya wang ringgit, tetapi diperolehi dengan hasil menjual dadah? memperdagangkan tubuh batang manusia? Adakah kita bangga mempunyai seorang pelajar yang dikatakan cerdik kerana mendapat 20 As, tetapi hendak masak mee maggi pun tak pandai nak nyalakan api dapur?
Kalau dahulu, pelajar-pelajar yang agak lemah akan mengikuti kelas tambahan apabila waktu peperiksaan menghampiri, kini kita dapati pelajar-pelajar yang cerdik pula menghadiri tuition after tuition, siang malam, langsung kesuntukan masa untuk bermain dan bergaul sesama rakan. Manakala yang agak lemah pula tidak berapa dipedulikan sangat. Hopeless untuk dapat “A”, mungkin.
Cerita orang terjun bangunan kerana “masalah” kewangan telah kerap kita dengar, apalagi dengan budaya “ah long” yang ada kini. Kini kematian kerana “tekanan pelajaran” semakin meningkat, nampaknya.
Adalah amat wajar sekali bagi pihak kerajaan (terutama DS Najib) dan kementerian pendidikan untuk membuka sedikit kelopak mata masing-masing terhadap saranan KEMPEN SSS yang mahukan dasar pendidikan dikaji dan digubal semula. Sefahaman saya, mereka-mereka di KEMPEN SSS tersebut mahukan sebuah dasar/akta pendidikan yang:-
     

  • Dapat memperbetulkan semula pelanggaran yang jelas terhadap Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang membabitkan institusi-institusi pendidikan yang menggunakan bahasa pengantar asing yang juga bertentangan dengan Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan
  • Hasil kerajaan (melalui pembayaran cukai) adalah salah untuk digunakan bagi membiayai institusi-institusi yang lebih bersifat “persendirian (private)” dari bersifat “kebangsaan”. Ini adalah penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh pemimpin-pemimpin. Hasil ini patut digunakan memperelokkan/menambah baik lagi sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan yang kini nampaknya lebih dianaktirikan, bukannya ditabur kepada sekolah-sekolah “anti-nasional” bagi memancing undi.
  • Suatu sistem pendidikan yang lebih “holistik”, “bermoral”, beradab”, “berjiwa kebangsaan”, “patriotik” patut diwujudkan bagi mengganti sistem pendidikan mengejar tuhan “A” serta langsung tidak membina identiti negara dan tidak bersatu memupuk perpaduan dan pergaulan di antara masyarakat. Bak kata Tagore, “To build a nation, build a school
Sila layari laman KEMPEN SSS dan baca memorandum mereka kepada Menteri Pelajaran mengenai saranan kajian semula sistem pendidikan. Saya rasa saranan ini adalah amat wajar dan telah sampai masanya untuk diteliti dengan serius apabila sistem pendidikan yang ada kini telah menjadi semakin tunggang langgang, lebih-lebih lagi dengan DS Najib sendiri begitu tegar membela kewujudan sekolah-sekolah vernakular yang terang-terangan melanggar Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta Bahasa. Pendek kata, sekolah-sekolah ini adalah SEKOLAH-SEKOLAH HARAM.
Marilah kita bersama-sama menyuburkan semangat kebangsaan kita, semangat patriotik kita terhadap negara kita, bangsa kita dan bahasa kita. Ini negara MALAYSIA. “Satu Bangsa, Satu Negara, Satu Bahasa“, mana mungkin “Unity in diversity“. Kita suburkan semangat ini dengan menandatangi petisyen ini. SILA KLIK DI SINI.




SEKOLAH HARAM

28 01 2011


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.

Friday, November 5, 2010

A Reply to Tun Perkasa Post : Peruntukan Perlembagaan dan Isu Bahasa Pengantar Di Sekolah Jenis


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).

More here

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)

Actually since we are on the topic remember the scholarship to 50 Unified Examinations Certificate conducted by the Dong Key Kong…..

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?)

What can I say folks…..today the Batu Sapi folks just elected someone who could not speak Bahasa

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?


Wass
satD
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…





The SSS Initiative Usaha Murni SSS

31 08 2009
The Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua (SSS), or One School For All, is a proposal by the Demi Negara Blogging Community (DNBC) for bringing about national unity and the creation of a strong and cohesive Bangsa Malaysia.

 

The One School concept envisages all schools having the same medium of instruction viz Bahasa Malaysia (which is the Official Language of the country as stated in the Constitution), and the same curriculum for all. This is deemed necessary in order to bring about a sense of togetherness among school children and to counter the increasing racial polarisation noticeable in the country in recent times.

The proposal is based on the belief that education plays an important role in achieving national unity and in creating the atmosphere for the emergence of a cohesive Bangsa Malaysia. The DNBC proposes that the Government carries out an in-depth study or review of the existing education system to find out its strengths and weaknesses, determine ways and means to rectify the weaknesses and carry out improvements, with a view to achieving the above-stated objective. A Memorandum containing that proposal was drafted for submission to the Deputy Prime Minister cum Minister of Education and a campaign was started to get public support for it.

The SSS Campaign was launched on 12 May 2009 with the blog post by KijangMas in his Demi Negara blog. This campaign was also supported by leading bloggers like Jebat Must Die, Rocky’s Bru, The “thirteen million plus Ringgit” guy rambles, Nuraina A Samad, A Voice and others (as listed in the “e-Patriots In Support” tab). DNBC wish to record their appreciation to those who have signed the Petition in support of this campaign. DNBC would like to call upon other Warga Negara Malaysia to support this cause by signing the petition, here, Demi Bangsa dan Tanah Air tercinta.

The DNBC is also calling for a national referendum on the SSS Proposal. It is believed that the majority of Malaysians support it but remain in the background thus far, as is often the case with “the silent majority”. A national referendum campaign, a little like general elections campaigns, would draw the public out to express their choice. The results would be a mandate for the Government to carry out any major changes that may be found necessary to be made in respect of the existing education system of the country.

The SSS is not about depriving any group of citizens of their rights. It is about togetherness and about having a truly Malaysian identity whereby in time to come all Malaysians will no longer be identified by their ethnic origin, but by the terminology of “Bangsa Malaysia”. It is envisaged that when a truly cohesive Bangsa Malaysia has emerged all citizens would be known just by the words “Bangsa Malaysia”.

The SSS is also not into abolishing mother tongue languages. The Memorandum, in fact, calls for the teaching of mother tongues as elective languages if so desired. English would be fortified under the SSS system. In general, the SSS campaign is aimed at the overhaul of  the whole education system in Malaysia for the sake of future generations in the country

This SSS portal is designed to provide readers with details and further clarifications on the SSS Proposal. The DNBC welcomes any and all enquiries.

We need to act in the interest of our children, grandchildren and those after them. We must have a united Malaysia with lasting peace and prosperity for future generations.

The Demi Negara Blogging Community.

Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua (SSS) ialah satu cadangan oleh Komuniti Blog Demi Negara (KBDN) yang bertujuan mewujudkan perpaduan nasional dan pembentukan satu Bangsa Malaysia yang teguh dan bersepadu.

 

Melalui konsep Satu Sekolah, rakyat ingin melihat agar semua sekolah menggunakan bahasa pengantar utama iaitu Bahasa Malaysia (Bahasa Kebangsaan  seperti yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan) dan menggunakan kurikulum yang sama. Konsep in sangat bersesuaian untuk memupuk rasa keakraban dan kekitaan di kalangan kanak-kanak di sekolah dan seterusnya diharapkan dapat mengurangkan polarisasi kaum yang dilihat semakin meruncing dewasa ini.

Cadangan ini adalah berdasarkan kepada kepercayaan bahawa pendidikan memainkan peranan yang amat penting bagi mencapai perpaduan nasional. Seterusnya, membentuk suasana Bangsa Malaysia yang akrab dan bersatupadu. KBDN menyarankan agar pihak kerajaaan menjalankan satu kajian yang mendalam terhadap sistem pendidikan semasa. Ini bertujuan untuk mencari kekuatan dan kelemahan sistem pendidikan yang sedia ada. Hasil kajian yang mendalam ini dapat dijadikan asas untuk menentukan kaedah dan cara untuk memperbaiki kelemahan dan menjalankan penambahbaikan demi mencapai objektif yang dinyatakan di atas. Satu memorandum mengandungi cadangan telah pun dirangka untuk diajukan kepada Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Pelajaran dan satu kempen telah dimulakan untuk mendapatkan sokongan daripada orang ramai

Kempen Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua (SSS) dilancar oleh citrawan KijangMas dari blog Demi Negara pada 12 May 2009. Kempen ini turut mendapat sokongan padu daripada para  citrawan terkenal seperti Jebat Must Die, Rocky’s Bru, The “thirteen million plus Ringgit” guy rambles, Nuraina A Samad, A Voice dan banyak lagi (rujuk senarai dalam tab e-Patriot in Support). KBDN turut mengambil kesempatan ini untuk merakamkan ucapan setinggi-tinggi penghargaan kepada semua Warga Negara Malaysia yang telah menyokong usaha murni ini dengan menandatangani Petisyen yang telah dilancarkan. KBDN menyeru seluruh Warga Negara Malaysia yang prihatin agar menyokong usaha ini dengan menurunkan tanda tangan di Petisyen, sini, Demi Bangsa dan Tanah Air tercinta.

KBDN turut sama menggesa agar diadakan sebuah pungutan suara berkenaan cadangan SSS tersebut. Dipercayai bahawa majoriti rakyat Malaysia (majoriti senyap) menyokong usaha ini secara belakang tabir. Ianya sama seperti kes ‘majoriti senyap’. Kempen pungutan suara mirip kempen pilihanraya umum berupaya memberikan ruang kepada rakyat menyuarakan pilihan mereka. Keputusan yang diperolehi kelak akan memberikan mandat kepada kerajaan untuk melaksanakan sebarang perubahan besar dalam sistem pendidikan negara yang sedia ada.

Kempen SSS bukan menghalang hak mana-mana kumpulan warganegara. Kempen SSS adalah berkenaan soal semangat kekitaan dan mewujudkan identiti Malaysia yang tulen di mana di masa hadapan tiada lagi rakyat Malaysia yang dikenali melalu etnik asal tetapi lebih kepada Bangsa Malaysia. Apabila persepaduan wujud di antara rakyat berbilang kaum, semua rakyat hanya dikenali melalui satu bangsa – “Bangsa Malaysia”.

Kempen SSS juga sama sekali tidak berniat untuk menghapuskan sebarang bahasa ibunda yang ada. Malah memorandum yang dibuat turut menyarankan agar bahasa ibunda diajar sebagai mata pelajaran elektif (jika terdapat permintaan). Bahasa Inggeris pula akan diperkasakan di bawah sistem SSS ini. Umumnya, kempen SSS dilaksanakan bertujuan untuk merombak keseluruhan sistem pendidikan di Malaysia demi masa depan generasi akan datang.

Laman ini dibangunkan untuk menyediakan perincian dan juga penjelasan lanjut kepada para pengunjung berkenaan cadangan SSS. Dengan itu, KBDN mengalu-alukan sebarang pertanyaan yang berkaitan.

Kita perlu bertindak sewajarnya dengan melihat kepentingan anak-anak dan cucu-cicit kita. Sejujurnya, kita sangat memerlukan sebuah negara Malaysia yang bersatu, aman dan makmur demi generasi akan datang.

Komuniti Blog Demi Negara